Guardian: the rise of “social” surrogacy

[Haworthia]

Absolutely not surprised by this at all. Celebs have been blazing the trail for a long time.

US doctors are seeing an increase in patients avoiding pregnancy or time off work by paying someone else to carry their baby – with no medical need to do so

amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/having-a-child-doesnt-fit-womens-schedule-the-future-of-surrogacy

And as the range of fertility options open to clients has diversified, so have their requests. Now, a growing number of women are coming to Sahakian for “social” surrogacy: they want to have babies that are biologically their own, but don’t want to carry them. There is no medical reason for them to use a surrogate; they just choose not to be pregnant, so they conceive babies through IVF and then hire another woman to gestate and give birth to their baby. It is the ultimate in outsourced labour.

My mother always said that this would happen and that it would end up with "career women who wanted to keep on tracking employing some other poor woman to be her carrier".

Bizarrely, it was one of the reasons she was ambivalent about the education of her daughters.

This doesn't surprise me. The government is currently looking at revising surrogacy laws and I expect this will not end up being a good thing for women.

Unlike many other European countries that ban surrogacy because of the capacity for exploitation I suspect there is a push in the UK to relax the current laws in favour of the purchasing individuals.

There was quite a bit of attention on this issue last year after Daley and Black spoke out about UK laws being too restrictive and there also was a flurry of articles about the Drewitt Barlow's (surrogacy industry millionaires) eldest DD who was looking for a surrogate aged 18 because she wanted to give her fathers a grandchild but didn't actually want to have a baby (no idea if she actually went ahead with this - I'm hoping not).

www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/5606685/the-surrogate-mum-to-saffron-drewitt-barlows-baby-could-be-a-famous-british-singer/

the Kiwi Farms thread on the Drewitt Barlows was extremely informative.

any relaxation on the current surrogacy laws will just lead to more exploitation of women, it;s got to be fought.

The establishment are in in favour so it won't be long before we follow the US model unless we start lobbying to stop it.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/02/lift-ban-payments-surrogates-says-sir-james-munby/

Well, this has been coming for along time. Prepare for sparks to fly as you cant say anything against surrogacy on here as a recent KK thread showed us. I googled Jessica Chastain last night who has just been through it as well. I’m sorry but A list celebs cannot have a much higher than average level of infertility compared to the average woman. Every other day on twitter someone is showing off their recently aquired babies and usually twins they are either celebs or rich gay men or, both.
And of course, theres the big court case regarding Nationality of these babies.

I feel desperately sorry for the women. Its not something you would do lightly, surely? How does the hand over happen? Do the celebs just swoop in and take the baby or, do they send someone? KK was at the Met ball when her surrogate was in Labour.

What calls me is these celebs always use such flimsy, transparent excuses for using surrogates. I refuse to believe that KK had a medical issue prohibiting future pregnancies. I’m suspicious about Robbie and Ayda Williams’ use of a surrogate for their third child too. Kelsey Grammar and his ex wife used a surrogate for their kids too, “IBS” being cited as the medical issue IIRC. I’m afraid I don’t believe any of it.

*What GALLS me.

I think the main reason that celebs use surrogates is either they are too old to conceive or they don’t want to ruin their figures. Either way it is only really an option open to rich people and is exploitative in the extreme

You "refuse to believe" a woman talking about her own body and her own experience of pregnancy.

In the case of KK even if there is a legit medical issue that makes future pregnancy impossible or very risky the reasonable and non exploitative thing to do is think thank goodness I already have two lovely, healthy children and call it a day.

That’s what I said, Trills. I don’t believe them.

I think KK should have stopped at 2 children as well.

In the case of KK even if there is a legit medical issue that makes future pregnancy impossible or very risky the reasonable and non exploitative thing to do is think thank goodness I already have two lovely, healthy children and call it a day.

Which is what 99.99% of women around the world would do. It takes a certain amount of entitlement that comes with wealth to buy your way out of that predicament in the form of a uterus you’re able to hire for 9 months.

My mother always said that this would happen and that it would end up with "career women who wanted to keep on tracking employing some other poor woman to be her carrier"

Bizarrely, it was one of the reasons she was ambivalent about the education of her daughters

Your mother had some very strange and unpleasant ideas then. I am absolutely opposed to all surrogacy, including altruistic. (I'm actually opposed to almost all forms of fertility treatment but that's another matter) However suggesting that "career women" will flock to do this is misogynistic nonsense.

The idea of a breeder class of uterus-havers is becoming cemented each time someone popular hires and owns rights to a woman's body and her - yes her - baby that she has created.

Pretty sure if Margaret Atwood had written the Handmaid's Tale with current knowledge, it would have involved implantation of host bodies with pure genetically owned material.

Being a handmaid is a blessing, the most generous gift, worthy of praise, an altruistic sacrifice of bodily autonomy, consensual slavery. Empowering.

We already are in a world where some people have legal rights and ownership over the bodies of others, and where seemingly inalienable human rights can actually be forfeit upon the signing of a contract.

Slavery is alive and well. It just goes by a different name these days.

I watched the Saffron Drewitt Barlow interview and it is a case of a spoiled brat just getting her way again. I remember watching her dads talk about how they picked the eggs for their kids and they basically went for a model so the kids would look good.

We of course need to remember the women in India and other poor countries used as cheap incubators for wealthy Western families.

Whats in the future for my two daughters? Surrogacy and prostitution?Will it be so ingrained by then and so normalised that a womans body can be bought that its seen as a viable and normal choice they can make?

It is hugely depressing. So many assaults on women at the moment.

We of course need to remember the women in India and other poor countries used as cheap incubators for wealthy Western families.

I knew a couple who used an Indian surrogate for their first child. For their second child, the surrogate was in the Ukraine. The idea that they shopped the globe and, presumably, went for the best offer, is so abhorrent to me. Just another financial transaction.

Too posh to bear! I wonder what the long term consequences of this might be. Really don't know, suppose time will tell. Related - but a different issue, Caesarian birth now not refused on monetary grounds. Because when take everything into account it costs no more than natural. Our second child they said ooh you should try for natural. I researched it and after first child C-Section 80% second birth would be by C-Section. So I put this to them - it was nonsense - and more dangerous to try for natural, and they agreed.

I read this too, so depressing, Gilead indeed.
Apart (hah!) from the aspect of treating women as commodities, this is a further attempt to deny that we are real, material, biological creatures. We have evolved to bear, birth and feed our young and that most primal relationship is rooted in biology.

NB I am NOT saying we all have to be earth mothers, we are ingenious creatures and can problem solve when biology lets us down, I just think that choosing, for trivial reasons as outlined in the article, to outsource a fundamental biological process ....it's like treating the baby itself as a commodity

Some refreshingly sensible responses to that article, though note how most of the "Guardian picks" are pro-surrogacy. That's a trend I've been noticing in the Graun of late, where comments - in the increasingly rare cases where articles are open for them - are way out of step with the editorial viewpoint.

I refuse to believe that KK had a medical issue prohibiting future pregnancies

Even if she had, she already had 3 healthy children. She didn't 'need' another. Mind you, nobody 'needs' a child and having one isn't a right, especially when it involves exploiting another, probably poor, woman.

This is ridiculous. If being pregnant ‘messes with your schedule’, then what the hell will a child do?

that's OK you can outsource the actual parenting too

Well, quite! If you’re rich enough to be able to outsource pregnancy, then a team of nannies would absolutely be the norm anyway.