Anonymous wrote:You guys are forgetting about the Utah contingent! LDS people believe it is their God-given duty to bring forth as much new life as they can into this world. However, many LDS women dont want to raise 7, 8, 9 kids. So the workaround that has developed is that they become surrogates. Many hospitals in Utah therefore see lots of surrogate pregnancies, and they have developed lots of protections, policies and procedures for both GCs and IPs. Look into it!

Funny. Who knew they were so progressive with all the polayamory and surrogacy.

You guys are forgetting about the Utah contingent! LDS people believe it is their God-given duty to bring forth as much new life as they can into this world. However, many LDS women dont want to raise 7, 8, 9 kids. So the workaround that has developed is that they become surrogates. Many hospitals in Utah therefore see lots of surrogate pregnancies, and they have developed lots of protections, policies and procedures for both GCs and IPs. Look into it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yeah it’s almost like people would have a reason or something.

Crazy lady in the article had no reason apart from her own vanity and narcissism.

The article indicates that she is on strong meds for being bipolar. Presumably meds you can’t take while pregnant.

Sobering to think this was her medicated.

My thoughts exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, none of this is about the child. It’s about the people who want the child. There isn’t some world where babies are lining up waiting to be born. The whole idea that everyone should get everything they want regardless of the implications for other people is peak selfish.

How is that different from every birth

Well for one it doesn’t involve the health and well being of a third party.

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.

Other countries permit altruistic surrogacy, so there is obviously some general consensus that it is not an absurdly risky and unreasonable thing to do. Thus, it is not as black and white as you would like it to be.

Are you saying I can’t be in favor of women’s health while also seeing there are positive outcomes possible for surrogacy? I don’t think it is worth engaging with such rigid thinking.

The comment above was about commercial surrogacy, not altruistic surrogacy, and you avoided all the questions so I will ask again:

- 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?

* “This” being commercial surrogacy.

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.

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

It depends whether those jobs are necessary for society to run. Police and firefighters are clearly necessary. For things like logging and fishing, efforts should be made to make them as safe as possible or use technology to limit them. Surrogacy is absolutely unnecessary.

I am appalled that the surrogates aren't being given medical info about the IPs when that info can affect the GC's own health. In Bi's case, it is obvious that she and/her H are the "defective" ones. In both pregnancies it was the placenta that was the problem and the placenta has the IP's DNA, not the GC's. If Bi and her H try for the third child I doubt very much they will voluntarily disclose what happened to the first 2 surrogates. In the aggregate, the rate of issues with non-related fetuses is about 8 percent, but in Bi's case it is obviously MUCH higher than that for a third GC.

Read the autopsy report. There was nothing wrong with the fetus. No evidence that he was "defective," to use Bi's word. No evidence that he was damaged by "rough sex" or a kick from her son, i.e., no evidence of bruising.

Bottom line: if the IP has any medical conditions or a family history of any illnesses which could affect the GC, those should have to be disclosed to the GC.

I have to LOL at the comment that women without fertility problems had to settle for second rate husbands. Yep, there are lots of very special elite men out there who want to marry women who want to employ other, poorer women to carry their kids to term. The first thing these men ask at the beginning of a relationship is whether the woman is willing to employ a surrogate. If the answer is no, these elite, high status men immediately bail. Of course, these special elite men are only interested in women beyond the normal child bearing age who have frozen their eggs or who care so much about their looks they don't want to risk a pregnancy or are unwilling or unable to pass up drugs and alcohol for 9 months or who have medical conditions which might make pregnancy difficult and which may be passed onto any children born from their eggs. (I know people who have fallen in love with people who are bi-polar who have broken it off and/or agreed to marry provided they agree there will be no biological children. Heck, I know multiple bipolar people who say right up front they are unwilling to have kids.)

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.

(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.

I hear you but it's not quite an equal comparison. In adoption, if the pregnant woman has no means to support a child, the situation certainly does lend itself to exploitation. In surrogacy, the GC is making a choice to do this. It's not like her creditors are calling her and threatening to take her home if she doesn't serve as a surrogate. She's entering into a contract and can say "no" at any time.

Do you consider indentured servitude to be a choice? Child labor? Prostitution of teenagers? There are lots of types of labor ostensibly made “by choice” that the Ayn Randian types think should be perfectly legal but as a society we have decided are too exploitative, dangerous, and detrimental to allow. Just because it can be “contracted” doesn’t mean it is a societal good.

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.

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

None of those jobs impact an innocent child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yeah it’s almost like people would have a reason or something.

Crazy lady in the article had no reason apart from her own vanity and narcissism.

The article indicates that she is on strong meds for being bipolar. Presumably meds you can’t take while pregnant.

Sobering to think this was her medicated.

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, none of this is about the child. It’s about the people who want the child. There isn’t some world where babies are lining up waiting to be born. The whole idea that everyone should get everything they want regardless of the implications for other people is peak selfish.

How is that different from every birth

The thing is, none of this is about the child. It’s about the people who want the child. There isn’t some world where babies are lining up waiting to be born. The whole idea that everyone should get everything they want regardless of the implications for other people is peak selfish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yeah it’s almost like people would have a reason or something.

Crazy lady in the article had no reason apart from her own vanity and narcissism.

The article indicates that she is on strong meds for being bipolar. Presumably meds you can’t take while pregnant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yeah it’s almost like people would have a reason or something.

Crazy lady in the article had no reason apart from her own vanity and narcissism.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yeah it’s almost like people would have a reason or something.