Chrissy Teigen welcomes baby #4!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweet Jesus, going from 2 to 4 kids in 6 months time will be hard, and children who are 5 months apart will be harder in some ways than twins. I guess things like this are doable if you’re rich. Congrats to them.

I have friends who couldn't decide which of them would carry their baby (lesbians, obvs) so they both got inseminated the same cycle, thinking they'd let fate make the call. They ended up both getting pregnant and giving birth one day apart. Seemed nuts to me (what if one or both deliveries went badly? You've got a postpartum mom taking care of 2 babies and another postpartum mom?), but it's been a decade and they made it through.

People make all kinds of choices that I wouldn't make, even when they're not rich.

Chef Cat Cora and her wife both were pregnant at the same time. We have lesbian friends who adopted a 5 month old while trying IVF. The biological child was born less than a year later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They most likely expected Chrissy to have another loss.

Im happy for them. I don’t envy the night duty right now. Glad they can afford extra hands.

As far as surrogacy, there are women that are happy to offer this service. Personally I would find it difficult, so I don’t.

Surrogacy is like going out on one of those fishing boats like on Deadliest Catch -- it's dangerous and difficult, but you can do it even if you don't have much education as long as you have the requisite experience, and you will get a nice payday. I do think it can potentially be quite exploitative because of the invasive nature of it -- wealthy parents who hire surrogates often want a very high level of control over the surrogate, controlling her diet, sleep patterns, everything. I've heard horror stories. I'm sure some surrogates find it rewarding and have good experiences, but it definitely skirts an ethical line I have mixed feelings about. Similar to prostitution -- some women are happy to offer that service to, but the potential for exploitation and abuse is so high.

I believe it's inherently exploitative and should be void against public policy with exceptions for immediate family/first degree relatives.

[Anonymous]

I legitimately believe she is mentally ill and has a sociopathic obsession with fame. She should go live a quiet life and seek professional help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This made my jaw drop a bit but I'm very happy for them. At least from my viewpoint, they appear to be a very loving family.

Who has a surrogate have a baby when they’re already pregnant with another? This feels like family manufacturing, not need.

She explained it quite nicely on her IG. She met the surrogate with John and they both immediately knew she was 'the one' and they became friends. Chrissy said she also had a moment of clarity and told John that she wanted to try 1 more time to carry on her own and if it ended badly, then so be it. They'd already been through the worst pain imaginable so she knew they could survive anything. They did 1 more round of IVF and she became pregnant with Esti who was born first. The surrogate was then implanted with this embryo months later, IMO, probably after she passed a point where she felt her pregnancy was going to be viable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They most likely expected Chrissy to have another loss.

Im happy for them. I don’t envy the night duty right now. Glad they can afford extra hands.

As far as surrogacy, there are women that are happy to offer this service. Personally I would find it difficult, so I don’t.

Surrogacy is like going out on one of those fishing boats like on Deadliest Catch -- it's dangerous and difficult, but you can do it even if you don't have much education as long as you have the requisite experience, and you will get a nice payday. I do think it can potentially be quite exploitative because of the invasive nature of it -- wealthy parents who hire surrogates often want a very high level of control over the surrogate, controlling her diet, sleep patterns, everything. I've heard horror stories. I'm sure some surrogates find it rewarding and have good experiences, but it definitely skirts an ethical line I have mixed feelings about. Similar to prostitution -- some women are happy to offer that service to, but the potential for exploitation and abuse is so high.

I believe it's inherently exploitative and should be void against public policy with exceptions for immediate family/first degree relatives.

I think this is a really elitist perspective to take. I think it should be legal and regulated to protect surrogates, but who are you to tell a woman how to risk her body? Every day thousands of guys get up on roofs to do roofing jobs, loggers go out and log, fisherman go out and fish. Top three deadliest professions right there. 861 pregnant women died in 2020, 108 roofers died in 2020. 3.6 million women gave birth in 2020, there are about 100,000 roofers in the US. So .000023% of pregnant women died and .001% of roofers died. Does hiring a roofer skirt an ethical line for you?

Why can men take on risky professions and have no one blink an eye but refuse to allow a woman to do it? And that maternal mortality statistic is just general population, one would assume that the rate among surrogates would be lower considering they need to meet a set of standards to be a surrogate (I would not be able to be a surrogate for example because I have a history of preeclampsia).

You deal with exploitation and abuse by bringing a profession into the light and regulating it, not by pushing it further into an under the table dark corner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweet Jesus, going from 2 to 4 kids in 6 months time will be hard, and children who are 5 months apart will be harder in some ways than twins. I guess things like this are doable if you’re rich. Congrats to them.

I have friends who couldn't decide which of them would carry their baby (lesbians, obvs) so they both got inseminated the same cycle, thinking they'd let fate make the call. They ended up both getting pregnant and giving birth one day apart. Seemed nuts to me (what if one or both deliveries went badly? You've got a postpartum mom taking care of 2 babies and another postpartum mom?), but it's been a decade and they made it through.

People make all kinds of choices that I wouldn't make, even when they're not rich.

Chef Cat Cora and her wife both were pregnant at the same time. We have lesbian friends who adopted a 5 month old while trying IVF. The biological child was born less than a year later.

This is super common with lesbians, tbh. I'm a lesbian and have several lesbian friends who have done this.

With my wife and I, I birth baby #1 and baby #2 and she birthed babies #3 & #4. We thought about doing #2 and #3 at the same time, but she was afraid it would be too much work and decided she'd be more comfortable waiting, so we did.

[Anonymous]

There are women who become surrogates because they can and because they do not want kids. They don't do it for the money.

I have a relative like this. She was the surrogate for a friend of hers. She has zero desire to ever have her own kids. She wasn't heavily monetarily compensated for her surrogacy. The couple covered the medical bills, I believe, and that was about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are women who become surrogates because they can and because they do not want kids. They don't do it for the money.

I have a relative like this. She was the surrogate for a friend of hers. She has zero desire to ever have her own kids. She wasn't heavily monetarily compensated for her surrogacy. The couple covered the medical bills, I believe, and that was about it.

This might work for being a surrogate for a friend or family member, but surrogacy agencies don't hire surrogates without proof of prior live birth.

[Anonymous]

We’re gonna have celebrity baby farms soon. Just wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re gonna have celebrity baby farms soon. Just wait.

You need to read this book

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They most likely expected Chrissy to have another loss.

Im happy for them. I don’t envy the night duty right now. Glad they can afford extra hands.

As far as surrogacy, there are women that are happy to offer this service. Personally I would find it difficult, so I don’t.

Surrogacy is like going out on one of those fishing boats like on Deadliest Catch -- it's dangerous and difficult, but you can do it even if you don't have much education as long as you have the requisite experience, and you will get a nice payday. I do think it can potentially be quite exploitative because of the invasive nature of it -- wealthy parents who hire surrogates often want a very high level of control over the surrogate, controlling her diet, sleep patterns, everything. I've heard horror stories. I'm sure some surrogates find it rewarding and have good experiences, but it definitely skirts an ethical line I have mixed feelings about. Similar to prostitution -- some women are happy to offer that service to, but the potential for exploitation and abuse is so high.

I believe it's inherently exploitative and should be void against public policy with exceptions for immediate family/first degree relatives.

I think this is a really elitist perspective to take. I think it should be legal and regulated to protect surrogates, but who are you to tell a woman how to risk her body? Every day thousands of guys get up on roofs to do roofing jobs, loggers go out and log, fisherman go out and fish. Top three deadliest professions right there. 861 pregnant women died in 2020, 108 roofers died in 2020. 3.6 million women gave birth in 2020, there are about 100,000 roofers in the US. So .000023% of pregnant women died and .001% of roofers died. Does hiring a roofer skirt an ethical line for you?

Why can men take on risky professions and have no one blink an eye but refuse to allow a woman to do it? And that maternal mortality statistic is just general population, one would assume that the rate among surrogates would be lower considering they need to meet a set of standards to be a surrogate (I would not be able to be a surrogate for example because I have a history of preeclampsia).

You deal with exploitation and abuse by bringing a profession into the light and regulating it, not by pushing it further into an under the table dark corner.

I understand that people may not agree with my perspective, but I don't understand the elitist accusation. I am sure that people without means would also (and in fact already do) sell their kidneys or other body parts, but we don't allow that in the US or other modern societies.

I understand the comparison to physically demanding labor, but I don't equate physically demanding labor to the rental of a part of your body/one of your organs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This made my jaw drop a bit but I'm very happy for them. At least from my viewpoint, they appear to be a very loving family.

Who has a surrogate have a baby when they’re already pregnant with another? This feels like family manufacturing, not need.

She explained it quite nicely on her IG. She met the surrogate with John and they both immediately knew she was 'the one' and they became friends. Chrissy said she also had a moment of clarity and told John that she wanted to try 1 more time to carry on her own and if it ended badly, then so be it. They'd already been through the worst pain imaginable so she knew they could survive anything. They did 1 more round of IVF and she became pregnant with Esti who was born first. The surrogate was then implanted with this embryo months later, IMO, probably after she passed a point where she felt her pregnancy was going to be viable.

That explanation doesn't make a lot of sense. She passed the point of viability in her own pregnancy and then decided to go ahead with the surrogacy? Why? If she was happy with trying 1 more time why did she double down with the surrogacy as well. Maybe it makes sense in her own warped mind but the explanation makes no sense as you described it. Why not just say "because I felt like it."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are women who become surrogates because they can and because they do not want kids. They don't do it for the money.

I have a relative like this. She was the surrogate for a friend of hers. She has zero desire to ever have her own kids. She wasn't heavily monetarily compensated for her surrogacy. The couple covered the medical bills, I believe, and that was about it.

Most people looking for a surrogate want someone who with a tested womb and has had kids before. The above is very rare and not desirable at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This made my jaw drop a bit but I'm very happy for them. At least from my viewpoint, they appear to be a very loving family.

Who has a surrogate have a baby when they’re already pregnant with another? This feels like family manufacturing, not need.

She explained it quite nicely on her IG. She met the surrogate with John and they both immediately knew she was 'the one' and they became friends. Chrissy said she also had a moment of clarity and told John that she wanted to try 1 more time to carry on her own and if it ended badly, then so be it. They'd already been through the worst pain imaginable so she knew they could survive anything. They did 1 more round of IVF and she became pregnant with Esti who was born first. The surrogate was then implanted with this embryo months later, IMO, probably after she passed a point where she felt her pregnancy was going to be viable.

That explanation doesn't make a lot of sense. She passed the point of viability in her own pregnancy and then decided to go ahead with the surrogacy? Why? If she was happy with trying 1 more time why did she double down with the surrogacy as well. Maybe it makes sense in her own warped mind but the explanation makes no sense as you described it. Why not just say "because I felt like it."

Because they wanted 4 kids, not 3. If you read the post instead of attacking people's summaries you might understand, but given the "warped mind" accusation it seems you just want to fling barbs at a celebrity you don't like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This made my jaw drop a bit but I'm very happy for them. At least from my viewpoint, they appear to be a very loving family.

Who has a surrogate have a baby when they’re already pregnant with another? This feels like family manufacturing, not need.

She explained it quite nicely on her IG. She met the surrogate with John and they both immediately knew she was 'the one' and they became friends. Chrissy said she also had a moment of clarity and told John that she wanted to try 1 more time to carry on her own and if it ended badly, then so be it. They'd already been through the worst pain imaginable so she knew they could survive anything. They did 1 more round of IVF and she became pregnant with Esti who was born first. The surrogate was then implanted with this embryo months later, IMO, probably after she passed a point where she felt her pregnancy was going to be viable.

That explanation doesn't make a lot of sense. She passed the point of viability in her own pregnancy and then decided to go ahead with the surrogacy? Why? If she was happy with trying 1 more time why did she double down with the surrogacy as well. Maybe it makes sense in her own warped mind but the explanation makes no sense as you described it. Why not just say "because I felt like it."

She said she'd always wanted 4 kids. I suppose technically she's always wanted 4 live kids since after the birth of Esti she and John had 4 kids.