Kind of weird to think that a cash-strapped stranger you know nothing about is a better person to carry your child than you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Surrogacy isn’t going anywhere in the US. Your perspective is irrelevant.

Don’t be so sure about that. As more stories like this and others emerge, support will drop. It already is dropping.

The other voices that are starting to rise are those of the children born of surrogacy. Like adoption before it, those born of surrogacy are reaching adulthood and are starting to understand just what happened for them to exist. And many of them are angry and horrified. It is very similar to what happened with the history of exploitative adoption in this country. It was the children who eventually organized and forced legislative changes. They are organizing now.

I think it is going to be eventually highly restricted here. Probably not outright banned, but possibly. And, that’s the right outcome.

Maybe. But to me it sounds like a whole bunch of jealousy by women who feel threatened.

NP. What do you think people feel jealous or threatened by exactly? The faulty moral compass that you must possess in order to rent another womb out of vanity? Or your infertility?

People like you have lost social currency. Your fertility doesn’t make you special anymore. Everyone can have a child now, regardless of biology.

Surrogacy gives women the ability to be more selective about their choice of partner, to invest more heavily in their careers, and to avoid some of the physical consequences of pregnancy. I’m sorry that you had to settle for a second rate man and a mommy track career because you bought into the fertility lie. We’re doing things different now.

DP. This PP is obviously insane. As noted earlier, the advocates of surrogacy in this thread are doing a better job of unintentionally making the case for banning commercial surrogacy than the people who actually want to ban it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Surrogacy isn’t going anywhere in the US. Your perspective is irrelevant.

Don’t be so sure about that. As more stories like this and others emerge, support will drop. It already is dropping.

The other voices that are starting to rise are those of the children born of surrogacy. Like adoption before it, those born of surrogacy are reaching adulthood and are starting to understand just what happened for them to exist. And many of them are angry and horrified. It is very similar to what happened with the history of exploitative adoption in this country. It was the children who eventually organized and forced legislative changes. They are organizing now.

I think it is going to be eventually highly restricted here. Probably not outright banned, but possibly. And, that’s the right outcome.

Maybe. But to me it sounds like a whole bunch of jealousy by women who feel threatened.

This is such a bizarre take. Why on earth would anyone be jealous of either an IP or a GC? Nobody is “jealous” of either. Nobody wants to be either of those people.

And when young surrogate-born adults are organizing (there are already multiple groups on various social media platforms) because they do not think what they or their mothers went through is right, how is that possibly jealousy? That makes no sense.

On her 6th live-in nanny and her 9th lawyer? This tells us all we need to know about the “intended parent.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Surrogacy isn’t going anywhere in the US. Your perspective is irrelevant.

Don’t be so sure about that. As more stories like this and others emerge, support will drop. It already is dropping.

The other voices that are starting to rise are those of the children born of surrogacy. Like adoption before it, those born of surrogacy are reaching adulthood and are starting to understand just what happened for them to exist. And many of them are angry and horrified. It is very similar to what happened with the history of exploitative adoption in this country. It was the children who eventually organized and forced legislative changes. They are organizing now.

I think it is going to be eventually highly restricted here. Probably not outright banned, but possibly. And, that’s the right outcome.

Maybe. But to me it sounds like a whole bunch of jealousy by women who feel threatened.

NP. What do you think people feel jealous or threatened by exactly? The faulty moral compass that you must possess in order to rent another womb out of vanity? Or your infertility?

People like you have lost social currency. Your fertility doesn’t make you special anymore. Everyone can have a child now, regardless of biology.

Surrogacy gives women the ability to be more selective about their choice of partner, to invest more heavily in their careers, and to avoid some of the physical consequences of pregnancy. I’m sorry that you had to settle for a second rate man and a mommy track career because you bought into the fertility lie. We’re doing things different now.

It was a harsh response to a harsh response.

If I met you IRL:

-I would express my deep concern over the medical, economic, and legal issues that surround surrogacy in this country, in its current state. There is a very slippery slope when people start buying and selling biological material in an unregulated market that favors the wealthy or legally savvy. When there is no legal protection, and very little legal precedent, you are essentially relying on the other party to "do the right thing." Which is a subjective term. Some people get lucky, some people get on the wrong side of a crazy person who does not have their best interest in their heart.

-I would ask you if you've read the Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood and what you think that book is trying to warn us of.

-I would tell you that any 15 year old can probably get pregnant, that I'm not over valuing fertility.

-I would tell you that I disagree that surrogacy helps improve your choice of partner or career. I don't believe that older parents are always "better" parents. There are good parents and bad parents at every age. There are good marriages and bad marriages at every age.

-I would tell you that I don't think fertility is a "lie." I think it's a biological function.

-I would wonder if it's ethical or moral to outsource a pregnancy "side-effects." I guess you think that is equivalent to buying a fast pass at Disney? You don't want to wait in line, but it's fine for people who can't afford one?

-I would voice concern over the allocation of medical discovery, dollars, and resources allocated to infertility - both personal and as a society. We are solving a problem that doesn't really need to be solved and could be easily avoided if the rich, entitled 1% just cared a little less about their careers or the negative optics of starting a family at 30.

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.

And the surrogate did get medically appropriate care. Cindy Bi relied up psychics to tell her what the surrogate was doing. Cindy Bi has gone well beyond the bounds of the contract. Cindy Bi is doing everything she can to destroy this woman. Do you actually agree with all the things she has done to this woman? Tell us prior poster. You're fine with her trying to get her fired from jobs, sending her child a picture of the dead child, trying to get her child removed from her care, reporting her to the police... I can go on.

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.

I'm guessing this person is paid by Cindy Bi's social media team.

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.

You are like Bi in that you twist everything. Little you say is true. This woman invaded the surrogates life beyond their contractual obligations.

Remember this nut job sent the surrogates son a picture of the dead child. Bi wants this woman to lose everything including her son even though it is Bi's dna that more than likely caused the problems.

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.

The bolded seems right. I don't think it's very well advertised how much riskier a surrogate pregnancy is then your own. I consider myself reasonably well informed and I didn't know that. I know surrogates are generally supposed to be women who have already successfully given birth, so I guess they imagine it will be just as safe. I had no idea that the genetic parents' medical history can play a part, and that it isn't disclosed to the surrogate. The article is a huge eye opener in that regard. Apparently the surrogate needs to have STD testing and disclose relevant medical history to the intended parents but the intended parents don't have to disclose anything.

As far gay couples, that type of relationship just doesn't produce natural children. That's just a biological reality they have to accept. It shouldn't play a part in whether people can rent womens' bodies as an incubator.

No, of course not, but it is an example of who will be impacted if we just throw out the idea of surrogacy altogether vs. fix the process.

I mean, should logging be illegal? Tuna fishing? Police and fire fighting? There are plenty of jobs done for money that are as risky as or riskier than being a surrogate

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.

The bolded seems right. I don't think it's very well advertised how much riskier a surrogate pregnancy is then your own. I consider myself reasonably well informed and I didn't know that. I know surrogates are generally supposed to be women who have already successfully given birth, so I guess they imagine it will be just as safe. I had no idea that the genetic parents' medical history can play a part, and that it isn't disclosed to the surrogate. The article is a huge eye opener in that regard. Apparently the surrogate needs to have STD testing and disclose relevant medical history to the intended parents but the intended parents don't have to disclose anything.

As far gay couples, that type of relationship just doesn't produce natural children. That's just a biological reality they have to accept. It shouldn't play a part in whether people can rent womens' bodies as an incubator.

There has been an uptick of awful mean-spirited replies in recent threads lately, to include the above pp. it feels like a different kind of dcum poster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Surrogacy isn’t going anywhere in the US. Your perspective is irrelevant.

Don’t be so sure about that. As more stories like this and others emerge, support will drop. It already is dropping.

The other voices that are starting to rise are those of the children born of surrogacy. Like adoption before it, those born of surrogacy are reaching adulthood and are starting to understand just what happened for them to exist. And many of them are angry and horrified. It is very similar to what happened with the history of exploitative adoption in this country. It was the children who eventually organized and forced legislative changes. They are organizing now.

I think it is going to be eventually highly restricted here. Probably not outright banned, but possibly. And, that’s the right outcome.

Maybe. But to me it sounds like a whole bunch of jealousy by women who feel threatened.

NP. What do you think people feel jealous or threatened by exactly? The faulty moral compass that you must possess in order to rent another womb out of vanity? Or your infertility?

People like you have lost social currency. Your fertility doesn’t make you special anymore. Everyone can have a child now, regardless of biology.

Surrogacy gives women the ability to be more selective about their choice of partner, to invest more heavily in their careers, and to avoid some of the physical consequences of pregnancy. I’m sorry that you had to settle for a second rate man and a mommy track career because you bought into the fertility lie. We’re doing things different now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Surrogacy isn’t going anywhere in the US. Your perspective is irrelevant.

Don’t be so sure about that. As more stories like this and others emerge, support will drop. It already is dropping.

The other voices that are starting to rise are those of the children born of surrogacy. Like adoption before it, those born of surrogacy are reaching adulthood and are starting to understand just what happened for them to exist. And many of them are angry and horrified. It is very similar to what happened with the history of exploitative adoption in this country. It was the children who eventually organized and forced legislative changes. They are organizing now.

I think it is going to be eventually highly restricted here. Probably not outright banned, but possibly. And, that’s the right outcome.

Maybe. But to me it sounds like a whole bunch of jealousy by women who feel threatened.

NP. What do you think people feel jealous or threatened by exactly? The faulty moral compass that you must possess in order to rent another womb out of vanity? Or your infertility?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Surrogacy isn’t going anywhere in the US. Your perspective is irrelevant.

Don’t be so sure about that. As more stories like this and others emerge, support will drop. It already is dropping.

The other voices that are starting to rise are those of the children born of surrogacy. Like adoption before it, those born of surrogacy are reaching adulthood and are starting to understand just what happened for them to exist. And many of them are angry and horrified. It is very similar to what happened with the history of exploitative adoption in this country. It was the children who eventually organized and forced legislative changes. They are organizing now.

I think it is going to be eventually highly restricted here. Probably not outright banned, but possibly. And, that’s the right outcome.

Maybe. But to me it sounds like a whole bunch of jealousy by women who feel threatened.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Surrogacy isn’t going anywhere in the US. Your perspective is irrelevant.

Don’t be so sure about that. As more stories like this and others emerge, support will drop. It already is dropping.

The other voices that are starting to rise are those of the children born of surrogacy. Like adoption before it, those born of surrogacy are reaching adulthood and are starting to understand just what happened for them to exist. And many of them are angry and horrified. It is very similar to what happened with the history of exploitative adoption in this country. It was the children who eventually organized and forced legislative changes. They are organizing now.

I think it is going to be eventually highly restricted here. Probably not outright banned, but possibly. And, that’s the right outcome.