Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, I don’t think most American surrogates are poor. They are usually women who had easy pregnancies and births and see it as nbd to do another one, help a family and make money in the process. A win win for everyone involved — that is, until something goes wrong. I only point this out because everyone seems to be equating “surrogate” with “poor person.”

And let’s also remember that gay men use surrogates too and it works well for a lot of families who have no other way of having biological kids. I would hate to think a loving gay couple couldn’t work with a surrogate and have a bio kid, with the right protection in place for both sides of the agreement.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to whitewash the exploitation of women through surrogacy, which is otherwise recognized worldwide. You are telling yourself a myth, not unlike the myth of the saintly relinquishing mother in adoptive circles. Doesn’t it bother you even the slightest that the country with the worst maternal health outcomes is also literally the only one that permits commercial surrogacy? Do you consider yourself otherwise in favor of women’s health and safety? Doesn’t it bother you at all that this is seen as explicit exploitation globally?

As for gay men, well that is just business as as usual: when the desires of men conflict with the health and wellbeing of women, men prevail. Men being gay doesn’t give them a free pass to exploit women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, I don’t think most American surrogates are poor. They are usually women who had easy pregnancies and births and see it as nbd to do another one, help a family and make money in the process. A win win for everyone involved — that is, until something goes wrong. I only point this out because everyone seems to be equating “surrogate” with “poor person.”

And let’s also remember that gay men use surrogates too and it works well for a lot of families who have no other way of having biological kids. I would hate to think a loving gay couple couldn’t work with a surrogate and have a bio kid, with the right protection in place for both sides of the agreement.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to whitewash the exploitation of women through surrogacy, which is otherwise recognized worldwide. You are telling yourself a myth, not unlike the myth of the saintly relinquishing mother in adoptive circles. Doesn’t it bother you even the slightest that the country with the worst maternal health outcomes is also literally the only one that permits commercial surrogacy? Do you consider yourself otherwise in favor of women’s health and safety? Doesn’t it bother you at all that this is seen as explicit exploitation globally?

As for gay men, well that is just business as as usual: when the desires of men conflict with the health and wellbeing of women, men prevail. Men being gay doesn’t give them a free pass to exploit women.

Anonymous wrote:For the record, I don’t think most American surrogates are poor. They are usually women who had easy pregnancies and births and see it as nbd to do another one, help a family and make money in the process. A win win for everyone involved — that is, until something goes wrong. I only point this out because everyone seems to be equating “surrogate” with “poor person.”

And let’s also remember that gay men use surrogates too and it works well for a lot of families who have no other way of having biological kids. I would hate to think a loving gay couple couldn’t work with a surrogate and have a bio kid, with the right protection in place for both sides of the agreement.

Anonymous wrote:For the record, I don’t think most American surrogates are poor. They are usually women who had easy pregnancies and births and see it as nbd to do another one, help a family and make money in the process. A win win for everyone involved — that is, until something goes wrong. I only point this out because everyone seems to be equating “surrogate” with “poor person.”

And let’s also remember that gay men use surrogates too and it works well for a lot of families who have no other way of having biological kids. I would hate to think a loving gay couple couldn’t work with a surrogate and have a bio kid, with the right protection in place for both sides of the agreement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

Is it supposed to be embarrassing or somehow shameful?

In this situation- as outlined in the article, at least- yes, incredibly so. She paid poorer women to carry what turned out to be very risky pregnancies for them (which the author implies were risky, in part, because of plancental reasons which were genetic). Makes you wonder why she didn't carry her own pregnancies. 43 is not THAT old to carry a pregnancy. Plenty of women do it every day. If you're 43 and healthy, and have embryos, choosing to implant them into a poorer younger woman in exchange for money, in my opinion, should be illegal. Just like giving up your kidney in return for money is illegal. I honestly don't see the difference and don't understand why hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is fine, but farming kidneys from people who are ready and willing to give them up, for cash payment, is not fine.

The article explains this. It wasn’t because of her age.

She don’t want to lose her size 0, and tiny waisted body.

Pick up on the context clues provided by the journalist. She was on some kind of hardcore
Psychiatric medicines that cant be taken while pregnant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

Is it supposed to be embarrassing or somehow shameful?

In this situation- as outlined in the article, at least- yes, incredibly so. She paid poorer women to carry what turned out to be very risky pregnancies for them (which the author implies were risky, in part, because of plancental reasons which were genetic). Makes you wonder why she didn't carry her own pregnancies. 43 is not THAT old to carry a pregnancy. Plenty of women do it every day. If you're 43 and healthy, and have embryos, choosing to implant them into a poorer younger woman in exchange for money, in my opinion, should be illegal. Just like giving up your kidney in return for money is illegal. I honestly don't see the difference and don't understand why hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is fine, but farming kidneys from people who are ready and willing to give them up, for cash payment, is not fine.

The article explains this. It wasn’t because of her age.

She don’t want to lose her size 0, and tiny waisted body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The surrogate was neither the property nor the prisoner of this crazy woman. It was not illegal to drive home to get some clothes or whatever.

Exactly the way people are talking is this contract allows someone else to control every aspect of the surrogate’s life. Talk about policing women’s bodies.

FFS it isn't policing. The surrogate agreed to do certain things, like getting medically appropriate care and refraining from high risk activities in exchange for payment. It is no different than how NFL players agree to avoid risky activities like skiing and skydiving as part of their contracts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

Is it supposed to be embarrassing or somehow shameful?

In this situation- as outlined in the article, at least- yes, incredibly so. She paid poorer women to carry what turned out to be very risky pregnancies for them (which the author implies were risky, in part, because of plancental reasons which were genetic). Makes you wonder why she didn't carry her own pregnancies. 43 is not THAT old to carry a pregnancy. Plenty of women do it every day. If you're 43 and healthy, and have embryos, choosing to implant them into a poorer younger woman in exchange for money, in my opinion, should be illegal. Just like giving up your kidney in return for money is illegal. I honestly don't see the difference and don't understand why hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is fine, but farming kidneys from people who are ready and willing to give them up, for cash payment, is not fine.

The article explains this. It wasn’t because of her age.

She don’t want to lose her size 0, and tiny waisted body.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

Is it supposed to be embarrassing or somehow shameful?

In this situation- as outlined in the article, at least- yes, incredibly so. She paid poorer women to carry what turned out to be very risky pregnancies for them (which the author implies were risky, in part, because of plancental reasons which were genetic). Makes you wonder why she didn't carry her own pregnancies. 43 is not THAT old to carry a pregnancy. Plenty of women do it every day. If you're 43 and healthy, and have embryos, choosing to implant them into a poorer younger woman in exchange for money, in my opinion, should be illegal. Just like giving up your kidney in return for money is illegal. I honestly don't see the difference and don't understand why hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is fine, but farming kidneys from people who are ready and willing to give them up, for cash payment, is not fine.

(DP). I don't think anyone would disagree that hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is... gross. But I don't see how to draw a line here. For every Cindy Bi nightmare story, there is probably another story where it worked out so beautifully and wonderfully and the parents have the child they always dreamed of and the surrogate used the money to lift herself out of poverty / pay off student loans / get out of a bad relationship, etc.

I carried my own children and don't have a dog in this fight, but it really is interesting to ponder how far rich people should be allowed to go in terms of controlling another person for payment, how much autonomy "poor" young women should have on decisions about their body and how you can "contractualize" pregnancy.

Literally all other highly educated countries have managed to draw the line just fine, and that line bans commercial surrogacy outright.

I think in the US the majority of surrogacy stories are closer to this one. We just never hear the stories of the surrogates. I do not believe there are a lot of beautiful stories.

It isn’t unlike the history of adoption in this country. For years it was celebrated as this beautiful golden story, but when you start digging, many of those golden stories turn out to be dark stories of oppression and exploitation. Someone up above referenced Gretchen Sisson’s book Relinquished, which was excellent. In a few years, someone else will write another book about surrogacy and it will be equally dark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

Is it supposed to be embarrassing or somehow shameful?

In this situation- as outlined in the article, at least- yes, incredibly so. She paid poorer women to carry what turned out to be very risky pregnancies for them (which the author implies were risky, in part, because of plancental reasons which were genetic). Makes you wonder why she didn't carry her own pregnancies. 43 is not THAT old to carry a pregnancy. Plenty of women do it every day. If you're 43 and healthy, and have embryos, choosing to implant them into a poorer younger woman in exchange for money, in my opinion, should be illegal. Just like giving up your kidney in return for money is illegal. I honestly don't see the difference and don't understand why hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is fine, but farming kidneys from people who are ready and willing to give them up, for cash payment, is not fine.

The article explains this. It wasn’t because of her age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

Is it supposed to be embarrassing or somehow shameful?

In this situation- as outlined in the article, at least- yes, incredibly so. She paid poorer women to carry what turned out to be very risky pregnancies for them (which the author implies were risky, in part, because of plancental reasons which were genetic). Makes you wonder why she didn't carry her own pregnancies. 43 is not THAT old to carry a pregnancy. Plenty of women do it every day. If you're 43 and healthy, and have embryos, choosing to implant them into a poorer younger woman in exchange for money, in my opinion, should be illegal. Just like giving up your kidney in return for money is illegal. I honestly don't see the difference and don't understand why hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is fine, but farming kidneys from people who are ready and willing to give them up, for cash payment, is not fine.

(DP). I don't think anyone would disagree that hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is... gross. But I don't see how to draw a line here. For every Cindy Bi nightmare story, there is probably another story where it worked out so beautifully and wonderfully and the parents have the child they always dreamed of and the surrogate used the money to lift herself out of poverty / pay off student loans / get out of a bad relationship, etc.

I carried my own children and don't have a dog in this fight, but it really is interesting to ponder how far rich people should be allowed to go in terms of controlling another person for payment, how much autonomy "poor" young women should have on decisions about their body and how you can "contractualize" pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an article about power imbalance and the cruelty and suffering that the rich can impose on those who have less.

My heart goes out to the surrogate.

There’s certainly the power imbalance in that Bi has legal resources that the surrogate doesn’t have. Bi is clearly not mentally well and is abusing the legal process to harass this surrogate in a way only the rich can do.

But, I don’t feel sorry for the surrogate. She held allll the power when it came to that baby’s health. She decided to leave the hospital against medical advice. She decided not to tell the parents about the vaginal bleeding. She decided not to follow the doctor’s suggestion for follow up when her amniotic fluid got too low. She ignored the fact that fetal movement had stopped.

She also falsified reimbursements on childcare and house cleaners. She saw an opportunity to steal from the rich and she took it.

I don’t know if Bi can prove it, but it does seem most likely that the surrogate was partying at her DJ boyfriend’s New Year’s Eve rave and given the timeline, might have contributed to the prenatal problems.

The surrogate sounds like white trash, right down to the trope of a single mom with a biracial kid who has unfettered access (at age 7!) to an iPad with zero parental controls - thereby opening the door for a mentally unstable woman to text the child a picture of a dead baby.

Both of these women are problems.

Are you Bi's publicist? This is so much nonsense.

What kind of a crappy publicist would state that her client is mentally unstable?!

No, I’m not her publicist. I’m just a random person who thought the article was interesting, so I dove a little deeper and read the complaint and the declarations, as well as all the exhibits.

You're a racist a**hole and a malignant liar. Having a biracial child doesn't make you white trash, and there's zero information in the Wired article about the surrogate falsifying expenses and they clearly state there's no evidence that the surrogate was out partying with her boyfriend on NY Eve beyond Bi's accusation.

NP. The information about the falsified expenses is in the complaint. GC was billing the IPs for $150/week for a cleaning service, when she was just giving the money to her boyfriend.

You don’t understand what allegations in a complaint actually are. They aren’t ironclad truths, particularly from a lunatic that has burned through several lawyers and now has an ambulance chaser on contingency.

Neither are things written in a one-sided article by an author with an axe to grind.

What axe to grind? The journalist meticulously documented everything from Bi’s own documents, some of which she allegedly provided in breach of an agreement with the surrogate.

The journalist clearly had her own ax to grind. I’m shocked it took this long for people to call out what was a pretty clear bias. That doesn’t mean that Bi isn’t nuts, but readers should be careful before they just believe the author.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It as also heartbreaking to read that the surrogate of the baby girl had complications and needed a hysterectomy after giving birth. The article mentioned an issue with the placenta which has DNA from the parents. Shouldn’t the biological parents health histories have to be disclosed to surrogates so they know the complete risk.

If a potential GC wants to know the medical history of the IPs, she can require that as a condition of entering into a surrogacy contract. IPs, of course, are free to decide that they'd rather go with a different GC. It is no one's business what a GC and IPs agree to in their private surrogacy contract.

You're spending a lot of time defending Cindy Bi. I am guessing you used a surrogate, too.

Is it supposed to be embarrassing or somehow shameful?

In this situation- as outlined in the article, at least- yes, incredibly so. She paid poorer women to carry what turned out to be very risky pregnancies for them (which the author implies were risky, in part, because of plancental reasons which were genetic). Makes you wonder why she didn't carry her own pregnancies. 43 is not THAT old to carry a pregnancy. Plenty of women do it every day. If you're 43 and healthy, and have embryos, choosing to implant them into a poorer younger woman in exchange for money, in my opinion, should be illegal. Just like giving up your kidney in return for money is illegal. I honestly don't see the difference and don't understand why hiring young women to incubate babies for cash payment is fine, but farming kidneys from people who are ready and willing to give them up, for cash payment, is not fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The surrogate was neither the property nor the prisoner of this crazy woman. It was not illegal to drive home to get some clothes or whatever.

Exactly the way people are talking is this contract allows someone else to control every aspect of the surrogate’s life. Talk about policing women’s bodies.