Rebel Wilson has had her first child via surrogate

[ShirleyPhallus]

Rebel Wilson (who I love) has announced via IG that she’s had her first baby via surrogate this week. Lovely for her to have a baby.

But the topic of surrogacy rears its ugly head and once again I’m wondering why so many rich and famous women choose to have a surrogate. Rebel has had significant publicity with her weight struggles and is currently in a relationship with a woman (she doesn’t name her as co-parent).

she hasn’t publicly said why she used a surrogate but I feel a bit uncomfortable by this as being a step yet again

Not exactly buying a baby though is it. People are paying for someone to gestate an embryo for them

Of course it is. That embryo becomes a baby which is then taken from its mother and handed to complete strangers. So they are buying a baby.

Of course it is a loophole for buying babies from their natural parent. The only parent a child can be sure of at birth is it's mother, the woman who grew and birthed it. She is the natural parent. The "commissioning" buyers are not the natural parents, and have paid for that child.

Is it lovely? Is buying babies lovely? She hasn't had her first child, someone else has. I don't see anything lovely about it.

Christ, these celebrity baby-traffickers make me fucking sick.

Surrogacy is a horrible, exploitative industry and I cannot have any respect for these rich bastards who exploit poor women. It's just vile.

But it does not matter.

The baby is damaged regardless. That ‘incubator’ is its birth mother. Doesn’t matter one jot whose egg or sperm were involved.

It has listened to her heartbeat for 9ish months, it knows the sound of her voice, even her smell. The baby is hardwired to only want to be with and close it’s mother and experiences a deep trauma when it is taken away, exactly as the same as adopted babies do.

Also don't assume the embryo is there's anyway. Common to buy the egg from another woman, and the sperm too.
You can explot lots of people at once through surrogacy.

Walkden I asked you what has surrogacy got to do with abortion as you have brought abortion on to a surrogacy thread are you able to answer?

I didn't bring it in at all. I merely implied to a out to a previous poster that it is not right to say it is a woman's choice only in some circumstances but the child's should be considered in others.

I think surrogacy is awful and it is totally banned in many European countries for good reason. If you are not sure that this is a moral issue ask yourself if you could imagine a wealthy woman being a surrogate.

I think it's a result of systemic issues though. It tends to occur in societies where women are seen as commodities. I feel very uncomfortable about dissecting the reasons why individual women (or men) do it, as this involves delving in to incredibly personal choices which we often don't know enough about. Bitching about another woman's weight or fertility or opining on who deserves a child and who doesn't is also awful.

I think we should campaign for surrogacy to be banned everywhere but not criticise individual women.

"Of course it is a loophole for buying babies from their natural parent. The only parent a child can be sure of at birth is it's mother, the woman who grew and birthed it. She is the natural parent. The "commissioning" buyers are not the natural parents, and have paid for that child."

There's just this cognitive dissonance where in some circumstances genes are king and cannot be changed so sex is immutable but being a babies biological, genetic, parent is unimportant in others.

that it is not right to say it is a woman's choice only in some circumstances but the child's should be considered in others.

You do know the difference between surrogacy and abortion Walkden?

Abortion does not result in a baby and until that baby is born the mother rightly can choose her body. The act of surrogacy is to create a baby with the sole intention of selling it/giving it away and not caring what that babies wants and needs.

I didn't bring it in at all. I merely implied to a out to a previous poster that it is not right to say it is a woman's choice only in some circumstances but the child's should be considered in others.

Yes it absolutely is. And it is extremely easy to tell where that line is.

Woman pregnant. Her rights and choices come first. Always.

Baby who has been born. Their rights and needs must be considered also.

Bit disingenuous/ignorant to in any way conflate abortion with surrogacy.

There's no child involved in abortion. It's not a child until it is born. A foetus isn't a person.
That's the difference.

This.

"not caring what that babies wants and needs"

Some would argue that (and the father's view) is secondary to the mother's wants.

But apparently it isn't when the mother's want and needs is to allow that baby to be raised by others for fair compensation (in the UK) and reward ( in the US)

Celebrities are such sheep, they all want to emulate the latest A list thing. It used to be adopting babies from other countries, now it is surrogacy. It is late stage capitalism and conspicuous consumption- everything can be bought if you’ve got the cash.

"There's no child involved in abortion. It's not a child until it is born. A foetus isn't a person.
That's the difference"

A good point.

It’s funny how you can’t buy body parts - except where it’s a woman’s body.

Some would argue that (and the father's view) is secondary to the mother's wants.

But apparently it isn't when the mother's want and needs is to allow that baby to be raised by others for fair compensation (in the UK) and reward ( in the US

What are you talking about?

Look if are ok with buying babies and renting wombs just say so because your constant whataboutery is annoying and making you look thick.

@Walkden the baby's biological parent is its mother, the woman who grew and birthed it. She may also be the genetic mother if her egg was used, or it may be a donor egg from another woman and not the commissioning person. The sperm may be from the commissioning person, or from a donor. So there could be two other people besides the commissioning person/couple and the mother involved.

The only one of those that the baby has any inkling of is the mother. For you, a genetic connection to the child means that the commissioning person/couple have the right to buy that child and bypass any laws or ethics around buying people. I disagree.

"Baby who has been born. Their rights and needs must be considered also,"

So quite a few posters have said it is damaging to the child to be separated from their birth mother so surrogacy should not be allowed.

However, plenty of people on Mumsnet have got pregnant from donor sperm. Is it not damaging to the child in the same way. Again there are plenty of posters or adopted parents who seek out their birth parent ( mother or father). Is this not a double standard?

"Look if are ok with buying babies and renting wombs"

Newsflash. This is legal in the UK and the us so lots of people are apparently ok with it.....

However, plenty of people on Mumsnet have got pregnant from donor sperm. Is it not damaging to the child in the same way

Nobody is this dense?

The one that confused me was Hilary Baldwin. She was pregnant at the same time as “her” surrogate. Why?! She clearly loves being pregnant and having babies to have done it at least six times (I’m aware she had at least one horrible loss), and has gestated another since the surrogate gave birth, so I struggle to see sense there.

Newsflash. This is legal in the UK and the us so lots of people are apparently ok with it.....

Slavery was legal too once but society realised buying and selling humans for their own gain was wrong.
Trafficking is overlooked in many countries does that make it ok?
If I can sell my baby why can't I sell my kidney?

Totally agree.