Meghan Trainor welcome third baby via surrogate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mikey Moon? What kind of horrid name is that?

Awful!!!!

I read somewhere her two sons (almost 6 and 2.5) picked the middle name Moon. She named her second son BARRY. WTF? This shouldn't be allowed. Even if he were named after someone named Barry they could have picked a better B name. Benjamin, Beau, Blake, Brian, Brody. I don't necessarily love some of those but they're all better than BARRY.

Maybe this is a trend though - Pete Davidson just named his daughter Scottie. Now a daughter named Mikey? Maybe it's a trend of naming girls cutesy versions of boys names?

[Anonymous]

These celebs are all vapid narcissists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who the F cares? She never pretended or denied that she used a surrogate. She said it was a decision made with her doctor. People are so weird.

NP. Commercial surrogacy should be disallowed, like nearly all other civilized nations have done. We stand alone in the world in permitting this atrocity.

Agree with this. Altruistic surrogacy is one thing but rent-a-womb is entirely another.

+ 100000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why hasn't she fixed that awful nose of hers?

She’s viscerally repulsive.

[Anonymous]

Mind your own business and your own brats OP. Live your own life...you sound miserable.

[Anonymous]

Bringing us one step closer to the handmaids tale. Because first you have to normalize and de stigmatize it.

[Anonymous]

Wait til y’all hear about the infant adoption industry. I’m a lot more comfortable with commercial surrogacy, which offers much stronger informed consent protocols, than often highly coercive infant adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to support surrogacy for a couple who already have two children.

It is hard to support surrogacy.

[Anonymous]

This should be illegal in the U.S., as it is all around the world. She's disgusting.

[Anonymous]

I understand the impulse to assume that most surrogates are poor women in desperate situations being exploited into making money. I certainly assumed that at one point. But I met two surrogates in my social circles who were college-educated, married moms who loved being pregnant and wanted to help a family. Obviously they wanted to be paid for their work, but they didn't come from the demographic background I assumed. They both said being surrogates felt completely different from being pregnant with their own children.

Research studies of U.S. surrogates also don't bear out the poor, desperate woman stereotype.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472648324004917

Half of surrogates half at least a bachelor's degree. Nearly all were employed. The vast majority lived in two-income households and had a household income above median. Only 10% of surrogates reported money being the primary motivation for becoming a surrogate.

I have a lot more concerns about the exploitation of parents placing infants for adoption than I do about the exploitation of surrogates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand the impulse to assume that most surrogates are poor women in desperate situations being exploited into making money. I certainly assumed that at one point. But I met two surrogates in my social circles who were college-educated, married moms who loved being pregnant and wanted to help a family. Obviously they wanted to be paid for their work, but they didn't come from the demographic background I assumed. They both said being surrogates felt completely different from being pregnant with their own children.

Research studies of U.S. surrogates also don't bear out the poor, desperate woman stereotype.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472648324004917

Half of surrogates half at least a bachelor's degree. Nearly all were employed. The vast majority lived in two-income households and had a household income above median. Only 10% of surrogates reported money being the primary motivation for becoming a surrogate.

I have a lot more concerns about the exploitation of parents placing infants for adoption than I do about the exploitation of surrogates.

I still hate surrogates because it takes away the ONE thing that levels us all as equals- the ability to have babies and turns it into a money making scheme. You can say that it is NEVER a level playing field for kids as clearly higher SES kids have more options given to them, but it isn’t quite the same. There is a difference between being able to MAKE a human in your body and molding/hot housing that baby during childhood. I don’t think the ability to MAKE a human should be commodified. I am totally pro-choice as far as abortions are concerned, but not with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the impulse to assume that most surrogates are poor women in desperate situations being exploited into making money. I certainly assumed that at one point. But I met two surrogates in my social circles who were college-educated, married moms who loved being pregnant and wanted to help a family. Obviously they wanted to be paid for their work, but they didn't come from the demographic background I assumed. They both said being surrogates felt completely different from being pregnant with their own children.

Research studies of U.S. surrogates also don't bear out the poor, desperate woman stereotype.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472648324004917

Half of surrogates half at least a bachelor's degree. Nearly all were employed. The vast majority lived in two-income households and had a household income above median. Only 10% of surrogates reported money being the primary motivation for becoming a surrogate.

I have a lot more concerns about the exploitation of parents placing infants for adoption than I do about the exploitation of surrogates.

I still hate surrogates because it takes away the ONE thing that levels us all as equals- the ability to have babies and turns it into a money making scheme. You can say that it is NEVER a level playing field for kids as clearly higher SES kids have more options given to them, but it isn’t quite the same. There is a difference between being able to MAKE a human in your body and molding/hot housing that baby during childhood. I don’t think the ability to MAKE a human should be commodified. I am totally pro-choice as far as abortions are concerned, but not with this.

We aren't all equal, as not everyone's bodies can carry a baby to term. A lot of people buy eggs or sperm to get pregnant, how is surrogacy different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess Meghan didn’t want to ruin her new plastic body (implants plus Ozempic). Congratulations! What a phony.

Plastic body with the same ugly face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the impulse to assume that most surrogates are poor women in desperate situations being exploited into making money. I certainly assumed that at one point. But I met two surrogates in my social circles who were college-educated, married moms who loved being pregnant and wanted to help a family. Obviously they wanted to be paid for their work, but they didn't come from the demographic background I assumed. They both said being surrogates felt completely different from being pregnant with their own children.

Research studies of U.S. surrogates also don't bear out the poor, desperate woman stereotype.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472648324004917

Half of surrogates half at least a bachelor's degree. Nearly all were employed. The vast majority lived in two-income households and had a household income above median. Only 10% of surrogates reported money being the primary motivation for becoming a surrogate.

I have a lot more concerns about the exploitation of parents placing infants for adoption than I do about the exploitation of surrogates.

I still hate surrogates because it takes away the ONE thing that levels us all as equals- the ability to have babies and turns it into a money making scheme. You can say that it is NEVER a level playing field for kids as clearly higher SES kids have more options given to them, but it isn’t quite the same. There is a difference between being able to MAKE a human in your body and molding/hot housing that baby during childhood. I don’t think the ability to MAKE a human should be commodified. I am totally pro-choice as far as abortions are concerned, but not with this.

Your take is essentially a religious one. Not everyone can make babies on their own. That’s why we have assistive reproductive technology. These technologies are expensive and many, if not most, people can’t access them. Surrogacy is one ART. You’ve decided to draw the line based on the baby growing in another woman’s body. That’s fine for you, but it’s not a line based on logic, and your purported logic doesn’t make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the impulse to assume that most surrogates are poor women in desperate situations being exploited into making money. I certainly assumed that at one point. But I met two surrogates in my social circles who were college-educated, married moms who loved being pregnant and wanted to help a family. Obviously they wanted to be paid for their work, but they didn't come from the demographic background I assumed. They both said being surrogates felt completely different from being pregnant with their own children.

Research studies of U.S. surrogates also don't bear out the poor, desperate woman stereotype.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472648324004917

Half of surrogates half at least a bachelor's degree. Nearly all were employed. The vast majority lived in two-income households and had a household income above median. Only 10% of surrogates reported money being the primary motivation for becoming a surrogate.

I have a lot more concerns about the exploitation of parents placing infants for adoption than I do about the exploitation of surrogates.

I still hate surrogates because it takes away the ONE thing that levels us all as equals- the ability to have babies and turns it into a money making scheme. You can say that it is NEVER a level playing field for kids as clearly higher SES kids have more options given to them, but it isn’t quite the same. There is a difference between being able to MAKE a human in your body and molding/hot housing that baby during childhood. I don’t think the ability to MAKE a human should be commodified. I am totally pro-choice as far as abortions are concerned, but not with this.

Are you opposed to infant adoption?