An insane surrogacy story

[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.

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?

Old moms always try to go to extremes and say it's either your 20s or your 40s. Many women have babies in their 30s and it is a lot easier/safer than in your 40s. Biology does not change based on your cultural/political beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of Course not. Since time immemorial we have been dealing with this. If a working class woman marries late in life does she get to borrow another woman's uterus? Maybe she dreams of a baby too.
But that's only an option for you important people with the money to pay.

Rich people have more options in virtually every aspect of life. That doesn't make surrogacy wrong.

We’re not talking about whether surrogacy is wrong. We’re talking about ways to protect the gestational carrier during the process given that all the money and power is typically in the hands of the intended parent.

What power, exactly?

Read the article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of Course not. Since time immemorial we have been dealing with this. If a working class woman marries late in life does she get to borrow another woman's uterus? Maybe she dreams of a baby too.
But that's only an option for you important people with the money to pay.

Rich people have more options in virtually every aspect of life. That doesn't make surrogacy wrong.

We’re not talking about whether surrogacy is wrong. We’re talking about ways to protect the gestational carrier during the process given that all the money and power is typically in the hands of the intended parent.

What power, exactly?

Read the article

That’s a non-answer. GCs have an incredible amount of power. They are not exploited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the same person keep posting surrogacy articles? What a weird obsession.

Weird obsession? It's modern day slavery and also literal child trafficking. It's immoral, disgusting and should be illegal.

By that token so should fertility treatments and IVF. If you can't naturally have a baby, you are S out of luck.

Opting to go through treatments to have your own baby is different that contracting someone else to go through those same discomforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where are the legal filings?

They are on the website the intended parent created. Just google baby [name of the kid] dot org

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of Course not. Since time immemorial we have been dealing with this. If a working class woman marries late in life does she get to borrow another woman's uterus? Maybe she dreams of a baby too.
But that's only an option for you important people with the money to pay.

Rich people have more options in virtually every aspect of life. That doesn't make surrogacy wrong.

We’re not talking about whether surrogacy is wrong. We’re talking about ways to protect the gestational carrier during the process given that all the money and power is typically in the hands of the intended parent.

What power, exactly?

Read the article

That’s a non-answer. GCs have an incredible amount of power. They are not exploited.

Ridiculous take, especially in the light of this article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of Course not. Since time immemorial we have been dealing with this. If a working class woman marries late in life does she get to borrow another woman's uterus? Maybe she dreams of a baby too.
But that's only an option for you important people with the money to pay.

Rich people have more options in virtually every aspect of life. That doesn't make surrogacy wrong.

Should you be able to pay to get your name moved to the top of the list when you need an organ transplant?

Do you really think Steve Jobs waited as long as Joe Schmoe for his liver transplant?

Ah. So people who support surrogacy also support creation of an unregulated market for organ purchasing from poor people.

I mean, at least you people are consistent in your lack of ethics and morality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of Course not. Since time immemorial we have been dealing with this. If a working class woman marries late in life does she get to borrow another woman's uterus? Maybe she dreams of a baby too.
But that's only an option for you important people with the money to pay.

Rich people have more options in virtually every aspect of life. That doesn't make surrogacy wrong.

We’re not talking about whether surrogacy is wrong. We’re talking about ways to protect the gestational carrier during the process given that all the money and power is typically in the hands of the intended parent.

What power, exactly?

Read the article

That’s a non-answer. GCs have an incredible amount of power. They are not exploited.

In other words, you did not really have a question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where are the legal filings?

They are on the website the intended parent created. Just google baby [name of the kid] dot org

Thanks. OMG, what a nutter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Of Course not. Since time immemorial we have been dealing with this. If a working class woman marries late in life does she get to borrow another woman's uterus? Maybe she dreams of a baby too.
But that's only an option for you important people with the money to pay.

Rich people have more options in virtually every aspect of life. That doesn't make surrogacy wrong.

Child labor, slave labor, and indentured servitude is also available to rich people. That doesn’t make any of those right.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the surrogate puts up a go fundme to get some legal representation to sue the pants off this vindictive psycho. I’m not a lawyer but harassment and defamation has definitely been done

I belong to several moms online groups and everyone wants to contribute. This is crazy abuse by a crazy person and the surrogate doesn't deserve one bit of this no matter how you feel about surrogacy.

Well, the article references how many surrogacy boards for IPs supported Bi, including in her harassment campaign, so I don’t think your sentiment is universal among parents who use surrogates.

Well it seems as if Bi only told her side of the story which was full of her paranoid assumptions and outright lies. What do you expect? I would hope that many of those people who supported Bi read the extensive article and realized she’s a predator.

Both parties signed an agreement with various confidentiality provisions. But Bi broke it within weeks and no one stood up for the GC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope the surrogate puts up a go fundme to get some legal representation to sue the pants off this vindictive psycho. I’m not a lawyer but harassment and defamation has definitely been done

I belong to several moms online groups and everyone wants to contribute. This is crazy abuse by a crazy person and the surrogate doesn't deserve one bit of this no matter how you feel about surrogacy.

Well, the article references how many surrogacy boards for IPs supported Bi, including in her harassment campaign, so I don’t think your sentiment is universal among parents who use surrogates.

Well it seems as if Bi only told her side of the story which was full of her paranoid assumptions and outright lies. What do you expect? I would hope that many of those people who supported Bi read the extensive article and realized she’s a predator.

Both parties signed an agreement with various confidentiality provisions. But Bi broke it within weeks and no one stood up for the GC.

GC didn't object.

Plus, confidentiality provisions exist to protect the IPs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's an article about power imbalance and the cruelty and suffering that the rich can impose on those who have less.

My heart goes out to the surrogate.

There’s certainly the power imbalance in that Bi has legal resources that the surrogate doesn’t have. Bi is clearly not mentally well and is abusing the legal process to harass this surrogate in a way only the rich can do.

But, I don’t feel sorry for the surrogate. She held allll the power when it came to that baby’s health. She decided to leave the hospital against medical advice. She decided not to tell the parents about the vaginal bleeding. She decided not to follow the doctor’s suggestion for follow up when her amniotic fluid got too low. She ignored the fact that fetal movement had stopped.

She also falsified reimbursements on childcare and house cleaners. She saw an opportunity to steal from the rich and she took it.

I don’t know if Bi can prove it, but it does seem most likely that the surrogate was partying at her DJ boyfriend’s New Year’s Eve rave and given the timeline, might have contributed to the prenatal problems.

The surrogate sounds like white trash, right down to the trope of a single mom with a biracial kid who has unfettered access (at age 7!) to an iPad with zero parental controls - thereby opening the door for a mentally unstable woman to text the child a picture of a dead baby.

Both of these women are problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an article about power imbalance and the cruelty and suffering that the rich can impose on those who have less.

My heart goes out to the surrogate.

There’s certainly the power imbalance in that Bi has legal resources that the surrogate doesn’t have. Bi is clearly not mentally well and is abusing the legal process to harass this surrogate in a way only the rich can do.

But, I don’t feel sorry for the surrogate. She held allll the power when it came to that baby’s health. She decided to leave the hospital against medical advice. She decided not to tell the parents about the vaginal bleeding. She decided not to follow the doctor’s suggestion for follow up when her amniotic fluid got too low. She ignored the fact that fetal movement had stopped.

She also falsified reimbursements on childcare and house cleaners. She saw an opportunity to steal from the rich and she took it.

I don’t know if Bi can prove it, but it does seem most likely that the surrogate was partying at her DJ boyfriend’s New Year’s Eve rave and given the timeline, might have contributed to the prenatal problems.

The surrogate sounds like white trash, right down to the trope of a single mom with a biracial kid who has unfettered access (at age 7!) to an iPad with zero parental controls - thereby opening the door for a mentally unstable woman to text the child a picture of a dead baby.

Both of these women are problems.

Are you Bi's publicist? This is so much nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the same person keep posting surrogacy articles? What a weird obsession.

Weird obsession? It's modern day slavery and also literal child trafficking. It's immoral, disgusting and should be illegal.

It’s not modern day slavery. Words have meaning and critical thinking is clear. Please google “what is modern day slavery” and come back and explain how surrogacy qualifies as “slavery.”

Starting with the basic fact that anyone can refuse to be a surrogate. Do ya think Africans were given the same options as they boarded the boats to America?!
Maybe I don’t understand what “modern day slavery” is?