FFS re. Hilaria & Alec Baldwin and normalisation of surrogacy

[PatienceVirtue]

www.etonline.com/hilaria-and-alec-baldwins-daughter-lucia-was-born-via-surrogate-161509

The Baldwins, a baby-hungry 'Spaniard' and rich Hollywood male, have had a sixth (sixth!) child six months after having their fifth. Apparently by surrogacy, well it wasn't carried by her obviously. Which means they implanted an embryo or embryos into some poor womb-holder while she was already heavily pregnant with their fifth child.

Why? FFS. I just don't understand it. Originally surrogacy was sold as solution to the utter misery of infertility and I feel a great deal of sympathy with this. But when it becomes the go-to of extremely wealthy families who already have numerous children (cf Kim Kardashian, Robbie Williams et al), then its exploitative and transactional nature is exposed.

I can't bear the way it's become so normalised to use women like ovens. Stop call it carrying a baby, like they're handbags. It's growing a baby from a microscopic dot to a newborn.

Spout out what you want on here, share your views, add links and articles and the like... but it’s like you’re blinkered and so consumed with the ‘rights of women’ who have had terrible experiences due to surrogacy (and I agree there will be many) that you’re failing to take in to account the rights of women that want to make that choice for themselves. The women that WANT to do this for someone close, not for money, not because of cohesion, but because they want to enable a close couple to become parents.

I find it so bizarre on a feminist board that you’re failing to see that by removing the choice with a blanket ban, is worse than allowing it to happen.

I’ve expressed several times that there are certain instances where I think it’s disgusting too, such as, they don’t want to be pregnant themselves and they’d prefer a ‘host surrogate. That’s vile and I’d object to that. Or that they wanted to chose the sex, eye colour etc.... again, vile.

I think that’s a very very different thing to what I feel is acceptable, the close family member/friend doing it for their infertile loved one. No money exchanged. It’s a completely different in my eyes.

And to think this is the feminist board that’s supposed to be in favour of women’s rights. All I see is a bunch of activist hell bent of trying to get a law changed in the name of ‘feminism’, yet all it does it take away a woman’s right to chose where they want to partake or not.

How dare someone want to help out a loved one?! How dare that loved one take them up on the offer?!

Makes me gasp when you suggest that other countries have somewhat better laws than surrounding this! Oh yes, because euthanasia is a great idea (not), as is taking away a women RIGHT to wear a burka (not) as is prostitution (not) or to remove a woman’s right to abortion (not) so don’t try and guise other laws as a reason because not all laws are favourable!!!

you don’t think wanting to be a mother is that important when it comes to surrogacy.

On the contrary, this is clearly the key motivating factor for commissioning mothers, ditto commissioning fathers, gay or straight, and the surrogate mother is pretty much how surrogacy gets to happen. If it wasn't important to infertile couples surrogacy wouldn't happen, neither would adoption. You sound confused.

Your view appears to be that because someone wants a baby and they are infertile they should get what they want and a woman who provides that service is neither exploited or at risk of exploitation and the baby is the end result but is more a product of the arrangement than a person.

You also seem to think that 'altruistic' surrogacy in families is the majority and you have no worries about what that means for anyone involved, now or in the future.

You sound like you have been fed on a diet of women's magazines and haven't applied any critical thought and as a result you have a very surface level understanding of the issues involved.

That's fine it just doesn't aid debate when you're not open minded enough to explore those issues, when several of us are trying to explain them to you.

You also seem to be deliberately ignoring questions, unable to share anything other than your opinion and are misinterpreting comments. Again, that's fine, it's just not that useful. You don't need to change your mind or agree, I would still really like to see that U.K. law you mentioned that grants rights to a family though.

@OhHolyJesus

you don’t think wanting to be a mother is that important when it comes to surrogacy.

On the contrary, this is clearly the key motivating factor for commissioning mothers, ditto commissioning fathers, gay or straight, and the surrogate mother is pretty much how surrogacy gets to happen. If it wasn't important to infertile couples surrogacy wouldn't happen, neither would adoption. You sound confused.

Your view appears to be that because someone wants a baby and they are infertile they should get what they want and a woman who provides that service is neither exploited or at risk of exploitation and the baby is the end result but is more a product of the arrangement than a person.

You also seem to think that 'altruistic' surrogacy in families is the majority and you have no worries about what that means for anyone involved, now or in the future.

You sound like you have been fed on a diet of women's magazines and haven't applied any critical thought and as a result you have a very surface level understanding of the issues involved.

That's fine it just doesn't aid debate when you're not open minded enough to explore those issues, when several of us are trying to explain them to you.

You also seem to be deliberately ignoring questions, unable to share anything other than your opinion and are misinterpreting comments. Again, that's fine, it's just not that useful. You don't need to change your mind or agree, I would still really like to see that U.K. law you mentioned that grants rights to a family though.

Read my post above I suggest

I find it so bizarre on a feminist board that you’re failing to see that by removing the choice with a blanket ban, is worse than allowing it to happen.

It appears you haven't read my posts.

Maybe someone else said they wanted a blanket ban, I said I didn't think that was possible or likely. What was being said was why other countries have done it and why.

I find it bizarre that you're on a feminist board and think surrogacy somehow fits into body positivity/body autonomy.

We 'allow' prostitution but many of us here rail against that and Nordic Model Now, from the earlier link is doing great work on that too. In that 'allowed' prostitution many women are vulnerable, trafficked and exploited...but they chose it right? So that's ok. Her body her choice.

Should women who object to buying babies/giving babies away like gifts not consider themselves feminists? Are we feminist-ing wrong?

There's a gushing article in this weekend's FT and the author Ginanne Brownell "is writing a book on cross-border surrogacy around the globe".
It talks about the positives only, and implies it's only a matter of time before the rest of the world ' catches up' & accepts the commercial surrogacy.
No mention about all the countries, in the west and developing nations, that have recently outlawed it because of the obvious issues it brings.
It certainly feels like there's an agenda to normalise it.

Surrogacy, America and me - on.ft.com/2OS6VhH

@OhHolyJesus

I find it so bizarre on a feminist board that you’re failing to see that by removing the choice with a blanket ban, is worse than allowing it to happen.

It appears you haven't read my posts.

Maybe someone else said they wanted a blanket ban, I said I didn't think that was possible or likely. What was being said was why other countries have done it and why.

I find it bizarre that you're on a feminist board and think surrogacy somehow fits into body positivity/body autonomy.

We 'allow' prostitution but many of us here rail against that and Nordic Model Now, from the earlier link is doing great work on that too. In that 'allowed' prostitution many women are vulnerable, trafficked and exploited...but they chose it right? So that's ok. Her body her choice.

Should women who object to buying babies/giving babies away like gifts not consider themselves feminists? Are we feminist-ing wrong?

The scenario I describe is NOT buying a baby. If you’re going to insist on fixating on surrogacy as a whole with no exceptions, then there’s no point in debating with you.

Feminists speak for women. Who’s speaking for the right of women that WANT to do this? No one. It would appear feminism doesn’t count in these circumstances. You can’t pick and chose. You either support a woman RIGHT to chose what’s RIGHT for them, regardless of whether it doesn’t work for others or you don’t.

You can’t have it both ways

@TableFlowerss I see it a bit like euthanasia. In some circumstances people would be able to consent while aware of the level of risk, but there is too much room for exploitation for it to be a good idea overall.

I also object to surrogacy as I believe it is cruel to remove a newborn from its birth mother unless strictly necessary.

That looks interesting Cherry I will read.

The U.K. Law Commission frames it in a similar way, and when the NYC bill was being discussed, states that still outlaw it are labelled as old fashioned, their laws outdated.

The idea being that we need to move with the times and just accept that women have this role to play and to argue against it or to simply disagree we are archaic thinkers.

In LGBT media and conversations we are also labelled as homophobic because we cannot deny the same sex makes their 'fertility equality' and 'right to a family', which is ironic as several gay men and lesbians I know are very much against surrogacy.

I find it connected to several leading issues in feminism, the untethering of language to biological reality, reducing women and their purpose to reproductive organs and body parts, and the body positivity/sex work is work mantra is now 'nouveau feminism' and 'intersectional feminism' is cool and the feminism that centre women (and in surrogacy, children) is bigotry is well...to be expected.

You either support a woman RIGHT to chose what’s RIGHT for them, regardless of whether it doesn’t work for others or you don’t.

I don't support a woman's 'right' to give her babies away no. However right it is for her. I don't support a woman's 'right' to have an elective double mastectomy either.

Her body her choice, not when it's harmful to her or someone else.

Reproductive rights for women are about preventing or ending pregnancy - they are not about human trafficking or gifting human beings. That's a real stretch.

If that's your personally definition of feminism then...good luck to you.

(Please do tag me if you find that U.K. law about a right to a family.)

Bravo, Oh.

I think that’s a very very different thing to what I feel is acceptable, the close family member/friend doing it for their infertile loved one. No money exchanged. It’s a completely different in my eyes.

I think this also makes me question WHY a woman is socialized to risk and use her body for someone else's perceived happiness. For us as a society to accept that this is some kind of lauded role for women makes a lot of feminists cringe...it feels wrong because we know how women have been guilted into being sacrificing bodies for millennia.

I also find the whole "you want to take motherhood away from infertile women," a rather elitist concept. Makes me think of the wives in The Handmaid's Tale who believe they too are owed a woman's body to become mothers. Nevermind the risks or wrongness of the entire thing. Those women have a RIGHT to what they want and damn those pesky feminists for questioning it.

Also, I'm sure it's not just feminists who find surrogacy problematic. I think a lot of the population senses the wrongness of it.

@Delphinium20

I think that’s a very very different thing to what I feel is acceptable, the close family member/friend doing it for their infertile loved one. No money exchanged. It’s a completely different in my eyes.

I think this also makes me question WHY a woman is socialized to risk and use her body for someone else's perceived happiness. For us as a society to accept that this is some kind of lauded role for women makes a lot of feminists cringe...it feels wrong because we know how women have been guilted into being sacrificing bodies for millennia.

I also find the whole "you want to take motherhood away from infertile women," a rather elitist concept. Makes me think of the wives in The Handmaid's Tale who believe they too are owed a woman's body to become mothers. Nevermind the risks or wrongness of the entire thing. Those women have a RIGHT to what they want and damn those pesky feminists for questioning it.

Also, I'm sure it's not just feminists who find surrogacy problematic. I think a lot of the population senses the wrongness of it.

I think this also makes me question WHY a woman is socialized to risk and use her body for someone else's perceived happiness

Ok, so where do stand on a woman donating a kidney to a family member or friend? Because based on your logic, that would be placing her body under unnecessary risk for the happiness of someone else? The happiness being keeping alive their loved one.

Should we just let nature take its cause for fear of the women’s body being placed under ‘unnecessary’ stress? All operations come with risk after all?!....... should she really place her body under that stress for the sake of someone else? Because from what you’ve said, you would also disagree with these circumstances?!

@OhHolyJesus

You either support a woman RIGHT to chose what’s RIGHT for them, regardless of whether it doesn’t work for others or you don’t.

I don't support a woman's 'right' to give her babies away no. However right it is for her. I don't support a woman's 'right' to have an elective double mastectomy either.

Her body her choice, not when it's harmful to her or someone else.

Reproductive rights for women are about preventing or ending pregnancy - they are not about human trafficking or gifting human beings. That's a real stretch.

If that's your personally definition of feminism then...good luck to you.

(Please do tag me if you find that U.K. law about a right to a family.)

Right to use her body as a surrogate is legal currently despite your interpretation 😀

Right to use her body as a surrogate is legal currently despite your interpretation

Correcting it for you. Right to use her body as a surrogate is legal currently despite my opinion.

The law is clear, commercial surrogacy is illegal so the question over what constitutes a legitimate pregnancy expense remains. People interpret legitimate expenses in different ways, for example:

As a result of being pregnant do you need a gardener? If so, why are women who are pregnant but who are keeping their babies not provided one on the NHS?

@OhHolyJesus

Right to use her body as a surrogate is legal currently despite your interpretation

Correcting it for you. Right to use her body as a surrogate is legal currently despite my opinion.

The law is clear, commercial surrogacy is illegal so the question over what constitutes a legitimate pregnancy expense remains. People interpret legitimate expenses in different ways, for example:

As a result of being pregnant do you need a gardener? If so, why are women who are pregnant but who are keeping their babies not provided one on the NHS?

Now your posts are just getting silly 🙃

Now your posts are just getting silly

As a PP noted the same to you earlier, I think we past 'silly' some time ago.

@OhHolyJesus

Now your posts are just getting silly

As a PP noted the same to you earlier, I think we past 'silly' some time ago.

I won’t lose sleep over that given the nonsense that’s been plastered on this thread!

Ok, so where do stand on a woman donating a kidney to a family member or friend? Because based on your logic, that would be placing her body under unnecessary risk for the happiness of someone else? The happiness being keeping alive their loved one.

A kidney saves a life. It's not happiness or fulfillment, it's lifesaving. Very different than having a baby. The surrogate mother is not saving anyone's life, she's only risking her own.

I actually think the euthanasia analogy works quite well. It would be right in some circumstances and not allowing does have cruel outcomes for some families. However the law needs to ban it to protect the majority because if it is allowed and becomes widespread that’s a frightening outcome.

Oh dear. There's no point saying the same thing over and over at someone who's just ignoring every logical query being put their way.

Tables, you show absolutely fuck-all knowledge of attachment disorders in any of your posts.

I am genuinely, 100% disturbed that you say this was a feature of your degree but you cannot understand how removing a newborn from their mother could affect them. Really, it's actually disturbing. You should ask for a refund from the university.

So I'm hiding this thread now - best of luck with the lunacy everyone else.

Oh yes, because euthanasia is a great idea (not),

I find it surprising that you’re against euthanasia Tables, as the arguments you having been making for surrogacy can be made for euthanasia eg it’s a person’s right to choose it for themselves, and just because there may be exploitation of it, it doesn’t take away that absolute right of a person to make their own decision about something that affects them.

I’m guessing you might think of some individual examples where euthanasia may be the right thing for an individual to choose, however I’m assuming (correct me if I’m wrong) that your objection to it comes from the capacity for exploitation and the need for the law to protect those who would be vulnerable. Why does the law not need to do this in the case of surrogacy?

Agree with everything except Tables posts dear me. The lack of critical thinking is embarrassing to read from someone (allegedly) tertiary educated. Diet of women’s magazines nails it.

Even if a you can be 100% certain that a woman is completely autonomous in her choice of using her body to be a surrogate there is still the problems of:

1. a baby is being traded as a commodity. A baby is bought and sold, regardless of whether it’s only “expenses” and that is something that has to be acknowledged regardless of one’s view on the autonomy of the surrogate.

2. it sets a precedent that makes the whole industry acceptable, meaning those women who are coerced, directly or indirectly as a result of circumstances, are vulnerable.

99.99% of surrogacy around the world is exploitative, and just because some comfortable western people feel they’re empowered and ethical in a few rare cases doesn’t change the fact that surrogacy as a whole is problematic.

Very well said @NotBadConsidering

@zzizzer

Oh dear. There's no point saying the same thing over and over at someone who's just ignoring every logical query being put their way.

Tables, you show absolutely fuck-all knowledge of attachment disorders in any of your posts.

I am genuinely, 100% disturbed that you say this was a feature of your degree but you cannot understand how removing a newborn from their mother could affect them. Really, it's actually disturbing. You should ask for a refund from the university.

So I'm hiding this thread now - best of luck with the lunacy everyone else.

Attachment disorder is something that can happen to anyone under the right (or wrong) circumstances!! So banging on about that because you’ve heard it as an argument put forward and using it as a reason to not allow surrogacy under any circumstances and then getting annoyed because someone doesn’t view it the same is a bit errr childish!