Surrogacy: Meghan Trainor

[MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned]

I did a site search and couldn't see a thread about this - sorry if I've missed one. Meghan Trainor (of 'All About That Bass' fame) has recently had a baby using surrogacy. Although it is a particularly 'inflammatory' case (third child after two pregnancies of her own; she posted a picture of herself blatantly posing as postnatal) I still thought the largely negative reaction was interesting in terms of suggesting public opinion has turned a bit on this - a few years ago I am sure anyone criticising this would have got a much stronger, 'be kind' pushback.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/leylamohammed/meghan-trainor-third-child-surrogate-discourse?bfsource=relatedmanual

I have to say that 'We had endless conversations with our doctors in this journey and this was the safest way for us to be able to continue growing our family' particularly bothered me - safest for whom? Presumably not the woman whose womb was rented.

No I have never said that. Ready my comments again?

HTH

It is NOT 'consensual' for a DESPERATE, STARVING WOMAN to be a battery hen, just so she can afford to eat. That is COERCION. It's not consent. It's frankly deeply offensive that you cannot see this.

What is - the baby??

If you are fine with surrogacy, that is exactly what you are saying.

HTH

We get it. As long as it's not your body being sold, you don't care.

How is adoption relevant to surrogacy? Again, genuine question.

I think that saying you don’t understand why people have an issue with something that’s legal is a bit silly. You can absolutely disagree with all the arguments against it - clearly you do. But the fact that it’s legal can’t be a reason for someone to put aside any wellbeing concerns they have for the baby or for vulnerable women. You can argue that those concerns are incorrect etc, but the fact you find it “hard to understand why people feel so strongly about something that’s legal” doesn’t really make sense.

Don’t care about what exactly?

Where do you all stand on the right to choose I wonder?

Which women are vulnerable? You’re doing them a disservice.

No woman chooses this, she chooses to EAT.

You seem to think these impoverished women in these developing (third world) countries have a choice. This is what you don't get. THEY DON'Y HAVE A CHOICE!

FFS, nothing is sinking into you, is it! POOR IMPOVERISHED WOMEN in developing (third world) nations who need MONEY FOR FOOD TO EAT are vulnerable! This can't be real, it really can't be. You have to be having us on.

No you’ve misunderstood my point. If people have concerns that vulnerable women will be exploited, you saying that they shouldn’t feel strongly about it because it’s legal doesn’t make sense because it’s not a relevant rebuttable to that actual arguments posters are making on the thread. No one is against it because they think Meghan trainor has broken the law.
If you argued that they aren’t vulnerable, and there is no exploitation, then that would be actually engaging with the argument.

Nope.

Your reliance on it being 'legal' is an irrelevant point for you to dismiss the issue as not being harmful. And your dismissal of the kidney example was weak and flawed.

Do you understand the power dynamics in these transactions that you then dismiss as consent? Can you name one wealthy woman who has carried a child for someone?

Removing babies at birth, as I was, and surrogacy the same effect.
It causes trauma.
You do skin to skin so they can hear your familiar heartbeat, and smell you, and hear your voice, it's not for anyone other than the mother.
Adoption in the UK is different now, but not when I was born in the 70s.

Also, to add, adoption in the UK is child focused, Surrogacy is baby buyer focused.

My question was in relation to your previous point that because MT was biologically the baby’s mother it made a difference to the argument . In the case of a male gay couple and indeed a trans “woman’” case too there is no possibility of a biological mother being given “their” baby
Either it makes a difference to you or it doesn’t but they can’t both apply in this context

Who is? The third BABY?

Trickier still if the egg was donated, not by the surrogate.

I find it mildly disturbing that presenting an opposing viewpoint riles people up to the point of SHOUTY rage. Kudos to you if you put that energy to fighting for your beliefs in more constructive ways, but if you just write shouty emotional posts on a thread and do nothing else, really you’re doing exactly the same as me about it.

I’ll leave that thought with you.

"I find it mildly disturbing that presenting an opposing viewpoint riles people up to the point of SHOUTY rage."

And yet, you haven't really presented an opposing viewpoint. All you have done is said that you are alright Jack and that is about it when you look at the arguments you have presented. In fact all you offered as a viewpoint was 'it is legal'.

Both involve babies being removed from their birth mothers. In old style adoption they were removed shortly after birth to give to childless couples - like with surrogacy no one considered the baby, it was /is all about the adults who want a child. And there is a birth mother somewhere who has lost her child.

In the UK, adoption practice changed. Birth mothers were supported to keep their babies where possible and everything became child focused.

Surrogacy doesn't take any notice of this and just acts like removing a baby is no big deal.

I think you have confused my posts with someone else’s on this thread or hero and you got a bit muddled with copying and pasting.

you didn’t actually answer my question in any event. I wasn’t asking about donated eggs but in actual fact I don’t believe it makes it any trickier. I sympathise with biological women who are unable to conceive with their own eggs but personally I don’t agree with egg or sperm donation so someone can have a baby that at the end of the day isn’t biologically theirs. If you want to be a parent that badly you might as well adopt in that case because the only difference for at least half of the “parents” will be giving birth.And that then is about wanting an experience or to feel something that is engineered. You are raising someone else’s child that you gave birth to. Pretty much in the same way that I don’t agree with surrogacy in any way shape of form. For me it isn’t just about the despicable acts of entitled procurement and exploitation with surrogacy , it’s also about the whole spectrum of wanting a baby at any cost material or moral if you want to muddy the waters with donated eggs scenarios.

i am aware that some posters will disagree with this but the purportedly altruistic act of a non vulnerable fertile woman donating her eggs so another person can have a chance at doing something is not something I am in agreement with. I’m not a religious zealot btw.

Why?

Surrogacy is sexual exploitation for business rather than ‘pleasure’

No, I didn’t.

i meant if two gay guys use a surrogate, with an egg donated by a third party (not sure this would happen tbh), who is the mother?

That’s literally all I offered as a viewpoint? Nope.