An insane surrogacy story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, I don’t think most American surrogates are poor. They are usually women who had easy pregnancies and births and see it as nbd to do another one, help a family and make money in the process. A win win for everyone involved — that is, until something goes wrong. I only point this out because everyone seems to be equating “surrogate” with “poor person.”

And let’s also remember that gay men use surrogates too and it works well for a lot of families who have no other way of having biological kids. I would hate to think a loving gay couple couldn’t work with a surrogate and have a bio kid, with the right protection in place for both sides of the agreement.

The bolded seems right. I don't think it's very well advertised how much riskier a surrogate pregnancy is then your own. I consider myself reasonably well informed and I didn't know that. I know surrogates are generally supposed to be women who have already successfully given birth, so I guess they imagine it will be just as safe. I had no idea that the genetic parents' medical history can play a part, and that it isn't disclosed to the surrogate. The article is a huge eye opener in that regard. Apparently the surrogate needs to have STD testing and disclose relevant medical history to the intended parents but the intended parents don't have to disclose anything.

As far gay couples, that type of relationship just doesn't produce natural children. That's just a biological reality they have to accept. It shouldn't play a part in whether people can rent womens' bodies as an incubator.

No, of course not, but it is an example of who will be impacted if we just throw out the idea of surrogacy altogether vs. fix the process.

I mean, should logging be illegal? Tuna fishing? Police and fire fighting? There are plenty of jobs done for money that are as risky as or riskier than being a surrogate

It depends whether those jobs are necessary for society to run. Police and firefighters are clearly necessary. For things like logging and fishing, efforts should be made to make them as safe as possible or use technology to limit them. Surrogacy is absolutely unnecessary.

No it doesn’t, and you’re not the judge of what’s “necessary” anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, I don’t think most American surrogates are poor. They are usually women who had easy pregnancies and births and see it as nbd to do another one, help a family and make money in the process. A win win for everyone involved — that is, until something goes wrong. I only point this out because everyone seems to be equating “surrogate” with “poor person.”

And let’s also remember that gay men use surrogates too and it works well for a lot of families who have no other way of having biological kids. I would hate to think a loving gay couple couldn’t work with a surrogate and have a bio kid, with the right protection in place for both sides of the agreement.

The bolded seems right. I don't think it's very well advertised how much riskier a surrogate pregnancy is then your own. I consider myself reasonably well informed and I didn't know that. I know surrogates are generally supposed to be women who have already successfully given birth, so I guess they imagine it will be just as safe. I had no idea that the genetic parents' medical history can play a part, and that it isn't disclosed to the surrogate. The article is a huge eye opener in that regard. Apparently the surrogate needs to have STD testing and disclose relevant medical history to the intended parents but the intended parents don't have to disclose anything.

As far gay couples, that type of relationship just doesn't produce natural children. That's just a biological reality they have to accept. It shouldn't play a part in whether people can rent womens' bodies as an incubator.

No, of course not, but it is an example of who will be impacted if we just throw out the idea of surrogacy altogether vs. fix the process.

I mean, should logging be illegal? Tuna fishing? Police and fire fighting? There are plenty of jobs done for money that are as risky as or riskier than being a surrogate

It depends whether those jobs are necessary for society to run. Police and firefighters are clearly necessary. For things like logging and fishing, efforts should be made to make them as safe as possible or use technology to limit them. Surrogacy is absolutely unnecessary.

No it doesn’t, and you’re not the judge of what’s “necessary” anyway

And you aren’t either. That’s the job of representatives that are elected, who are increasingly hearing about concerns about surrogacy from various corners.

Will it be banned tomorrow? Probably not. But commercial surrogacy is probably going to be much more tightly regulated in the future, as it should be.

[Anonymous]

Stop trying to make fetch happen.

[Anonymous]

That’s odd, I was not able to access the website just now. It says “Coming Soon”.
Is it just me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s odd, I was not able to access the website just now. It says “Coming Soon”.
Is it just me?

Whoa, I was on there earlier reading the complaint. Crazy b must have deleted it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, I don’t think most American surrogates are poor. They are usually women who had easy pregnancies and births and see it as nbd to do another one, help a family and make money in the process. A win win for everyone involved — that is, until something goes wrong. I only point this out because everyone seems to be equating “surrogate” with “poor person.”

And let’s also remember that gay men use surrogates too and it works well for a lot of families who have no other way of having biological kids. I would hate to think a loving gay couple couldn’t work with a surrogate and have a bio kid, with the right protection in place for both sides of the agreement.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to whitewash the exploitation of women through surrogacy, which is otherwise recognized worldwide. You are telling yourself a myth, not unlike the myth of the saintly relinquishing mother in adoptive circles. Doesn’t it bother you even the slightest that the country with the worst maternal health outcomes is also literally the only one that permits commercial surrogacy? Do you consider yourself otherwise in favor of women’s health and safety? Doesn’t it bother you at all that this is seen as explicit exploitation globally?

As for gay men, well that is just business as as usual: when the desires of men conflict with the health and wellbeing of women, men prevail. Men being gay doesn’t give them a free pass to exploit women.

Surrogacy isn’t going anywhere in the US. Your perspective is irrelevant.

Don’t be so sure about that. As more stories like this and others emerge, support will drop. It already is dropping.

The other voices that are starting to rise are those of the children born of surrogacy. Like adoption before it, those born of surrogacy are reaching adulthood and are starting to understand just what happened for them to exist. And many of them are angry and horrified. It is very similar to what happened with the history of exploitative adoption in this country. It was the children who eventually organized and forced legislative changes. They are organizing now.

I think it is going to be eventually highly restricted here. Probably not outright banned, but possibly. And, that’s the right outcome.

Maybe. But to me it sounds like a whole bunch of jealousy by women who feel threatened.

NP. What do you think people feel jealous or threatened by exactly? The faulty moral compass that you must possess in order to rent another womb out of vanity? Or your infertility?

People like you have lost social currency. Your fertility doesn’t make you special anymore. Everyone can have a child now, regardless of biology.

Surrogacy gives women the ability to be more selective about their choice of partner, to invest more heavily in their careers, and to avoid some of the physical consequences of pregnancy. I’m sorry that you had to settle for a second rate man and a mommy track career because you bought into the fertility lie. We’re doing things different now.

LOL! This says so much more about you than it does about whatever nonexistent person you think is jealous/threatened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s odd, I was not able to access the website just now. It says “Coming Soon”.
Is it just me?

I can access it.

[Anonymous]

For those of you who think there is absolutely nothing wrong with surrogacy, the UN commissioned an extensive investigation into surrogacy and the report which is just out recommends a full ban on all forms of surrogacy.

https://www.bmj.com/content/390/bmj.r1850

The UN’s special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem al Salem, called for a ban on the grounds of the “exploitation and violence against women and girls” that characterises surrogacy arrangements, as well as health risks to the mother and baby.

Al Salem will present the report to the UN General Assembly in October 2025. It will call for the 193 UN member states to “take steps towards eradicating surrogacy in all its forms.” Pending its abolition, states should adopt a legal and policy framework for surrogacy that is modelled on the Nordic model for prostitution and includes penalties for commissioning parents and surrogacy agencies alongside decriminalisation and exit support strategies for surrogate mothers.

The report cites higher rates of caesarean section, gestational diabetes, hypertension, preeclampsia, and placenta previa in surrogate births, and lower birth weights and mean gestational ages of babies at delivery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s odd, I was not able to access the website just now. It says “Coming Soon”.
Is it just me?

I can access it.

Do you just see "Coming Soon?" Early today there were was a timeline with links to the complaint and other records. That seems to be gone now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s odd, I was not able to access the website just now. It says “Coming Soon”.
Is it just me?

I can access it.

Do you just see "Coming Soon?" Early today there were was a timeline with links to the complaint and other records. That seems to be gone now.

Same here. I had the complaint pulled up, but when I tried to access the full website again, I get a page with
“In memory of” with an overlay that says “coming soon” “
“lies do NOT LIKE BEING QUESTIONED, TRUTH PRevails.”

I am accessing from my iPhone. If that makes a difference.

[Anonymous]

You can still access the lawsuit from the baby’s FB page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can still access the lawsuit from the baby’s FB page.

Maybe my gummy is kicking in but this dead baby has a Facebook page? What that says about us as a people is blowing my mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can still access the lawsuit from the baby’s FB page.

Maybe my gummy is kicking in but this dead baby has a Facebook page? What that says about us as a people is blowing my mind.

Yes there is a link at the bottom of the “coming soon” page. So sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kind of weird to think that a cash-strapped stranger you know nothing about is a better person to carry your child than you are.

Yeah it’s almost like people would have a reason or something.

Crazy lady in the article had no reason apart from her own vanity and narcissism.

The article says Cindy Bi is bipolar and takes meds that are not recommended during pregnancy. She was also in her 40s so she looked for a gestational carrier

[Anonymous]

Long Reddit thread here that’s interesting because of all the screenshots Reddit unearthed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1n9jall/cindy_bi_a_venture_capitalist_hired_a_surrogate/