It’s convenient. They don’t want to deal with a pregnant body for 10 months and everything the at comes with it. They don’t want to give birth or deal with recovery. They just want a baby and so they buy a womb and get a baby. I think the majority of celebrities use surrogates.

I am more concerned about the women who agree to do it. Having a baby for money seems
like a character flaw. I don’t know if I’d be able to trust someone like that to care for my child during pregnancy. I’d want to monitor everything but then that feels inhumane, this person is just a vessel that I’m paying to fulfill my need.

Anonymous wrote:I find this so gross unless there are fertility issues.

+1. I think it should be void as against public policy. An inherently exploitative practice for both the surrogate and the child.

They don’t want to ruin their bodies.

Anonymous wrote:I find this so gross unless there are fertility issues.

There could also be trauma issues or other health factors. It’s not your choice. That’s ok.

I’m not sure it matters unless surrogate is being forced.

I think some celebrities like Kim Kardashian truly had health issues which made carrying a baby dangerous for their health.

Then others like Paris Hilton probably used a surrogate so that her beautiful figure would not be affected.

She is so filthy rich that she is probably wired to throw money at anything.

She has given lame excuses why she didn’t carry any of her children thus using a surrogate from blaming her bad childhood to worrying about negative press comments.

If I were her (and healthy enough to carry my own child!), I would have done so because if one can experience the joys of being pregnant, 🫄 it is an experience that stays w/you forever.

But if it is easier for her to hire a surrogate to help her then that is a personal decision for her.

It’s exchanging money to use a woman’s womb. It should be illegal.

Curious, those of you who are against it, how do you feel about gay men using the process to get a child?

I find this so gross unless there are fertility issues.

They pay and it's been going on a long time. A woman I worked with had a friend who was a surrogate for a well-known soap opera actress. This was over 30 years ago. The surrogate had two kids for her.

I think it's very common among celebrities and anyone who can afford it.

Anonymous wrote:It’s been a trend for rich people in NYC. It’s another form of outsourcing.

People who rely on their appearance for work are probably expected to outsource in this way by the people who sign the paychecks.

Like a sci-fi movie.

It’s been a trend for rich people in NYC. It’s another form of outsourcing.

People who rely on their appearance for work are probably expected to outsource in this way by the people who sign the paychecks.

They are definitely paid. From a legal perspective you want to have an air tight surrogacy contracts that includes fair compensation because it reduces the odds of any kind of parental right claim. A surrogate volunteering to carry baby for a celebrity would be viewed as a potential liability.

I think some do it because they have fertility issues and some do it because they want to be able to have a baby without taking the career hit that can come from a pregnancy and recovery. Actresses at certain stages of their careers may worry that they would lose momentum and lose out on jobs if they go pregnant at certain times.

But since surrogates are much more common with older celebrities I would guess that fertility is a factor a lot of the time. Or maybe fear for their own health -- I think sometimes women choose surrogates if they have a condition that can make pregnancy more dangerous.

Do they have infertility issues or just don't want to deal with pregnancy,labor and postpartum issues? Do they pay these surrogates or recruit volunteers?