Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

FFS re. Hilaria & Alec Baldwin and normalisation of surrogacy

238 replies

PatienceVirtue · 03/03/2021 14:15

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.

OP posts:
TableFlowerss · 14/03/2021 10:06

@Meredithgrey1

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?

I’m not saying I’m against euthanasia in all circumstances, I was simply illustrating that just because something is legal in one country, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea.

Regarding your last question, I don’t think surrogacy is always a good idea but that doesn’t mean to say that it’s always a bad idea either.

I think each case should be taken on it’s own merits

TableFlowerss · 14/03/2021 10:15

@Delphinium20

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.

Yes it’s to save a life, but the same principles can be applied, in the sense that it’s a medical intervention involving someone else having to give up a part of their own body.

Now one of the arguments against surrogacy has been the stress the ‘host’ would be under for the happiness of someone else.

Having a kidney removed for someone ekse us to to be taken lightly and it’s not natural in same way carrying a baby. (I think it’s a great idea BTW that people should be given the chance of life by a loved one donating)

So if it follows the same logic that it should be someone’s choice to help a loved one or not.

TableFlowerss · 14/03/2021 10:18

@NotBadConsidering

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.

That’s your view and how you look at it. That’s not how those in the situation will see it. They will see it as their last hope to ever have a baby of the own and someone is willing to help facilitate this.

Thankfully no one can dictate what is good for everyone under these circumstances. Unless of course it is made illegal.

MissBarbary · 14/03/2021 10:43

@NotBadConsidering

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.

Great post.
TableFlowerss · 14/03/2021 10:46

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

This point is irrelevant to whether we make something legal or illegal. We can’t stop what goes on in other countries, it’s nothing to do with us sadly. I’ve never disagreed that it can be problematic but it’s not always the case

irishfeminist · 14/03/2021 10:54

There was a thread on Jon Snow that was taken down but he (aged 73) and his wife used a surrogate too. Horrible.

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/jon-snow-channel-four-baby-b922941.html

NotBadConsidering · 14/03/2021 10:58

@TableFlowerss

*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*

This point is irrelevant to whether we make something legal or illegal. We can’t stop what goes on in other countries, it’s nothing to do with us sadly. I’ve never disagreed that it can be problematic but it’s not always the case

But the vast majority of surrogacy in the UK, the USA and other countries has the same problems. Are rich people having babies for poor people in the UK? Has a wealthy woman with disposable income and a supportive family living in a wealthy area of London decided to altruistically and with full autonomy to be a surrogate for a poor couple struggling with fertility living on a council estate in a poor area? Of course not. There is a power imbalance in “our” countries as well as “other” countries. How do you test for willingness? How do you protect against coercion? How do you safeguard the surrogate woman and her rights? I’d be genuinely interested. Because if this isn’t in place, if we have a scenario where we rely on everyone to be honest about how amazingly altruistic they’re being, inevitably someone, a surrogate woman, will be exploited because of human nature to exploit a loophole.

And even if someone IS completely willing, you’re still ignoring the fact that baby is being treated as a commodity, even if it’s just for expenses.

FannyCann · 14/03/2021 11:12

I also think there is an issue relating the surrogate mother's own children. The woman featured in this article appears to have had seven surrogate babies in eight years. She had a life threatening haemorrhage with the fifth, requiring ICU but went straight back to have another, and her seventh is due around now if it hasn't already been born, just 15 months after she gave birth to the 6th.

Meanwhile her own children have spent a huge chunk of their childhood with their mother prioritising breeding babies for strangers over their own welfare. They could have been orphaned. And honestly, however much she loves pregnancy and cruises through with no problems (really?) can she really have had the energy to devote to young children? Long walks, bike rides, playing footy in the park? All the other demands young children make on a mother? Organising childcare or taking them with her for trips to fertility clinics and antenatal care, and meeting a dizzying selection of commissioning parents keen to avail themselves of the use of their mother's body?
I don't think so.

I don't know what sex her children are but what message is she giving them. A girl growing up understanding a woman's role is to be kind and supply babies. A boy growing up knowing just how to get a baby if he doesn't happen to want to be in a relationship with one.

It's terrible. And I'm shocked and disgusted that fertility clinics and commissioning parents would ignore her brush with death and carry on using her. (I use the world "use" intentionally).

‘I love giving birth. This is my seventh surrogate baby’

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-love-giving-birth-this-is-my-seventh-surrogate-baby-xqfgzjwvz

FannyCann · 14/03/2021 11:14

"if he doesn't happen to want to be in a relationship with one"

"with a woman" I meant.

MissBarbary · 14/03/2021 12:08

We can’t stop what goes on in other countries, it’s nothing to do with us sadly

The "nothing to do with us" mantra has to be one of the most illogical ever made but I have to credit Flowers that it has a degree of effectiveness in closing down a debate. It's really hitting one's head against a (talking) brick wall.

SapatSea · 14/03/2021 12:10

There is a constant stream of postive stories about surrogacy in the MSM at the moment. I wonder if "funding" is behind it. There seems to be a big push to present it in only ever a positive light with the new bill being considered by the government giving a lot of rights and protection to the "commissioning parents" from implantation onwards (under the guise of protecting the "surrogate" mother). Apart from any moral and ethical objections to surrogacy arrangements there is also the issue of commercialisation in the UK that the legislation would issue in and the strain on the NHS of picking up the tab for care. The UK could end up being a "centre" for international baby purchasing on the cheap (as the NHS would likely pick up a lot of the costs of care for the mother and babies and employers and taxpayer would be paying towards ML of a pregnant employee). So there are a lot of sommercial interests lobbying hard for regulation like California in the UK when IMHO we should be moving to the Scandanavia model of banning it.

Recently in Scotland a gay couple had the Scottish NHS fund their surrogacy as they had "a fertility problem" (i.e. not having wombs) and were deemed entitled to help having a biological child under equality legislation. I find it chilling that the NHS is funding the "renting" of a woman's womb and the "purchase of a baby."

In the past week I've come across a slew of all totally positive stories about surrogacy. Just a few examples: a 23 year old woman having a baby for a gay couple using her own egg but claims she is not the parent and didn't maternally bond with the child. Another about an office junior having a baby for her senior manager. One of the Kardashians discussing surrogacy as an option in her on/off relationship. A mother of 6 in her 40's having a baby for her gay brother.Jon Snow and his wife using a "surrogate" mother. The Baldwin story in the OP. A gay couple "welcoming" triplets. Relentless attempts at normalisation and no recognition of the risks. Women as mere incubators with no toll involved, you would think pregnancy was as easy as carrying around a small bag of potatoes for 9 months.

FannyCann · 14/03/2021 12:34

It's relentless isn't it SapatSea

To top it all there is a new series on BBC3
"The Surrogates - The kindness of strangers".

I haven't had a chance to watch it yet - I'm clean out of vomit bags.

Not sure if it's the same case but I understand one if the surrogate mothers was having a baby for her boss. I really think companies should be alert to this, I'm not sure what they can do about it but it seems riven with additional possible difficulties. After all, sexual relationships between bosses and their juniors can lead to a lot of trouble. How much more complex the power issues and ethical problems relating to nine months of paid pregnancy and childbirth.

OhHolyJesus · 14/03/2021 12:59

The "nothing to do with us" mantra has to be one of the most illogical ever made

And with that argument we can happily ignore:

The murders of gay men in Iran
The murders of lesbians in Chile
The murders of baby girls in China
The rape of girls by 'elders' of the village in Sudan
The kidnapping of girls in Nigeria

...Amongst other things and not campaign for laws to change like Repeal the 8th, same-sex marriage or human rights like freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

It's nothing to do with us, women step down. Back to the kitchen sink with you.

MimiDaisy11 · 14/03/2021 13:14

The "nothing to do with us" mantra has to be one of the most illogical ever made

It often goes along with the argument that no one is holding a gun to the woman's head an forcing them so there's no issue. As if context and wider issues play no part.

TableFlowerss · 14/03/2021 14:54

@OhHolyJesus

The "nothing to do with us" mantra has to be one of the most illogical ever made

And with that argument we can happily ignore:

The murders of gay men in Iran
The murders of lesbians in Chile
The murders of baby girls in China
The rape of girls by 'elders' of the village in Sudan
The kidnapping of girls in Nigeria

...Amongst other things and not campaign for laws to change like Repeal the 8th, same-sex marriage or human rights like freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

It's nothing to do with us, women step down. Back to the kitchen sink with you.

That’s just batshit though isn’t it. I must say, it strikes me particularly with your posts, there is a complete illogical stretch from one topic that goes completely off topic and tries to tie it with something else entirely.

Everything is to do with everyone in that case then, but that’s not how laws work or indeed, the world. The problems within other countries as you’ve just spouted off, have nothing to do with whether surrogacy is legal here or not or whether it should be.

By all means, use emotive examples but it doesn’t validate your point of wanting a blanket ban on surrogacy.

If anything, I feel the laws will be more relaxed in future, because the argument for same sex couples (men) to pursue discrimination claims, against laws that take away their rights to become patents, will be high.

FannyCann · 14/03/2021 15:12

the argument for same sex couples (men) to pursue discrimination claims, against laws that take away their rights to become patents, will be high

So women who deny men the use of their uterus are guilty of discrimination? Men have a right to demand women provide them with eggs and gestational services?
Wow. Welcome to Gilead Aunt Lydia.

OhHolyJesus · 14/03/2021 15:18

If anything, I feel the laws will be more relaxed in future, because the argument for same sex couples (men) to pursue discrimination claims, against laws that take away their rights to become patents, will be high.

So it's all about the men for you, that makes sense as it fits in with your libfem approach to 'feminism'.

There are no laws that prevent men in same sex couples from becoming parents. Biology prevents them. They can and do become adoptive parents and they can co-parent if they do chose. But you seem to think that women have a role to play to ensure that gay men can be biological parents and that is not only a right but also a duty of women to provide womb rental and babies. You may have overlook the post from SapatSea who reference the gay couple in Scotland who got their surrogacy arrangement paid for by the NHS. There is no discrimination but you do need a woman, or several, to make, grow and birth a baby. In that we can agree.

That’s just batshit though isn’t it. I must say, it strikes me particularly with your posts, there is a complete illogical stretch from one topic that goes completely off topic and tries to tie it with something else entirely.

Of course it's batshit, I was being sarcastic. I was using your own argument to to examine the flaws in your statements.

You say that so-called 'altruistic' surrogacy in families is not anyone else's business. You made no comment based on the example I shared where a friend did it for another friend. I noted that was conveniently ignored. Is that because it's different in families?

So what, by your definition, is permitted to be 'our business'? What else would you have us not discuss?

Safeguarding children and vulnerable adults is everyone's business. This is embedded in law and extends to all local council policy. You should check your own. I make surrogacy in general my business because I clearly have a strong interest. You are free to campaign on what you feel in important.

The problems within other countries as you’ve just spouted off, have nothing to do with whether surrogacy is legal here or not or whether it should be.

We look at other countries to examine our own laws and develop and change them.

The Law Commission met with officials from the Ukraine in their work prior to releasing the public consultation. You might have noted that Ukraine is the bargain basement international surrogacy hub, to rival states in America due to their low cost services and relaxed laws. You might have seen the Kiev Hotel Babies in the news last summer but due to your personal view of attachment theory, you might not mind if newborns don't have a primary carer, whether they be 'professional babysitters' in hotel nurseries or 'baby dens'. You might want to compare the public consultations on surrogacy for Australia and New Zealand to see how similar or different they are.

You could also see the locations of exhibitors Men Having Babies to see where they have been and how effective they have been in Israel.

To be clear I'm not suggesting that there is a global conspiracy to create a baby-selling access but if you think that they are completely unconnected and that at no time does the U.K. law-makers look at other country systems then I think you are naive.

TableFlowerss · 14/03/2021 16:03

@FannyCann

the argument for same sex couples (men) to pursue discrimination claims, against laws that take away their rights to become patents, will be high

So women who deny men the use of their uterus are guilty of discrimination? Men have a right to demand women provide them with eggs and gestational services?
Wow. Welcome to Gilead Aunt Lydia.

But your wrong - your gong on about it like a woman is picked out at random and told she will carry a baby for someone, with no choice etc...

You seem to be missing the part where she wants to do it to help her friends.

You’re all for women ‘rights’, yet at the same time, you want to take away their choice to decide what to do with their bodies. So you support the rights of SOME women, but not others..... makes sense... not

TableFlowerss · 14/03/2021 16:27

@OhHolyJesus

If anything, I feel the laws will be more relaxed in future, because the argument for same sex couples (men) to pursue discrimination claims, against laws that take away their rights to become patents, will be high.

So it's all about the men for you, that makes sense as it fits in with your libfem approach to 'feminism'.

There are no laws that prevent men in same sex couples from becoming parents. Biology prevents them. They can and do become adoptive parents and they can co-parent if they do chose. But you seem to think that women have a role to play to ensure that gay men can be biological parents and that is not only a right but also a duty of women to provide womb rental and babies. You may have overlook the post from SapatSea who reference the gay couple in Scotland who got their surrogacy arrangement paid for by the NHS. There is no discrimination but you do need a woman, or several, to make, grow and birth a baby. In that we can agree.

That’s just batshit though isn’t it. I must say, it strikes me particularly with your posts, there is a complete illogical stretch from one topic that goes completely off topic and tries to tie it with something else entirely.

Of course it's batshit, I was being sarcastic. I was using your own argument to to examine the flaws in your statements.

You say that so-called 'altruistic' surrogacy in families is not anyone else's business. You made no comment based on the example I shared where a friend did it for another friend. I noted that was conveniently ignored. Is that because it's different in families?

So what, by your definition, is permitted to be 'our business'? What else would you have us not discuss?

Safeguarding children and vulnerable adults is everyone's business. This is embedded in law and extends to all local council policy. You should check your own. I make surrogacy in general my business because I clearly have a strong interest. You are free to campaign on what you feel in important.

The problems within other countries as you’ve just spouted off, have nothing to do with whether surrogacy is legal here or not or whether it should be.

We look at other countries to examine our own laws and develop and change them.

The Law Commission met with officials from the Ukraine in their work prior to releasing the public consultation. You might have noted that Ukraine is the bargain basement international surrogacy hub, to rival states in America due to their low cost services and relaxed laws. You might have seen the Kiev Hotel Babies in the news last summer but due to your personal view of attachment theory, you might not mind if newborns don't have a primary carer, whether they be 'professional babysitters' in hotel nurseries or 'baby dens'. You might want to compare the public consultations on surrogacy for Australia and New Zealand to see how similar or different they are.

You could also see the locations of exhibitors Men Having Babies to see where they have been and how effective they have been in Israel.

To be clear I'm not suggesting that there is a global conspiracy to create a baby-selling access but if you think that they are completely unconnected and that at no time does the U.K. law-makers look at other country systems then I think you are naive.

I wrote a long reply but my phone froze so I haven’t got the time or inclination to reply anymore. I have better things to do with my tone like spend it with my children. Given its 6 against 1 I can’t waste anymore of my time banging my head against a brick.

The last thing I will say is that if you have children, then it’s very hypocritical to decided morally that surrogacy is immoral. You’ve no idea how that couple feel so it’s it’s a kick in the teeth throwing stones at them from your ivory tower.

If you couldn’t have children then the arguments could had that because you can’t, no one else should be able to.

All this in the name of ‘protecting’ the rights of some women, whilst chucking stones at the other ones... sigh

I’m going to bow out now but I’m pleased that you lot don’t get to decide the moral code for everyone and please don’t proclaim to be doing it for the benefit of all women, because some childless women really won’t agree with you....!

Delphinium20 · 14/03/2021 18:58

Yes it’s to save a life, but the same principles can be applied, in the sense that it’s a medical intervention involving someone else having to give up a part of their own body

I think surrogacy is the one intervention using another person's body parts that does NOT save a life. This is why surrogacy is so abhorrent...you aren't saving anyone's life. If you consider it a medical intervention you suggest surrogacy is a cure for infertility...that is Handmaid's Tale...

The last thing I will say is that if you have children, then it’s very hypocritical to decided morally that surrogacy is immoral. You’ve no idea how that couple feel so it’s it’s a kick in the teeth throwing stones at them from your ivory tower

Again. No one has a right to a child. No one has a right to a woman's body because you are in emotional pain. Having gone through pregnancy and birth, I can assure you I would NEVER ask someone to do that for me...I could never live with knowing I pushed someone to risk their life for me to have a baby...and then took my child away from the birth mother. When I worried if I would be able to have children, surrogacy was NEVER on the table. I knew adoption, fostering or simply being an involved aunt were the only acceptable options if fertility failed me.

If some couples feel it's appropriate to ask such a thing of a woman and to do that to their child tells me they have no claim to any moral high ground at all. It's desperation and a willingness to overlook ethics to get a specific desired outcome. Children are not a prize nor an acquisition. I think people pushing surrogacy are trying to change break the moral code to accept using women and children as commodities.

OhHolyJesus · 14/03/2021 19:15

It seems fitting at this point to share this blog on 'random acts of kindness' from TwoDads.

This is not intended as a derail OP, I hope you don't mind the juxtaposition on the earlier point on how same sex male couples really shouldn't be denied the 'right' to biological children and how women really should 'be kind'.

www.twodadsuk.com/blog/egg-donation-a-life-changing-act-of-kindness/

Delphinium20 · 14/03/2021 19:31

[quote OhHolyJesus]It seems fitting at this point to share this blog on 'random acts of kindness' from TwoDads.

This is not intended as a derail OP, I hope you don't mind the juxtaposition on the earlier point on how same sex male couples really shouldn't be denied the 'right' to biological children and how women really should 'be kind'.

www.twodadsuk.com/blog/egg-donation-a-life-changing-act-of-kindness/[/quote]
This makes me see red. There is limited if any study into the long-term health of egg donors and how this impacts their fertility. Those two men are manipulating young women- women who have never had children of their own - into giving away their eggs. And they equate it an "act of kindness."

Why is it that the concerns of older, experienced women (many of us mothers) are so overlooked in this conversation of the ethics of surrogacy and egg donation. Nobody understands this as much as we do, yet somehow when we raise our voices we are seen as "dream deflators," or hypocrites. We know firsthand the bonds between mother and baby, the lack of medical research of our bodies and we see the long-term impacts of life choices. This just reinforces to me that misogyny is particularly dismissive of older, wiser women. We threaten mens ability to do whatever they want because we know the pitfalls of being kind.

WeRoarSometimes · 14/03/2021 19:31

@OhHolyJesus
Your last post..
With bells on.

Number3BigCupOfTea · 14/03/2021 19:52

Wow. Be kind = do what suits men. YET AGAIN