Are rich & famous people using surrogates…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP, you still haven't answered this one: Are you the same OP of the "Dakota Johnson is wasting her fertility" thread recently? The language you use sure sounds like her. Whether you're her or not, you are intensely focused on strangers' perceived fertility and pregnancies. Do you have childbearing issues and you're projecting anger about that, onto these celebrities? I'm asking seriously and without sarcasm. I cannot imagine being this level of judgmental about this topic, and having such detailed knowledge of other people's surrogacy use (even that of celebrities who are public about it), without some kind of personal issue involving fertility. I'm genuinely sorry if you've had problems in this area but laser-like focus on, and judgment of, total strangers--however rich and famous and public they are -- seems like a gigantic case of projection that would only harm, not help, you.

OP here: I am not the Dakota Johnson poster. I have two kids.

Interesting. So if you're not "wasting her fertility" OP and you have been able to have kids yourself: Why so focused on other women's fertility and childbearing, when you can't know their real reasons for what they do or don't choose to do?

DP
Why are you attacking OP for making this thread? Clearly others are interested and chimed in. You seem very resentful and maybe ask yourself why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…because (1) they can’t get pregnant or (2) for the convenience factor (ie, do not want to slow down career or “ruin” their body)?

Personally, I find it very disturbing if an otherwise healthy & fertile woman who can physically have a baby without issue pays someone else to carry her fertilized egg. Renting other people’s bodies in the absence of a compelling health issue or physical inability to carry to term seems….highly problematic. Almost akin to buying someone’s organ for a transplant.

It feels like we are seeing a wave of surrogacy right now in Hollywood that is disproportionate to their actual numbers. Like, people are doing it because they can and there’s no real pushback.

The only people I know IRL using surrogates are gay male couples. And that’s a compelling reason, imho, because they can’t otherwise have a child.

So is the wave of surrogacy among the rich and famous due to need or convenience?

Gay men can adopt.

I know two gay couples who fostered to adopt.

Adoption is wonderful, and people who care for orphaned children are heroes.

Still, that's different from having a baby with genetic inheritance, which is a natural human need.

Gay men couples are no more obligated to adopt than straight couples are.

Other than celebrities, straight couples often go for adoption because they can't have their own. Its not a choice.

Gay couples make a choice that they can't have children in a way nature intended. Adoption is probably more acceptable for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…because (1) they can’t get pregnant or (2) for the convenience factor (ie, do not want to slow down career or “ruin” their body)?

Personally, I find it very disturbing if an otherwise healthy & fertile woman who can physically have a baby without issue pays someone else to carry her fertilized egg. Renting other people’s bodies in the absence of a compelling health issue or physical inability to carry to term seems….highly problematic. Almost akin to buying someone’s organ for a transplant.

It feels like we are seeing a wave of surrogacy right now in Hollywood that is disproportionate to their actual numbers. Like, people are doing it because they can and there’s no real pushback.

The only people I know IRL using surrogates are gay male couples. And that’s a compelling reason, imho, because they can’t otherwise have a child.

So is the wave of surrogacy among the rich and famous due to need or convenience?

Gay men can adopt.

I know two gay couples who fostered to adopt.

Adoption is wonderful, and people who care for orphaned children are heroes.

Still, that's different from having a baby with genetic inheritance, which is a natural human need.

Gay men couples are no more obligated to adopt than straight couples are.

Other than celebrities, straight couples often go for adoption because they can't have their own. Its not a choice.

Gay couples make a choice that they can't have children in a way nature intended. Adoption is probably more acceptable for them.

It’s MUCH harder for gay couples to adopt. A recent Supreme Court decision for example, upheld a state-funded adoption agency in Pennsylvania’s rights to refuse to consider gay couples (due to freedom of religion.)

It is my understanding that most gay couples do adopt and they do it internationally. Most gestational carriers help married straight couples, who cannot conceive. However, for some reason this seems to bother you as well.

Regarding straight married couples, the idea that all straight couples who cannot conceive should simply adopt is absurd. The waiting list are extreme. You have no idea what they may be going through.

Perhaps most importantly, who made you some sort of Judge? My guess is that you’re not a very kind person from what you’re saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does this matter to you now?
How on earth would commercial surrogacy ever be ethical enough to be just out of necessity?

Because it's modern slavery? It's disgusting. It's one step away from buying poor people's organs.

Paying someone to perform a service is not slavery.

NP but do you think prostitution should be legal? They are similar in terms of a woman renting out her body and taking on a dangerous health risk.

Of course prostitution should be legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…because (1) they can’t get pregnant or (2) for the convenience factor (ie, do not want to slow down career or “ruin” their body)?

Personally, I find it very disturbing if an otherwise healthy & fertile woman who can physically have a baby without issue pays someone else to carry her fertilized egg. Renting other people’s bodies in the absence of a compelling health issue or physical inability to carry to term seems….highly problematic. Almost akin to buying someone’s organ for a transplant.

It feels like we are seeing a wave of surrogacy right now in Hollywood that is disproportionate to their actual numbers. Like, people are doing it because they can and there’s no real pushback.

The only people I know IRL using surrogates are gay male couples. And that’s a compelling reason, imho, because they can’t otherwise have a child.

So is the wave of surrogacy among the rich and famous due to need or convenience?

Gay men can adopt.

I know two gay couples who fostered to adopt.

Adoption is wonderful, and people who care for orphaned children are heroes.

Still, that's different from having a baby with genetic inheritance, which is a natural human need.

Gay men couples are no more obligated to adopt than straight couples are.

Other than celebrities, straight couples often go for adoption because they can't have their own. Its not a choice.

Gay couples make a choice that they can't have children in a way nature intended. Adoption is probably more acceptable for them.

What are you trying to say, that adoption is "unacceptable" for some?!

[Anonymous]

Infertility treatments, pregnancy, labor, delivery, postpartum, breastfeeding, child raring are tough on physical and mental health. Women doesn't get appreciated, supported or compensated for it. Why not outsource it if you can?

In many countries wealthy sent their babies to be breastfed and raised by women who lived in countryside. Kids came back once old enough to live in boarding schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…because (1) they can’t get pregnant or (2) for the convenience factor (ie, do not want to slow down career or “ruin” their body)?

Personally, I find it very disturbing if an otherwise healthy & fertile woman who can physically have a baby without issue pays someone else to carry her fertilized egg. Renting other people’s bodies in the absence of a compelling health issue or physical inability to carry to term seems….highly problematic. Almost akin to buying someone’s organ for a transplant.

It feels like we are seeing a wave of surrogacy right now in Hollywood that is disproportionate to their actual numbers. Like, people are doing it because they can and there’s no real pushback.

The only people I know IRL using surrogates are gay male couples. And that’s a compelling reason, imho, because they can’t otherwise have a child.

So is the wave of surrogacy among the rich and famous due to need or convenience?

Gay men can adopt.

I know two gay couples who fostered to adopt.

Adoption is wonderful, and people who care for orphaned children are heroes.

Still, that's different from having a baby with genetic inheritance, which is a natural human need.

Gay men couples are no more obligated to adopt than straight couples are.

Well until 3-way frankenbabies are fully available, one of the gay partners is going to be left out of the genetic inheritance anyway. Not convinced they should be able to take advantage of a lower SES woman's desperation to create the perfect accessory.

Right, and people who aren't licensed qualified parents should be sterilized. Especially poor and disabled people who would need external help. And people with wrong views about religion and healthcare and education.
No one should use a baby as an accessory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…because (1) they can’t get pregnant or (2) for the convenience factor (ie, do not want to slow down career or “ruin” their body)?

Personally, I find it very disturbing if an otherwise healthy & fertile woman who can physically have a baby without issue pays someone else to carry her fertilized egg. Renting other people’s bodies in the absence of a compelling health issue or physical inability to carry to term seems….highly problematic. Almost akin to buying someone’s organ for a transplant.

It feels like we are seeing a wave of surrogacy right now in Hollywood that is disproportionate to their actual numbers. Like, people are doing it because they can and there’s no real pushback.

The only people I know IRL using surrogates are gay male couples. And that’s a compelling reason, imho, because they can’t otherwise have a child.

So is the wave of surrogacy among the rich and famous due to need or convenience?

Gay men can adopt.

I know two gay couples who fostered to adopt.

Adoption is wonderful, and people who care for orphaned children are heroes.

Still, that's different from having a baby with genetic inheritance, which is a natural human need.

Gay men couples are no more obligated to adopt than straight couples are.

I mean they kind of are. No uterus, no opinion.

Not your uterus, not your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…because (1) they can’t get pregnant or (2) for the convenience factor (ie, do not want to slow down career or “ruin” their body)?

Personally, I find it very disturbing if an otherwise healthy & fertile woman who can physically have a baby without issue pays someone else to carry her fertilized egg. Renting other people’s bodies in the absence of a compelling health issue or physical inability to carry to term seems….highly problematic. Almost akin to buying someone’s organ for a transplant.

It feels like we are seeing a wave of surrogacy right now in Hollywood that is disproportionate to their actual numbers. Like, people are doing it because they can and there’s no real pushback.

The only people I know IRL using surrogates are gay male couples. And that’s a compelling reason, imho, because they can’t otherwise have a child.

So is the wave of surrogacy among the rich and famous due to need or convenience?

Gay men can adopt.

I know two gay couples who fostered to adopt.

Adoption is wonderful, and people who care for orphaned children are heroes.

Still, that's different from having a baby with genetic inheritance, which is a natural human need.

Gay men couples are no more obligated to adopt than straight couples are.

Other than celebrities, straight couples often go for adoption because they can't have their own. Its not a choice.

Gay couples make a choice that they can't have children in a way nature intended. Adoption is probably more acceptable for them.

What are you trying to say, that adoption is "unacceptable" for some?!

Its is unacceptable for many, no matter heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual.

However, being marginalized themselves, gay folks may have more sympathy for marginalized group of orphans hence more likely to adopt ones who need parents instead of hiring women to artificially create babies for them.

[Anonymous]

I feel like these kind of judgmental thoughts are what lead many actresses and celebrities to fake pregnancies while using a surrogate. Or if they are their own gestational carrier to pose nude on the cover of some magazine, while pregnant to prove that they are in fact pregnant.

More recently over the past few years this practice has slowed down because it’s unnecessary; or for actresses who are 50+ who just don’t care what people like us to think anymore. And good for them.

It’s wild to me that DC urban moms can’t just be comfortable letting women have choices over their own bodies, including whether or not to be a surrogate.

By the way, so many celebrities adopt. Rest assured, surrogates are not preventing adoptions. It’s a tiny portion of births.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…because (1) they can’t get pregnant or (2) for the convenience factor (ie, do not want to slow down career or “ruin” their body)?

Personally, I find it very disturbing if an otherwise healthy & fertile woman who can physically have a baby without issue pays someone else to carry her fertilized egg. Renting other people’s bodies in the absence of a compelling health issue or physical inability to carry to term seems….highly problematic. Almost akin to buying someone’s organ for a transplant.

It feels like we are seeing a wave of surrogacy right now in Hollywood that is disproportionate to their actual numbers. Like, people are doing it because they can and there’s no real pushback.

The only people I know IRL using surrogates are gay male couples. And that’s a compelling reason, imho, because they can’t otherwise have a child.

So is the wave of surrogacy among the rich and famous due to need or convenience?

Gay men can adopt.

I know two gay couples who fostered to adopt.

Adoption is wonderful, and people who care for orphaned children are heroes.

Still, that's different from having a baby with genetic inheritance, which is a natural human need.

Gay men couples are no more obligated to adopt than straight couples are.

Other than celebrities, straight couples often go for adoption because they can't have their own. Its not a choice.

Gay couples make a choice that they can't have children in a way nature intended. Adoption is probably more acceptable for them.

It’s MUCH harder for gay couples to adopt. A recent Supreme Court decision for example, upheld a state-funded adoption agency in Pennsylvania’s rights to refuse to consider gay couples (due to freedom of religion.)

It is my understanding that most gay couples do adopt and they do it internationally. Most gestational carriers help married straight couples, who cannot conceive. However, for some reason this seems to bother you as well.

Regarding straight married couples, the idea that all straight couples who cannot conceive should simply adopt is absurd. The waiting list are extreme. You have no idea what they may be going through.

Perhaps most importantly, who made you some sort of Judge? My guess is that you’re not a very kind person from what you’re saying.

Just because someone is questioning some practice, doesn't necessarily means being unkind. You can also think of all human right activists unkind for questioning different practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like these kind of judgmental thoughts are what lead many actresses and celebrities to fake pregnancies while using a surrogate. Or if they are their own gestational carrier to pose nude on the cover of some magazine, while pregnant to prove that they are in fact pregnant.

More recently over the past few years this practice has slowed down because it’s unnecessary; or for actresses who are 50+ who just don’t care what people like us to think anymore. And good for them.

It’s wild to me that DC urban moms can’t just be comfortable letting women have choices over their own bodies, including whether or not to be a surrogate.

By the way, so many celebrities adopt. Rest assured, surrogates are not preventing adoptions. It’s a tiny portion of births.

Lots of poor people do things they don't want to do for money. Calling surrogacy a "choice" is over simplifiying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like these kind of judgmental thoughts are what lead many actresses and celebrities to fake pregnancies while using a surrogate. Or if they are their own gestational carrier to pose nude on the cover of some magazine, while pregnant to prove that they are in fact pregnant.

More recently over the past few years this practice has slowed down because it’s unnecessary; or for actresses who are 50+ who just don’t care what people like us to think anymore. And good for them.

It’s wild to me that DC urban moms can’t just be comfortable letting women have choices over their own bodies, including whether or not to be a surrogate.

By the way, so many celebrities adopt. Rest assured, surrogates are not preventing adoptions. It’s a tiny portion of births.

Lots of poor people do things they don't want to do for money. Calling surrogacy a "choice" is over simplifiying it.

Okay, Karen.

[Anonymous]

MYOB OP

[Anonymous]

For celebrity women, your career is usually over by 35 or 40 (used to be 30). So having kids before 30 or 40 can and probably will impact a woman’s career. Not because of the body issues but because the time to have a kid and most want to stay with the kid. Bringing them on set is fairly new and only the A-listers can demand they be on set.

Secondly, it’s very difficult to get pregnant after the age of 30. An article in the late 80’s/early 90’s came out stating you were more likely to get hit by lightning than to get pregnant.

Given the two factors above, I don’t blame celebs from using surrogates.

But it probably is more prevalent among the rice who are NOT famous.