Another celebrity womb renter

[userxchhrfok]

Name changed as I've commented

Why do women not see the issue with people renting wombs?

www.instagram.com/p/CwNiYZLNtIK/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

The benefit for these 2 babies is they are being brought up by loving biological parents.

Many children are born to biological parents who are not loving and indeed are abusive and some with tragic outcomes. Thus is it good for these babies to exist and having loving parents who want them and can provide for them.

We can have different views about the manner of their conception and delivery but they are lucky to have their dads and a surrogate that will remain in their lives.

Some poor children are unlucky to be conceived and delivered naturally and have to be brought into abusive settings and have parents who ignore them, do not value them etc.

So it's either this way, or in non loving and abusive families? That's your argument for this? That some children have unhappy homes?

lucky?!

Hang on, biological parents? Are both their sperms involved then? 🤔

Why are there two babies? Did they specifically want twins despite the increased risk of premature birth (31 weeks is quite tiny!) and associated increased risk of health complications for the babies? What was their reasoning behind that decision?

Cos that really doesn't sound like it's in the best interests of those children.

Matching set innit.

I find it amazing that people think so small with surrogacy and can't see the potential danger in affluent people ceasing to birth their own children. The happy surrogate narrative reminds me of the happy hooker - all these women who are "choosing" to commodatise their bodies. As if these ethical situations aren't rife for corruption. It's very frustrating.

You do realise there are 2 babies?

No I am not saying that it is this way or non loving families. You asked the benefit for these particular babies and I explained the loving set up they are in. I merely used an example of naturally conceived babies don't all have that. Of course very many do. Let's hope it's the vast vast majority. My point is these children are at no disadvantage in life because they will be surrounded by love and are financially secure. (Before you say , yes I understand rich people can abuse too).

But the twins are definitely benefiting (your term) from having O and G as parents.

With IVF it is often the case that more than one embryos are implanted.

Which one of the two men do you think should have carried and delivered their children?

I am not a fan of women chosing not to carry other than for health or infertility issues but really have no issues with a surrogate for a gay couple.

It's not the specific act I have an issue with I'd say, it's the potential for exploitation that scares me. I can't see how it would only be available for same sex couples and I can't see how there isn't a danger that women are trafficked and we get into a scenario where its poor women birthing babies for rich couples. It has a dystopian feel about it.

I truly believe there are law firms who are going to have a field day with surrogacy in the future. One landmark case will open the flood gates.

Interestingly the UN is looking at surrogacy as a human rights issue, from the point of view of the child. So a lot of the points raised here are being discussed.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-sale-of-children/surrogacy-and-sale-children

It reminds me of the old Hollywood stars - they always seemed to be adopting babies (sometimes their own illegitimate babies) from some part of the world or other.

@Spirallingdownwards - unfortunately it's a biological fact that men can't have babies. That doesn't mean they should buy babies from women.

And I have finally found the surrogate diary I was trying to find in the last surrogacy thread. It's 10 years old and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be published now as it doesn't fit with the new 'surrogacy! Yay!' narrative that is a part of queer ideology. It's a very honest account

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/secret-diary-of-a-surrogate-mother

I’m sure this couple are very happy and the babies will grow up loved.

But that wouldn’t be enough for me (or most other people) to support the selling of older children so I don’t see why babies should be considered any differently.

And of course there are massive ethical questions around the power imbalances between the commissioning parents and surrogates. To reduce that to an argument that it’s the woman’s free choice is way too simplistic.

She’s not the mother though is she? She’s the ‘oven’ as stated on her own instagram.

In addition. How do we know they won’t change their minds down the line? When their parenting styles don’t agree or they move away to another part of the world?

It doesn’t stop them from using the babies for publicity. It’s grim.

She’s not the mother though is she? She’s the ‘oven’ as stated on her own instagram.

Thats the key thing. And the worst thing about it is, the fertility industry made that the gold standard for a reason. Commissioning parents don’t want the baby to have any concept of a mother beyond the commissioning parents. The egg donor and gestational surrogate have to be two different women - precisely to blur the definition of “mother”.

The egg donor can’t be the mother because she didn’t birth the baby/babies. The surrogate can’t be the mother because there’s no genetic link. Imagine being a child and growing up with that knowledge. How unsettling and confusing must that be?

She is their mother. Every child has a mother listed on their birth certificate

Of course she is. But many people will downgrade her v quickly because 'there is no genetic link.' PP is right wrt the aim of donor egg. I don't understand how people can separate the child and the mother like that myself.

Human trafficking of tiny neonates is abhorrent.

It's strange. They seem to be pretending it's important that the surrogate stays involved in the child's life, but not the egg donor whose biological child it is.

Why do I get the feeling they want to keep someone on-hand to babysit so they aren't too restricted by babies.

Transferred. Then you wait and see whether the embryo implants.

A twin pregnancy is automatically a high risk pregnancy. Greater risks to the mother, and greater risks to the foetuses, including miscarriage and prematurity. When a woman with fertility issues goes through with IVF, indeed sometimes more than one embryo is transferred, in the hope that one implants and initiates a pregnancy. That's because the odds of pregnancy for her are so poor if only one embryo at a time is transferred. Sometimes this results in multiple embryos implanting, and it is not a desirable outcome. As I said before, a twin pregnancy is high-risk. Reproductive endocrinologists want to avoid it. If you don't understand why, take a trip round an NICU.

This however is a woman without fertility issues, who was selected because she didn't have fertility issues. Only one embryo needed to be transferred for good odds of a pregnancy. Multiple embryos were transferred because the commissioning couple wanted to have twins.

It's irresponsible. From the first, they've chosen to gamble with the babies' health and they lost: the babies were born weeks and weeks early.

This couple are actually two of the nicest people and will make wonderful parents. The surrogate was very willing, has two children of her own and was not in financial dire straits. It seems very consensual and she will remain in the babies lives. Unlike many celebrities, this isn't a vanity project. This was their best chance of becoming fathers. My own father was gay and he duped my mother into believing that he was straight for 25 years, in order to become a father. That's the alternative. I'd rather that it was above board and consensual without exploitation (which in this case I believe it is). I have less time for female celebrities like Paris Hilton that can't be bothered to carry their own child for vanity reasons. Also, that gay couple - (Barry thingy ma bob and his husband), who owned the surrogacy agency were pretty awful. Barry showed so little respect towards the surrogates who carried his children. He was an attention seeking immature brat and still is! So I judge the person/couple on their individual characters and the circumstances around the surrogacy, rather than on two gay men having a surrogate.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/12/13/uk-birth-certificates-gay-dads-barrie-tony-drewitt-barlow/

This pair are pretty dire. Tony isn't too bad, but Barry is hideous. They run a surrogacy business and have got rich through surrogacy. That seems so wrong to me to profit massively through it.

Only one embryo needed to be transferred for good odds of a pregnancy. Multiple embryos were transferred because the commissioning couple wanted to have twins.

It's irresponsible. From the first, they've chosen to gamble with the babies' health and they lost: the babies were born weeks and weeks early.

I also get the impression that a lot of gay couples want twins because they get to have one baby each (literally one biological child each in some cases - twin half-siblings if you like), they get to complete their family in one hit, and it’s just so exciting and high achieving to get twins! 🙄

Would it be cheaper to hire a surrogate to carry a twin pregnancy than hire a surrogate on two separate occasions? I’m guessing yes.

But the thing is @Oioicaptain, you can't make laws based on whether you like the people or not. It has to be applicable to utter dicks as well as 'lovely' people.

It's absolutely insane that commissioning couples aim for twins.

We judge pregnant women for drinking coffee and blue cheese because of the effects on foetal health, but a celebrity couple can deliberately pay to engineer a twin pregnancy in another woman, and that is fine. I wonder if they dipped their hands in their pockets to fund the hospital. NICU cots cost money to run. In the US, they'd have medical bills in six figures already.

I don't know anything about this couple or their story but some foreign IVF clinics (e.g. in Cyprus or the US) do actively encourage two embryos for younger women in order to increase the chance of a successful implantation even when the woman involved does not have fertility issues of her own. Perhaps this couple did actively want twins but you cannot state that as a certainty simply because there was more than one embryo transferred. If the clinic they used told them two was better, then they will probably have gone with that advice. A male gay couple I know who used a clinic in the US were pushed to transfer two embryos but ultimately decided they preferred the risk of it not working over the risk of twins (due to practical rather than health concerns). It worked first time for them but if they had had multiple failed attempts I imagine they might have changed their mind and gone with the clinic's advice. Perhaps there is some financial incentive for the clinics to do this but that is obviously not at all how it is presented to the clients be they gay men or heterosexual couples.