An insane surrogacy story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the rare article that changed my mind on a subject. I used to have a live-and-let-live attitude about surrogacy, but this story shows just how horrifically people can take advantage of one another. And the poor children who are created are considered products to buy. The most unfortunate person in the whole article is the baby girl who has to be raised by this totally unstable narcissist.

.

I feel sorry for the baby girl, but this poor surrogate’s life and health are destroyed with no prospect to rebuild it because crazy lady calls every employer and says that surrogate intentionally killed her baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The one negative thing I will say about the surrogate is this: No one goes into COMMERCIAL surrogacy with a plan to pay off their student loans just because "Oh I saw my friend have a hard time conceiving and I want to help people." If she were doing this from the goodness of her heart she wouldn't have taken the shady "reimbursements." It's not like she was a broke single mom. She is very easily findable and she has a job that pays well in a low cost of living area. So, let's just call a spade a spade, she wanted to make money.

That being said, yeah, Cindy Bi is mentally ill and a nightmare of a human being.

Who is going to be willing to carry a baby for a stranger? Of course the money motivates surrogates.thats why surrogacy is banned in most places in Europe.

Italy, Spain, France and Germany has outlawed all forms of surrogacy.

In Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Czech Republic, arrangements are “void and unenforceable”, which meaning there is no legislation recognising surrogacy and so no way to transfer parentage to the couple who can’t or doesn’t to carry their own child.

I don’t understand how Cindy can professionally be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one negative thing I will say about the surrogate is this: No one goes into COMMERCIAL surrogacy with a plan to pay off their student loans just because "Oh I saw my friend have a hard time conceiving and I want to help people." If she were doing this from the goodness of her heart she wouldn't have taken the shady "reimbursements." It's not like she was a broke single mom. She is very easily findable and she has a job that pays well in a low cost of living area. So, let's just call a spade a spade, she wanted to make money.

That being said, yeah, Cindy Bi is mentally ill and a nightmare of a human being.

Who is going to be willing to carry a baby for a stranger? Of course the money motivates surrogates.thats why surrogacy is banned in most places in Europe.

Italy, Spain, France and Germany has outlawed all forms of surrogacy.

In Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Czech Republic, arrangements are “void and unenforceable”, which meaning there is no legislation recognising surrogacy and so no way to transfer parentage to the couple who can’t or doesn’t to carry their own child.

I don’t understand how Cindy can professionally be successful.

That should happen here. It is flatly wrong. And there are probably a lot of IPs like Cindy Bi out there. We just don’t know their stories.

[Anonymous]

It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The surrogate agency should have taken some action against the crazy intended parent the moment she started to post private information about the surrogate mother's health and job in chat groups. That is 100% not ok and violated their agreement.

That should have been an indication that the surrogate mom was not respectful of the surrogate.

+1
I wish someone would start a GoFundMe for the surrogate - I’d contribute. With good representation, she should have a fairly straightforward case vs the IPs and the surrogate agency. There should also be charges brought on her sons behalf vs the IP for harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

This presumes that the surrogate even knows that these complications are a potential risk. These women generally are not medically savvy and are looking to earn money. This whole industry is predatory and should be outlawed. The only reason it hadn't been is because rich people reap the benefits.
Another interesting story is "Her Body, My Baby" which was in the NYT about 15 years ago. The woman wasn't overtly nuts like this one but there was still a big class differential that permeated the story.
I would carry a child for my sister or cousin who was unable to for free. I would not do it for some rich stranger who decided at 43 that she was ready to be a mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one negative thing I will say about the surrogate is this: No one goes into COMMERCIAL surrogacy with a plan to pay off their student loans just because "Oh I saw my friend have a hard time conceiving and I want to help people." If she were doing this from the goodness of her heart she wouldn't have taken the shady "reimbursements." It's not like she was a broke single mom. She is very easily findable and she has a job that pays well in a low cost of living area. So, let's just call a spade a spade, she wanted to make money.

That being said, yeah, Cindy Bi is mentally ill and a nightmare of a human being.

+1

This was a financial transaction.

This. Bi is clearly mentally unstable, but let’s not pretend that the surrogate wasn’t in this for a paycheck.

It’s yet another area (similar to abortion) where I think the average upper middle class poster here simply doesn’t get how middle and working class people tend to think about things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This person has to be toxic on other ways, no? I'd be interested to know...maybe people are too scared to talk about it.

The article mentioned that she is on her SIXTH nanny. The baby girl was born in 2024.

Ha, this detail jumped out at me as well.

Very well written article, "show don't tell".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one negative thing I will say about the surrogate is this: No one goes into COMMERCIAL surrogacy with a plan to pay off their student loans just because "Oh I saw my friend have a hard time conceiving and I want to help people." If she were doing this from the goodness of her heart she wouldn't have taken the shady "reimbursements." It's not like she was a broke single mom. She is very easily findable and she has a job that pays well in a low cost of living area. So, let's just call a spade a spade, she wanted to make money.

That being said, yeah, Cindy Bi is mentally ill and a nightmare of a human being.

+1

This was a financial transaction.

This. Bi is clearly mentally unstable, but let’s not pretend that the surrogate wasn’t in this for a paycheck.

It’s yet another area (similar to abortion) where I think the average upper middle class poster here simply doesn’t get how middle and working class people tend to think about things.

Nobody is pretending there is no paycheck. The point is that the paycheck is grossly exploitative.

Surrogacy is similar to child labor, indentured servitude, and other forms of grotesquely exploitative labor. But it is worse in that there is also a child that results that endures an immediate separation from its mother that we call animal abuse when someone does it to baby kittens, puppies, and livestock.

I honestly cannot believe commercial surrogacy is still allowed in this country. I think most IPs are more like Cindy Bi than not like Cindy Bi. But IPs are rich, and DCUM and the wealthy classes more generally privilege the desires of wealthy would-be parents over the labor, health, and harm to poor women and babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one negative thing I will say about the surrogate is this: No one goes into COMMERCIAL surrogacy with a plan to pay off their student loans just because "Oh I saw my friend have a hard time conceiving and I want to help people." If she were doing this from the goodness of her heart she wouldn't have taken the shady "reimbursements." It's not like she was a broke single mom. She is very easily findable and she has a job that pays well in a low cost of living area. So, let's just call a spade a spade, she wanted to make money.

That being said, yeah, Cindy Bi is mentally ill and a nightmare of a human being.

+1

This was a financial transaction.

This. Bi is clearly mentally unstable, but let’s not pretend that the surrogate wasn’t in this for a paycheck.

It’s yet another area (similar to abortion) where I think the average upper middle class poster here simply doesn’t get how middle and working class people tend to think about things.

I mean…duh, right? Of course surrogates are doing it for the paycheck. And I hope they go in eyes wide open regarding the many physical things that can go wrong. Each pregnancy is a risk. That still doesn’t mean they should be victim to this kind of awful scenario. I don’t understand why people keep bringing up the paycheck aspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

This presumes that the surrogate even knows that these complications are a potential risk. These women generally are not medically savvy and are looking to earn money. This whole industry is predatory and should be outlawed. The only reason it hadn't been is because rich people reap the benefits.
Another interesting story is "Her Body, My Baby" which was in the NYT about 15 years ago. The woman wasn't overtly nuts like this one but there was still a big class differential that permeated the story.
I would carry a child for my sister or cousin who was unable to for free. I would not do it for some rich stranger who decided at 43 that she was ready to be a mother.

GCs aren't children in need of protection. They are adult women who are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to be a GC and under what circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Old rich women cosplaying moms with surrogates and donor eggs etc in the Bay Area is strangely socially acceptable there. I lived there when my kids were younger and the parents were beyond geriatric and openly discussed this stuff. It was gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one negative thing I will say about the surrogate is this: No one goes into COMMERCIAL surrogacy with a plan to pay off their student loans just because "Oh I saw my friend have a hard time conceiving and I want to help people." If she were doing this from the goodness of her heart she wouldn't have taken the shady "reimbursements." It's not like she was a broke single mom. She is very easily findable and she has a job that pays well in a low cost of living area. So, let's just call a spade a spade, she wanted to make money.

That being said, yeah, Cindy Bi is mentally ill and a nightmare of a human being.

+1

This was a financial transaction.

This. Bi is clearly mentally unstable, but let’s not pretend that the surrogate wasn’t in this for a paycheck.

It’s yet another area (similar to abortion) where I think the average upper middle class poster here simply doesn’t get how middle and working class people tend to think about things.

I mean…duh, right? Of course surrogates are doing it for the paycheck. And I hope they go in eyes wide open regarding the many physical things that can go wrong. Each pregnancy is a risk. That still doesn’t mean they should be victim to this kind of awful scenario. I don’t understand why people keep bringing up the paycheck aspect.

Because they want to believe that the money washes away the immorality and exploitation and buys a veneer of ethics.

DCUM posters are generally pro-surrogacy because they tend to be wealthy women who sympathize with the Cindy Bis of the world rather than the exploited, lower class surrogates. Posts on this topic are always fascinating because the same people who believe they are proper good Obama liberals become ruthless Ayn Randian capitalists when it comes to surrogacy, and they don’t seem to see the hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

This presumes that the surrogate even knows that these complications are a potential risk. These women generally are not medically savvy and are looking to earn money. This whole industry is predatory and should be outlawed. The only reason it hadn't been is because rich people reap the benefits.
Another interesting story is "Her Body, My Baby" which was in the NYT about 15 years ago. The woman wasn't overtly nuts like this one but there was still a big class differential that permeated the story.
I would carry a child for my sister or cousin who was unable to for free. I would not do it for some rich stranger who decided at 43 that she was ready to be a mother.

GCs aren't children in need of protection. They are adult women who are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to be a GC and under what circumstances.

Do you realize how many poor people would be willing to sell a kidney for $200k? After all, theyre adults who are perfectly capable of making that medical decision, right? But it's illegal because it's predatory. In this country the rich cannot buy body parts from the poor. Yet.
You are wishing away reality because it's convenient for you.