Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does this matter to you now?
How on earth would commercial surrogacy ever be ethical enough to be just out of necessity?

Because it's modern slavery? It's disgusting. It's one step away from buying poor people's organs.

Paying someone to perform a service is not slavery.

NP but do you think prostitution should be legal? They are similar in terms of a woman renting out her body and taking on a dangerous health risk.

I feel similarly about both prostitution and surrogacy— in a world where women and people of color truly have full and equal rights and economic participation, they should be legal.

We don’t live in that world, though, so both practices result in exploitation of women, and especially women of color and poor women with limited economic opportunity. There are well-compensated prostitutes snd surrogates with real agency, but there are also many being exploited.

The answer is not to outlaw these things but to do more to equalize power— more and better economic options for women, better social support for mothers and pregnant women, better access to legal representation for women engaged in these jobs, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP, you still haven't answered this one: Are you the same OP of the "Dakota Johnson is wasting her fertility" thread recently? The language you use sure sounds like her. Whether you're her or not, you are intensely focused on strangers' perceived fertility and pregnancies. Do you have childbearing issues and you're projecting anger about that, onto these celebrities? I'm asking seriously and without sarcasm. I cannot imagine being this level of judgmental about this topic, and having such detailed knowledge of other people's surrogacy use (even that of celebrities who are public about it), without some kind of personal issue involving fertility. I'm genuinely sorry if you've had problems in this area but laser-like focus on, and judgment of, total strangers--however rich and famous and public they are -- seems like a gigantic case of projection that would only harm, not help, you.

OP here: I am not the Dakota Johnson poster. I have two kids.

Anonymous wrote:
OP, you still haven't answered this one: Are you the same OP of the "Dakota Johnson is wasting her fertility" thread recently? The language you use sure sounds like her. Whether you're her or not, you are intensely focused on strangers' perceived fertility and pregnancies. Do you have childbearing issues and you're projecting anger about that, onto these celebrities? I'm asking seriously and without sarcasm. I cannot imagine being this level of judgmental about this topic, and having such detailed knowledge of other people's surrogacy use (even that of celebrities who are public about it), without some kind of personal issue involving fertility. I'm genuinely sorry if you've had problems in this area but laser-like focus on, and judgment of, total strangers--however rich and famous and public they are -- seems like a gigantic case of projection that would only harm, not help, you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does this matter to you now?
How on earth would commercial surrogacy ever be ethical enough to be just out of necessity?

Because it's modern slavery? It's disgusting. It's one step away from buying poor people's organs.

Paying someone to perform a service is not slavery.

NP but do you think prostitution should be legal? They are similar in terms of a woman renting out her body and taking on a dangerous health risk.

Anonymous wrote:They're barren and they're not telling the public the egg is not theirs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does this matter to you now?
How on earth would commercial surrogacy ever be ethical enough to be just out of necessity?

Because it's modern slavery? It's disgusting. It's one step away from buying poor people's organs.

Paying someone to perform a service is not slavery.

NP but do you think prostitution should be legal? They are similar in terms of a woman renting out her body and taking on a dangerous health risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does this matter to you now?
How on earth would commercial surrogacy ever be ethical enough to be just out of necessity?

Because it's modern slavery? It's disgusting. It's one step away from buying poor people's organs.

Paying someone to perform a service is not slavery.

NP but do you think prostitution should be legal? They are similar in terms of a woman renting out her body and taking on a dangerous health risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…because (1) they can’t get pregnant or (2) for the convenience factor (ie, do not want to slow down career or “ruin” their body)?

Personally, I find it very disturbing if an otherwise healthy & fertile woman who can physically have a baby without issue pays someone else to carry her fertilized egg. Renting other people’s bodies in the absence of a compelling health issue or physical inability to carry to term seems….highly problematic. Almost akin to buying someone’s organ for a transplant.

It feels like we are seeing a wave of surrogacy right now in Hollywood that is disproportionate to their actual numbers. Like, people are doing it because they can and there’s no real pushback.

The only people I know IRL using surrogates are gay male couples. And that’s a compelling reason, imho, because they can’t otherwise have a child.

So is the wave of surrogacy among the rich and famous due to need or convenience?

Gay men can adopt.

I know two gay couples who fostered to adopt.

Adoption is wonderful, and people who care for orphaned children are heroes.

Still, that's different from having a baby with genetic inheritance, which is a natural human need.

Gay men couples are no more obligated to adopt than straight couples are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…because (1) they can’t get pregnant or (2) for the convenience factor (ie, do not want to slow down career or “ruin” their body)?

Personally, I find it very disturbing if an otherwise healthy & fertile woman who can physically have a baby without issue pays someone else to carry her fertilized egg. Renting other people’s bodies in the absence of a compelling health issue or physical inability to carry to term seems….highly problematic. Almost akin to buying someone’s organ for a transplant.

It feels like we are seeing a wave of surrogacy right now in Hollywood that is disproportionate to their actual numbers. Like, people are doing it because they can and there’s no real pushback.

The only people I know IRL using surrogates are gay male couples. And that’s a compelling reason, imho, because they can’t otherwise have a child.

So is the wave of surrogacy among the rich and famous due to need or convenience?

You seriously think the only time surrogacy is ok is to serve the desired of men?

Lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…because (1) they can’t get pregnant or (2) for the convenience factor (ie, do not want to slow down career or “ruin” their body)?

Personally, I find it very disturbing if an otherwise healthy & fertile woman who can physically have a baby without issue pays someone else to carry her fertilized egg. Renting other people’s bodies in the absence of a compelling health issue or physical inability to carry to term seems….highly problematic. Almost akin to buying someone’s organ for a transplant.

It feels like we are seeing a wave of surrogacy right now in Hollywood that is disproportionate to their actual numbers. Like, people are doing it because they can and there’s no real pushback.

The only people I know IRL using surrogates are gay male couples. And that’s a compelling reason, imho, because they can’t otherwise have a child.

So is the wave of surrogacy among the rich and famous due to need or convenience?

Gay men can adopt.

I know two gay couples who fostered to adopt.

Adoption is wonderful, and people who care for orphaned children are heroes.

Still, that's different from having a baby with genetic inheritance, which is a natural human need.

Gay men couples are no more obligated to adopt than straight couples are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does this matter to you now?
How on earth would commercial surrogacy ever be ethical enough to be just out of necessity?

Because it's modern slavery? It's disgusting. It's one step away from buying poor people's organs.

Paying someone to perform a service is not slavery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…because (1) they can’t get pregnant or (2) for the convenience factor (ie, do not want to slow down career or “ruin” their body)?

Personally, I find it very disturbing if an otherwise healthy & fertile woman who can physically have a baby without issue pays someone else to carry her fertilized egg. Renting other people’s bodies in the absence of a compelling health issue or physical inability to carry to term seems….highly problematic. Almost akin to buying someone’s organ for a transplant.

It feels like we are seeing a wave of surrogacy right now in Hollywood that is disproportionate to their actual numbers. Like, people are doing it because they can and there’s no real pushback.

The only people I know IRL using surrogates are gay male couples. And that’s a compelling reason, imho, because they can’t otherwise have a child.

So is the wave of surrogacy among the rich and famous due to need or convenience?

Gay men can adopt.

I know two gay couples who fostered to adopt.