Anonymous wrote:I think it's false to assume that celeb women are immune from fertility issues. Think about your small friend group and how many of them have issues. I know in my close group of 6 friends, 4 had struggles getting pregnant.

My niece was married last year and is constantly getting the "when are you gonna have a kid???" comments at family functions. Little do most know that she has a severe case of endometriosis, a bicornuate uterus, & lost an ovary a few years ago, so her chances of conception are very low. These are not things she wishes to share with random family members who aren't close to her or who she just sees casually. So she just smiles and says "soon, hopefully!" but she and her husband have been trying. They're currently saving up for fertility treatments, too.

Everyone would view her as very healthy from her outward appearance. If she used a surrogate or adopted, people would surely think "oh, she didn't want to ruin her cute figure" or derail her career or something. That's a terrible mindset to have and very ableist.

Anonymous wrote:
I recently listened to the Unexpecting podcast by figure skater Tara Lipinski and her husband Todd.

They went through a 5-year journey of infertility. They tried everything possible to be able to have a baby.

They eventually were able to have a baby (their own biological child) thanks to surrogacy. The surrogate seemed like a lovely person who just wanted to help a couple that was experiencing infertility.

And the ob/gyn doctor who performed the transfer confirmed that their medical practice will never use a surrogate for any reason other than medical necessity.

So I have become very sympathetic to surrogacy after listening to that podcast, because the surrogate made parenthood a possibility for this couple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chrissy Tiegen did it because she was worried she would have another late term loss. Priyanka Chopra did it because she was worried she was too old to carry to term.

Did Chrissy use a surrogate for both the babies she got in the last 6 months?

No, she was always pregnant when her surrogate also got pregnant. That’s what’s so weird and icky about it.

So her story that she went surrogate because she was worried about not carrying the baby to term was yet another lie?

I don't think so. I was borderline horrified she even attempted to carry again after her last experience. I couldn't believe someone with her means and terrible fertility track record would even consider giving it another go around and not just get a surrogate. I'm a plebe and I think I would have also looked into surrogacy after her 10+ year journey. She got REALLY lucky but I'm pretty sure was either going against medical advice or was ok enough with another stillborn trauma because she wanted to try. I can't imagine anyone with her history of miscarriages and stillbirths would NOT be worried about carrying to term.

I don't even like her, but I don't think she is lying here.

I thought she just had that one stillborn that she later called an abortion. Did she have a lot of losses?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chrissy Tiegen did it because she was worried she would have another late term loss. Priyanka Chopra did it because she was worried she was too old to carry to term.

Did Chrissy use a surrogate for both the babies she got in the last 6 months?

No, she was always pregnant when her surrogate also got pregnant. That’s what’s so weird and icky about it.

So her story that she went surrogate because she was worried about not carrying the baby to term was yet another lie?

I don't think so. I was borderline horrified she even attempted to carry again after her last experience. I couldn't believe someone with her means and terrible fertility track record would even consider giving it another go around and not just get a surrogate. I'm a plebe and I think I would have also looked into surrogacy after her 10+ year journey. She got REALLY lucky but I'm pretty sure was either going against medical advice or was ok enough with another stillborn trauma because she wanted to try. I can't imagine anyone with her history of miscarriages and stillbirths would NOT be worried about carrying to term.

I don't even like her, but I don't think she is lying here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chrissy Tiegen did it because she was worried she would have another late term loss. Priyanka Chopra did it because she was worried she was too old to carry to term.

Did Chrissy use a surrogate for both the babies she got in the last 6 months?

No, she was always pregnant when her surrogate also got pregnant. That’s what’s so weird and icky about it.

So her story that she went surrogate because she was worried about not carrying the baby to term was yet another lie?

Anonymous wrote:My friend used a surrogate and she was a white nurse, married to a guy who had some other kind of middle class job. Where are you all getting that surrogates are poor and of color?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chrissy Tiegen did it because she was worried she would have another late term loss. Priyanka Chopra did it because she was worried she was too old to carry to term.

Did Chrissy use a surrogate for both the babies she got in the last 6 months?

No, she was always pregnant when her surrogate also got pregnant. That’s what’s so weird and icky about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is paid surrogacy any different than buying kidneys or blood?

It isn’t. We don’t allow people to sell organs or engage in prostitution but we allow them to rent out their wombs? It really doesn’t make sense.

+1, I think the main reason surrogacy is viewed more favorably in the US as opposed to other countries is the way the evangelical movement in the US has convo fed Americans that there is nothing more important than procreating. Also explains hypocrisy in the US regarding abortion and IVF.

I mostly agree. I think it's interesting that so many surrogates are evangelical or otherwise highly Christian and religious. People here are talking about exploitation, which is always a possibility, but what I've seen from US surrogates is that they tend to be married, financially stable people who view surrogacy as a higher (religious?) calling. Many of them have a LOT of kids and are not concerned about pregnancy complications; they popped out 5 of their own on the kitchen floor, what could go wrong? They're not doing it for the bucks and they don't feel the least bit exploited. They feel like they're helping God create families. As an atheist, I don't get it, but yeah I feel more favorably towards those women and surrogacy in the US than I do poor women in Indian baby farms doing it so they can put food on the table.

That’s true for the 2 women I know who have been surrogates. One was done for a friend (still compensated) and the other through an agency. Both women were SAHM and didn’t need the money, but saw it as a calling from God.

This is absoute BS - they do it for the money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is paid surrogacy any different than buying kidneys or blood?

It isn’t. We don’t allow people to sell organs or engage in prostitution but we allow them to rent out their wombs? It really doesn’t make sense.

+1, I think the main reason surrogacy is viewed more favorably in the US as opposed to other countries is the way the evangelical movement in the US has convo fed Americans that there is nothing more important than procreating. Also explains hypocrisy in the US regarding abortion and IVF.

I mostly agree. I think it's interesting that so many surrogates are evangelical or otherwise highly Christian and religious. People here are talking about exploitation, which is always a possibility, but what I've seen from US surrogates is that they tend to be married, financially stable people who view surrogacy as a higher (religious?) calling. Many of them have a LOT of kids and are not concerned about pregnancy complications; they popped out 5 of their own on the kitchen floor, what could go wrong? They're not doing it for the bucks and they don't feel the least bit exploited. They feel like they're helping God create families. As an atheist, I don't get it, but yeah I feel more favorably towards those women and surrogacy in the US than I do poor women in Indian baby farms doing it so they can put food on the table.

That’s true for the 2 women I know who have been surrogates. One was done for a friend (still compensated) and the other through an agency. Both women were SAHM and didn’t need the money, but saw it as a calling from God.

This is absoute BS - they do it for the money.

The one woman I know who was a surrogate wasn't super rich (probably about a 400k HHI) but was a SAHM who had easy pregnancies and did see it as a calling. Like, maybe the money topped off college savings, but it was not the primary motivator or needed to keep a roof over her head and as a college educated person who worked before kids it would have been very easy to get a regular job for 80k (and much of this 80k is for medical care, so more like 30k take home). She preferred to do something "easy" that she thought God would want and that let her stay home with her own kids.

Surrogates in the US, at least the ones who go through agencies, are not the poor, exploited underclass; they're middle class. They're not working 3 jobs cleaning toilets all day, living with the threat of water or heat being cut off, occasionally going hungry and in vulnerable life circumstances. They're just not.

The American "middle class" is struggling to afford food, buy a home, pay for health insurance and their kids college funds and you don't think middle class women NEED the money they get from renting out their wombs? What rich bubble are you posting from?

Who exactly is allowed to choose to be a surrogate in your mind? Only rich women ? You keep moving the goal posts here.

I'm against surrogacy. No one should be allowed to use women as breeders.

Then don't do it. My daughter, my solidly upper middle class, unexploited surrogate, and I are all glad that you are not king of the world.

You must hate women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is paid surrogacy any different than buying kidneys or blood?

It isn’t. We don’t allow people to sell organs or engage in prostitution but we allow them to rent out their wombs? It really doesn’t make sense.

+1, I think the main reason surrogacy is viewed more favorably in the US as opposed to other countries is the way the evangelical movement in the US has convo fed Americans that there is nothing more important than procreating. Also explains hypocrisy in the US regarding abortion and IVF.

I mostly agree. I think it's interesting that so many surrogates are evangelical or otherwise highly Christian and religious. People here are talking about exploitation, which is always a possibility, but what I've seen from US surrogates is that they tend to be married, financially stable people who view surrogacy as a higher (religious?) calling. Many of them have a LOT of kids and are not concerned about pregnancy complications; they popped out 5 of their own on the kitchen floor, what could go wrong? They're not doing it for the bucks and they don't feel the least bit exploited. They feel like they're helping God create families. As an atheist, I don't get it, but yeah I feel more favorably towards those women and surrogacy in the US than I do poor women in Indian baby farms doing it so they can put food on the table.

That’s true for the 2 women I know who have been surrogates. One was done for a friend (still compensated) and the other through an agency. Both women were SAHM and didn’t need the money, but saw it as a calling from God.

This is absoute BS - they do it for the money.

The one woman I know who was a surrogate wasn't super rich (probably about a 400k HHI) but was a SAHM who had easy pregnancies and did see it as a calling. Like, maybe the money topped off college savings, but it was not the primary motivator or needed to keep a roof over her head and as a college educated person who worked before kids it would have been very easy to get a regular job for 80k (and much of this 80k is for medical care, so more like 30k take home). She preferred to do something "easy" that she thought God would want and that let her stay home with her own kids.

Surrogates in the US, at least the ones who go through agencies, are not the poor, exploited underclass; they're middle class. They're not working 3 jobs cleaning toilets all day, living with the threat of water or heat being cut off, occasionally going hungry and in vulnerable life circumstances. They're just not.

The American "middle class" is struggling to afford food, buy a home, pay for health insurance and their kids college funds and you don't think middle class women NEED the money they get from renting out their wombs? What rich bubble are you posting from?

Who exactly is allowed to choose to be a surrogate in your mind? Only rich women ? You keep moving the goal posts here.

I'm against surrogacy. No one should be allowed to use women as breeders.

Then don't do it. My daughter, my solidly upper middle class, unexploited surrogate, and I are all glad that you are not king of the world.