Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I'll be the jerk.

I continue to be disturbed by the casual use of surrogates by celebrities, but especially by celebrities who already have kids or who are clearly capable of having kids themselves. I understand surrogacy better in situations of infertility or same-sex couples where it's your best bet for having a child at all. I do not understand surrogacy in this situation, especially after JUST having another baby. This is truly a situation of just renting a woman's womb, and it makes me uncomfortable, regardless of how well compensated I'm sure the surrogate was.

Also, given Teigan's social media activity and how much she posts about her kids online, this absolutely feels like a Hilaria-esque effort to create more content factories by having more kids and ensuring her feeds can be full of cute kids (she and Legend absolutely have adorable kids, no question) for the foreseeable future. Plenty of celebs have lots of kids but don't splash them all over their social media constantly or use them in promoting their projects.

It all feels exploitative to me. I know people will say "but she lost a baby, have empathy." And I do, I have enormous empathy for what Teigan and the whole family went through with the still birth. But that doesn't mean I endorse all her choices, and honestly this one makes me uncomfortable.

At least I believe the kids will be loved and obviously they have the financial resources for four kids, so there is that.

Anyway, go ahead and tell me I'm "just jealous" or scream at me for not being thrilled for them.

There is fertility issues…she did IVF to conceive all her babies.

There's a big difference between someone hiring a surrogate to have their only children, and someone who has conceived and given birth to three healthy kids hiring a surrogate to have their fourth.

I get that some people want big families and that's fine. But there's a marked difference between having fewer kids than you wanted (I had fewer kids than I wanted, ftr) and wanting kids but not having them at all.

So I’m your world surrogacy should only be for people who have no kids and then they should only have that 1 kid? This is ridiculous.

So in your world, anytime a rich person with any number of children wants to just rent a woman's uterus for 9+ months, they should be able to do so? We should just have an underclass of working and middle class women who save wealthy women the trouble of pregnancy and birth? Mmmkay.

Something fascinating to me about this thread is that we know that Teigan's surrogate had a miscarriage before conceiving this pregnancy that she was able to bring to term. Yet not one person has mentioned that miscarriage. Of course not -- just part of the job, right? If you or I miscarried, we'd deserve sympathy and support, but if a surrogate miscarries, well, back to the coal mines she goes.

What is ridiculous again? Explain it.

Yes, very odd. She even had a surgery after that before the next pregnancy. Even though Teigen was 4 months along at that point they still went ahead with the surrogate at that point. I guess it was insurance in case Teigen lost her own pregnancy.

Yes, I caught that too. I'm sure they would not have proceeded if the surrogate didn't want to after the miscarriage and surgery, but on the other hand, there are lots of reasons she'd want or need to proceed (money, wanting a record of successful pregnancies for future surrogacy opportunities) that are separate from simply wanting to give this couple a baby. Surrogacy is really strange when you get into the nitty gritty details.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can this toxic evil woman just go away?

Why are you talking about yourself?

Anonymous wrote:Can this toxic evil woman just go away?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it even her egg? doubt it

Do you post every thought? Likely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I'll be the jerk.

I continue to be disturbed by the casual use of surrogates by celebrities, but especially by celebrities who already have kids or who are clearly capable of having kids themselves. I understand surrogacy better in situations of infertility or same-sex couples where it's your best bet for having a child at all. I do not understand surrogacy in this situation, especially after JUST having another baby. This is truly a situation of just renting a woman's womb, and it makes me uncomfortable, regardless of how well compensated I'm sure the surrogate was.

Also, given Teigan's social media activity and how much she posts about her kids online, this absolutely feels like a Hilaria-esque effort to create more content factories by having more kids and ensuring her feeds can be full of cute kids (she and Legend absolutely have adorable kids, no question) for the foreseeable future. Plenty of celebs have lots of kids but don't splash them all over their social media constantly or use them in promoting their projects.

It all feels exploitative to me. I know people will say "but she lost a baby, have empathy." And I do, I have enormous empathy for what Teigan and the whole family went through with the still birth. But that doesn't mean I endorse all her choices, and honestly this one makes me uncomfortable.

At least I believe the kids will be loved and obviously they have the financial resources for four kids, so there is that.

Anyway, go ahead and tell me I'm "just jealous" or scream at me for not being thrilled for them.

There is fertility issues…she did IVF to conceive all her babies.

There's a big difference between someone hiring a surrogate to have their only children, and someone who has conceived and given birth to three healthy kids hiring a surrogate to have their fourth.

I get that some people want big families and that's fine. But there's a marked difference between having fewer kids than you wanted (I had fewer kids than I wanted, ftr) and wanting kids but not having them at all.

So I’m your world surrogacy should only be for people who have no kids and then they should only have that 1 kid? This is ridiculous.

So in your world, anytime a rich person with any number of children wants to just rent a woman's uterus for 9+ months, they should be able to do so? We should just have an underclass of working and middle class women who save wealthy women the trouble of pregnancy and birth? Mmmkay.

Something fascinating to me about this thread is that we know that Teigan's surrogate had a miscarriage before conceiving this pregnancy that she was able to bring to term. Yet not one person has mentioned that miscarriage. Of course not -- just part of the job, right? If you or I miscarried, we'd deserve sympathy and support, but if a surrogate miscarries, well, back to the coal mines she goes.

What is ridiculous again? Explain it.

Yes, very odd. She even had a surgery after that before the next pregnancy. Even though Teigen was 4 months along at that point they still went ahead with the surrogate at that point. I guess it was insurance in case Teigen lost her own pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it, but this is 100% the dark, deep un-fillable hole that is losing a child. Some people have tons of children thinking it will somehow fill that sad void. It doesn't.

Um, what? I had a stillborn and was not and am not in a "dark, deep un-fillable hole" from it. We did not have any more children. Not everyone reacts to everything the same way.

Damn, that's cold. I don't think I've ever met someone that lost a baby and is totally fine, like nothing happened. But you do you.

PP didn't say she was "totally fine, like nothing happened." She just said she didn't have a deep, unfillable hole that she tried to fill with more kids. I'm sure she grieved in her own way. Her point is people respond to a loss of a child in different ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I'll be the jerk.

I continue to be disturbed by the casual use of surrogates by celebrities, but especially by celebrities who already have kids or who are clearly capable of having kids themselves. I understand surrogacy better in situations of infertility or same-sex couples where it's your best bet for having a child at all. I do not understand surrogacy in this situation, especially after JUST having another baby. This is truly a situation of just renting a woman's womb, and it makes me uncomfortable, regardless of how well compensated I'm sure the surrogate was.

Also, given Teigan's social media activity and how much she posts about her kids online, this absolutely feels like a Hilaria-esque effort to create more content factories by having more kids and ensuring her feeds can be full of cute kids (she and Legend absolutely have adorable kids, no question) for the foreseeable future. Plenty of celebs have lots of kids but don't splash them all over their social media constantly or use them in promoting their projects.

It all feels exploitative to me. I know people will say "but she lost a baby, have empathy." And I do, I have enormous empathy for what Teigan and the whole family went through with the still birth. But that doesn't mean I endorse all her choices, and honestly this one makes me uncomfortable.

At least I believe the kids will be loved and obviously they have the financial resources for four kids, so there is that.

Anyway, go ahead and tell me I'm "just jealous" or scream at me for not being thrilled for them.

There is fertility issues…she did IVF to conceive all her babies.

There's a big difference between someone hiring a surrogate to have their only children, and someone who has conceived and given birth to three healthy kids hiring a surrogate to have their fourth.

I get that some people want big families and that's fine. But there's a marked difference between having fewer kids than you wanted (I had fewer kids than I wanted, ftr) and wanting kids but not having them at all.

So I’m your world surrogacy should only be for people who have no kids and then they should only have that 1 kid? This is ridiculous.

So in your world, anytime a rich person with any number of children wants to just rent a woman's uterus for 9+ months, they should be able to do so? We should just have an underclass of working and middle class women who save wealthy women the trouble of pregnancy and birth? Mmmkay.

Something fascinating to me about this thread is that we know that Teigan's surrogate had a miscarriage before conceiving this pregnancy that she was able to bring to term. Yet not one person has mentioned that miscarriage. Of course not -- just part of the job, right? If you or I miscarried, we'd deserve sympathy and support, but if a surrogate miscarries, well, back to the coal mines she goes.

What is ridiculous again? Explain it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it, but this is 100% the dark, deep un-fillable hole that is losing a child. Some people have tons of children thinking it will somehow fill that sad void. It doesn't.

Um, what? I had a stillborn and was not and am not in a "dark, deep un-fillable hole" from it. We did not have any more children. Not everyone reacts to everything the same way.

Damn, that's cold. I don't think I've ever met someone that lost a baby and is totally fine, like nothing happened. But you do you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say it, but this is 100% the dark, deep un-fillable hole that is losing a child. Some people have tons of children thinking it will somehow fill that sad void. It doesn't.

Um, what? I had a stillborn and was not and am not in a "dark, deep un-fillable hole" from it. We did not have any more children. Not everyone reacts to everything the same way.

Anonymous wrote:They most likely expected Chrissy to have another loss.

Im happy for them. I don’t envy the night duty right now. Glad they can afford extra hands.

As far as surrogacy, there are women that are happy to offer this service. Personally I would find it difficult, so I don’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I'll be the jerk.

I continue to be disturbed by the casual use of surrogates by celebrities, but especially by celebrities who already have kids or who are clearly capable of having kids themselves. I understand surrogacy better in situations of infertility or same-sex couples where it's your best bet for having a child at all. I do not understand surrogacy in this situation, especially after JUST having another baby. This is truly a situation of just renting a woman's womb, and it makes me uncomfortable, regardless of how well compensated I'm sure the surrogate was.

Also, given Teigan's social media activity and how much she posts about her kids online, this absolutely feels like a Hilaria-esque effort to create more content factories by having more kids and ensuring her feeds can be full of cute kids (she and Legend absolutely have adorable kids, no question) for the foreseeable future. Plenty of celebs have lots of kids but don't splash them all over their social media constantly or use them in promoting their projects.

It all feels exploitative to me. I know people will say "but she lost a baby, have empathy." And I do, I have enormous empathy for what Teigan and the whole family went through with the still birth. But that doesn't mean I endorse all her choices, and honestly this one makes me uncomfortable.

At least I believe the kids will be loved and obviously they have the financial resources for four kids, so there is that.

Anyway, go ahead and tell me I'm "just jealous" or scream at me for not being thrilled for them.

There is fertility issues…she did IVF to conceive all her babies.

There's a big difference between someone hiring a surrogate to have their only children, and someone who has conceived and given birth to three healthy kids hiring a surrogate to have their fourth.

I get that some people want big families and that's fine. But there's a marked difference between having fewer kids than you wanted (I had fewer kids than I wanted, ftr) and wanting kids but not having them at all.

So I’m your world surrogacy should only be for people who have no kids and then they should only have that 1 kid? This is ridiculous.

So in your world, anytime a rich person with any number of children wants to just rent a woman's uterus for 9+ months, they should be able to do so? We should just have an underclass of working and middle class women who save wealthy women the trouble of pregnancy and birth? Mmmkay.

Something fascinating to me about this thread is that we know that Teigan's surrogate had a miscarriage before conceiving this pregnancy that she was able to bring to term. Yet not one person has mentioned that miscarriage. Of course not -- just part of the job, right? If you or I miscarried, we'd deserve sympathy and support, but if a surrogate miscarries, well, back to the coal mines she goes.

What is ridiculous again? Explain it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They most likely expected Chrissy to have another loss.

Im happy for them. I don’t envy the night duty right now. Glad they can afford extra hands.

As far as surrogacy, there are women that are happy to offer this service. Personally I would find it difficult, so I don’t.

LMAO - do you have any idea how much $ and help they have?!?! Their lives are nothing like ours.