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.

It’s not mutually beneficial though. Someone risks their life for cash and possibly a warm glow
Someone else has their world view confirmed that if you have money you will get what you want
and then there is a baby, presumably much wanted , but you never find out how the paying parent copes with a puking pooing mewling newborn

I’m sure the babies are much wanted. Not always for the right reasons

https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/22/meet-5-accused-pedophiles-who-bought-kids-through-surrogacy/

and this is Olivia Maurel who was born through surrogacy and founded Universal Surrogacy Abolition on Trainor

“Saying that surrogacy is “a beautiful way to start a family” when you have already carried children yourself is an act of absolute indecency.

It is refusing to accept for your own body what you are imposing on another woman’s, paying her to absorb the risks, the pain, the irreversible transformation, and the separation.

It is saying: I want a child, but not the scars, not the pregnancy, not the labour, not the danger — let someone else take care of that for me.

This is not solidarity.

This is not love.

This is outsourcing suffering to a woman who is socially and economically more vulnerable.

Behind the smooth talk about “science” and “teamwork”, there is a raw truth:

a woman is used as a means, and a child as the outcome of a service.

This is not called “building a family”.

This is called instrumentalising bodies in order to preserve one’s own.

And turning motherhood into a subcontracted service.”

(translated from French)

"This is outsourcing suffering to a woman who is socially and economically more vulnerable."

Well, according to some people if a woman consents, regardless of the power dynamic driving that consent, it is all fine and not one of us should be concerned for either the woman being exploited or the child.

Because consent is really simple... if a woman who is not in a position to say 'no' consents, she has consented apparently......

Having reread your posts, you are quite right.

You also pointed out:

"I have less concern for this baby who is presumably much wanted and will be in a loving secure family environment, than baby #6 for Keely and Kyle who spend their benefits on weed. For example. It’s all perspective."

Very profound and not derogatory to others at all....

biologically the baby’s mother in that scenario is the egg donor. The surrogate carries someone else’s embryo and gives birth to it. She will endure the physical risks (and the inherently emotional ones if you want to consider those too) but she has been placed in the position whether by need or choice of doing this and for many people on this thread the concerns around the exploitation possibly coercion of the former or reasons behind the latter that seem to eclipse or dismiss the newborn human beings needs that this process seeks to box off and file away.

there exists however a whole and complex spectrum of emotions damage and risk that I don’t happen to believe is so easily compartmentalised .

IMO though, either way the end result is a baby that has been commissioned to fulfil the requirements of other adults which I find objectionable regardless of the provenance.
the exacerbating factors such as financial vulnerability as opposed to choice or altruism may or may not differ and impact I concede. Rightly for many posters on this thread they are illustrative of the wider political and ongoing societal horror stories that make up modern life for many women.
but when it boils down to it in the two scenarios you are comparing the end result is the same for that baby, a sentient human being: they have been taken from their biological mother in order to make other adults wish’s come true and that is for me as dystopian and disturbing as all the other aspects that the surrogacy debate initially and rightly kicks off

Her youngest son is called Barry! I really don’t think this is a woman capable of making sensible decisions!

Derogatory to Keely and Kyle, admittedly 😂

I wouldn't judge her for that. Personally I think the world needs more Barry's 😂.

I have only seen positives on social media, its her choice, be kind, its their business, skin to skin etc (spoiler - if this was solely for skin to skin contact, they could have y'know not posted a pic...)
The photo is pretty contrived imo and I thought similarly about whichever kardashian did a similar thing.
I notice lots of celebs are pro-surrogacy but not pro in the sense they want to be the surrogate for one of their rich mates....(obvs only extends to women)

So what is The Handmaid's Tale about? It is fundamentally about the abuse, exploitation and commodification of women's bodies. It is about how the humanity of women is distilled down to their ability to reproduce. Primarily it is the women with lesser power who are exploited and used as baby incubators. The trauma to the babies is dismissed, so that i
women with power, finance and social standing can experience parenthood.

If you read the book or watched the series, I fail to see how you missed the similarity in the themes.

MT has gone out and paid a woman of lesser privilege to 'incubate' and birth a baby for her. The surrogate has agreed to it because the money is needed. She is being squeezed by less fortunate circumstances. MT is acting as a beneficiary of financial or coercion. Being a surrogate, especially to someone not family, is actually quite extreme to do, but I imagine the money a celeb would pay is quite substantial. I imagine that woman also came recommended and it's not her first rodeo, so she is likely repeatedly birthing babies in exchange for funds, putting her health at risk repeatedly to serve a wealthy class of women.

MT hobnobs with a rich set. She likely knows many wealthy women. You don't see MT going to another woman in her circle at her same level of financial and social standing and asking them if they are happy to make their wombs available for her to grow her family. If she did, she'd probably be told 'absolutely no way'. They'd likely refuse because they are less vulnerable to financial coercion. So not exploitable by MT.

It’s one of my favourite productions and I’ve watched it many times, and read Atwood’s book a few times too.

The women in THT are captured violently, abducted against their will and then imprisoned. They are held down and raped by the commanders. If they resist, or try to escape, they risk being murdered and hung on a wall. Their babies (biologically theirs) are stolen from them without their consent. They have zero income or support network. They have zero access to their own children or families. If they fail to conceive, they are sent to the colonies where they will die from exposure to toxic waste.

I’m all for being open to alternative opinions but comparing THT to surrogacy isn’t a point of view that makes any sense to me when you consider the detail.

I really don't like that it seems she's used a surrogate purely for vanity reasons. Pregnancy and childbirth should never be put on a surrogate just because you don't wanna have wasted money on your tummy tuck.

I was a surrogate for my friend when I was a lot younger and I felt extremely supported and like it was a good decision. I can't imagine going through something so invasive and permanent on my body because someone didn't want to "ruin" their body. Which is speculation at this point but let's be honest, it's a bit obvious she's been on ozempic and then paid a fortune for all the nips and tucks and she's feeling herself all of a sudden.

We suddenly have a lot of women who took the weight loss jabs and now don't want to have their next baby, one of the school mums I talk to has said similar, she lost weight to have baby number 2 and now she's skinny for the first time in her life she's enjoying it too much and doesn't wanna put anything back on. Which is fine, don't have another and put yourself first, but I know I'd have been mortified if someone had asked me to surrogate for them for that reason.

But the surrogate isn’t the mother? If they used an embryo made from their egg and sperm. So why wouldn’t the baby go straight to the bio parents? I know a woman who has been a surrogate and she was so happy to do it and said handing the baby to its parents was joyous and she felt like she’d given them the greatest gift. The baby wasn’t biologically hers so she wasn’t emotionally attached. I guess there are many different ways to think about it.

I saw this post the other day. I found it strange.

People like her and lizzo are just complete fakes and contradicting with their ‘all about that bass’ ‘I love my body’ ‘I’m comfortable in my own skin’ then couple years later have lost a shit tonne of weight! Are on the weight injections and strict diets and workout routines make me so angry!

I mean surrogacy is ok if you cannot get pregnant yourself and don’t have children or if you’ve had your own child and had a traumatic experience and health issues then fair enough but to just use surrogacy because you don’t want to be pregnant, gain the weight and have the post natal after is just wrong and I don’t agree with it. All this non binary shit too like what the fuck is wrong with this generation? Baby has a moo she is a girl and to give her a name like mikey is just fucking ridiculous these celebrities really are in some weird cuckoo land because of their fame and money and don’t think about how it affects their children in the long run. It’s all about publicity and attention and it’s sickening they use children for this.

The fame and fortune life is defo something I’d never want because quite clearly it goes to a lot of their heads and makes them do ridiculous shit.

I’d have thought having had a traumatic birth experience or health problems during a pregnancy of your own would be the exact reason NOT to use a surrogate. A thorough understanding of quite quite how awful and dangerous pregnancy and labour can be.
but it’s ok, the cash makes up for it. Clearly women who can be paid are a lesser, more hardy breed

Is a woman who uses donor eggs to have a baby "not the mother" then?

Apparently they are accepting money, so they must fully want to take on those risks, eh? Nothing like undertaking a high risk role that runs 24/7 for at least 9 months and could end, shorten or limit your life just because someone wants to make a child to order delivered by someone else.

I truly despair that some people do not understand consent .

Let me get this straight:
Rich woman wants a baby, doesn't want a pregnancy
She doesn't want to adopt by the usual channels
She decides on surrogacy
She finds a woman desperate enough to risk her physical and mental health
The baby is born
The rich woman pays the poor woman
The rich woman takes the baby

If I've got that right, how is that not slavery? The baby is commissioned, bought and paid for. Usually the word used for the purchase of people is enslavement. Whether or not the baby then has a "good life" by whatever metric is immaterial: it is still a slave.

That’s an entirely different situation though. If you use a donor egg to have a baby that you’re going to keep. But if you’re having a baby that’s not connected to you genetically to give to someone else then no you aren’t the mother. If you use a donor egg to achieve a surrogate pregnancy then neither woman is the biological mother but you’ve agreed to have that baby for someone else. I think it’s a very nuanced and diverse topic. Surely if a woman is willing and capable of carrying a child for someone else then that’s up to her?

This. It shouldn't even need saying but obviously it does, so this ☝️.

Would everyone be ok with surrogacy if it was done altruistically like living organ donation ? The surrogate is of age sound mind and consenting

buying from temu is problematic underage and indentured

No, because it's about the baby as much as it is about the woman acting as a surrogate. Removing a newborn from the woman who has carried it is traumatising to the baby. It should be done out of medical necessity only, not planned before the baby is even conceived.

This.

This point has been made several times on this thread but I don't think anyone pro surrogacy has addressed it?

Purposefully causing trauma to a newborn is barbaric. There is so much research about infants in utero and early months, "fourth trimester" etc.

How is it different for the child?

That's how it was introduced. It was supposed to be an act of sisterhood, probably for a friend or relative, not a commercial operation. And that's how they got the go ahead - it was incredibly controversial.

It has moved so far away from what was envisaged.