An insane surrogacy story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why is this any of your business? You sound jealous.

Jealous? I was at the same school and was young, healthy and rich enough. Jealous of their weird pregnancies in their late 40s with their 60 year old husbands? Not really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I could say the same thing about the good "my body my choice" and "love makes a family" liberals who suddenly become traditionalist Catholics when a woman who they deem too old decides to grow her family in a non-traditional way.

I think it’s murky. There are plenty of jobs where people (usually men) accept hazard pay for really risky and dangerous work. And make that trade off willingly. I mean, you could argue that our whole labor based economy is exploitative. There is nuance to it and I don’t know if you can say surrogacy is inherently ok or not ok. But for sure it is not ok if the carrier does not have adequate pay, medical care, and legal protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this Cindy Bi lady is INSANE!! I almost posted this in the infertility forum, but I just knew they'd all be on her side.

You underestimate us. We’re the ones who have been fully engulfed in all the nuances between life and death, difficult questions, choices, consequences, goals in a way that I have found kind of doesn’t apply once you do have children, and the demands of regular daily life are front and center. I would also think this group would have far more compassion for the surrogate, as many of us would view her as an incredible person who is putting herself at risk to bring life into the world, on the behalf of people who yearn to create a family themselves. I guarantee the PP upthread who keeps deriding the surrogate as “just a woman who sold her body for money” is not someone who has struggled with infertility or posts on that board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why is this any of your business? You sound jealous.

Not the PP but this is a bizarre take. Nobody is jealous of anyone who uses a surrogate. Why would they be? You are essentially advertising that you prioritize your ego over the welfare of your child. Even in the Bay Area, people look down on surrogacy.

[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.

+1 Of course. How would the average person know these risks are elevated for gestational carriers? I thought the article was super informative in that regard. There was an agency involved in this transaction. It was clear from pretty early on that the intended parent was unhinged and posting all sorts of information about the gestational carrier's private life and job history with all sorts of identifying information on chat groups with thousands of people. The gestational carrier gently complained after a few weeks, and the agency did nothing on that blatant violation of the gestational carrier agreement. I guess the agency just exists to protect the person paying for a baby, not the person putting her body and life on the line to carry the baby.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I could say the same thing about the good "my body my choice" and "love makes a family" liberals who suddenly become traditionalist Catholics when a woman who they deem too old decides to grow her family in a non-traditional way.

What a load of arrant nonsense.

I will grant you that there are probably similarities between advocates of surrogacy and people who believe abortion should be fully available and legal the day before a baby is born. In both cases, there is a psychopathic lack of concern for the baby. But beyond that, your analogy is absurd.

[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.

+1 Of course. How would the average person know these risks are elevated for gestational carriers? I thought the article was super informative in that regard. There was an agency involved in this transaction. It was clear from pretty early on that the intended parent was unhinged and posting all sorts of information about the gestational carrier's private life and job history with all sorts of identifying information on chat groups with thousands of people. The gestational carrier gently complained after a few weeks, and the agency did nothing on that blatant violation of the gestational carrier agreement. I guess the agency just exists to protect the person paying for a baby, not the person putting her body and life on the line to carry the baby.

The agencies only care about their paying customers. They do not care at all about the baby or the surrogates.

[Anonymous]

I missed some of the responses in the middle pages of this thread, but did anyone notice how much the Doctor really validated and egged on everything Bi was writing to her? Saying things along the lines of “Totally - the agency is just saying that to try to get you to back down” etc. It’s in the exhibits to the suit. I was a big fan of her YouTube videos when learning about the IUI and IVF processes but this is not a good look for her. She did mostly cover her a** I think.

But also WARNING - the unedited photo of baby Leon is on the very last page of one of the files. It’s included feet first so you have some warning. It’s heartbreaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I missed some of the responses in the middle pages of this thread, but did anyone notice how much the Doctor really validated and egged on everything Bi was writing to her? Saying things along the lines of “Totally - the agency is just saying that to try to get you to back down” etc. It’s in the exhibits to the suit. I was a big fan of her YouTube videos when learning about the IUI and IVF processes but this is not a good look for her. She did mostly cover her a** I think.

But also WARNING - the unedited photo of baby Leon is on the very last page of one of the files. It’s included feet first so you have some warning. It’s heartbreaking.

Yes, I noticed. That’s what happens when you want to please a paying customer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I missed some of the responses in the middle pages of this thread, but did anyone notice how much the Doctor really validated and egged on everything Bi was writing to her? Saying things along the lines of “Totally - the agency is just saying that to try to get you to back down” etc. It’s in the exhibits to the suit. I was a big fan of her YouTube videos when learning about the IUI and IVF processes but this is not a good look for her. She did mostly cover her a** I think.

But also WARNING - the unedited photo of baby Leon is on the very last page of one of the files. It’s included feet first so you have some warning. It’s heartbreaking.

Yeah. And I assume that's the photo Bi sent to the surrogate's 7 year old child. What kind of monster are you to do something like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP who mentioned abortion. See, this is where I saw the hypocrisy of the left. Women should have autonomy over their bodies - whether to abort an embryo/fetus and whether to be a surrogate. Stop infantilizing women. We are perfectly capable of making decisions about our bodies and lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this Cindy Bi lady is INSANE!! I almost posted this in the infertility forum, but I just knew they'd all be on her side.

You underestimate us. We’re the ones who have been fully engulfed in all the nuances between life and death, difficult questions, choices, consequences, goals in a way that I have found kind of doesn’t apply once you do have children, and the demands of regular daily life are front and center. I would also think this group would have far more compassion for the surrogate, as many of us would view her as an incredible person who is putting herself at risk to bring life into the world, on the behalf of people who yearn to create a family themselves. I guarantee the PP upthread who keeps deriding the surrogate as “just a woman who sold her body for money” is not someone who has struggled with infertility or posts on that board.

Well said. I did not think the jab at infertility was remotely fair or accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this Cindy Bi lady is INSANE!! I almost posted this in the infertility forum, but I just knew they'd all be on her side.

You underestimate us. We’re the ones who have been fully engulfed in all the nuances between life and death, difficult questions, choices, consequences, goals in a way that I have found kind of doesn’t apply once you do have children, and the demands of regular daily life are front and center. I would also think this group would have far more compassion for the surrogate, as many of us would view her as an incredible person who is putting herself at risk to bring life into the world, on the behalf of people who yearn to create a family themselves. I guarantee the PP upthread who keeps deriding the surrogate as “just a woman who sold her body for money” is not someone who has struggled with infertility or posts on that board.

You misunderstand me. I don't think she is selling her body for money. I think she is an adult women with full agency who made an intelligent and knowing choice to enter into the surrogacy agreement that she felt was in her best interest. I think she is entitled to make that decision and that it should not be scrutinized by the ninnies on here.

[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.

This line reeks of disdain for women who are mothers later in life. See the PP's remark about becoming trad Caths when an older woman has children a non-traditional way. Do you think we were all supposed to meet The One at 25 and be done with kids by 30?