Surrogacy -- Not just for the infertile anymore!

[hyphenate]

It's a trend that many of us should have noticed before, I suppose. Celebrities who don't want to "ruin their body" or other somesuch reason who are opting for some (often) down on their luck poor woman to have a baby for them. It's not infertility that plagues the celeb, it's vanity.

Shouldn't there be some sort of outcry in this situation? Give the celeb a bad name for doing it? There are some women who adopt, and who DO have their own babies--Anjelina Jolie is one, and we have to give her credit for that. But there are some who are just as vocal about their reasons for not having the baby themselves, and it's plain to see that a commodity such as a baby makes some people decide that it's worth it to hire someone to do it for them.

It's when the two things merge: rich woman has the money, the poorer person has the ability to give birth or carry without worrying about such things as keeping their figure, or having a busy lifestyle. Many years ago, it would have been preposterous to have another woman have a baby for you--if you couldn't have a child of your own, no matter what you tried, you either adopted, chose to stop trying, or found some other avenue, like visit a foreign country and trying an overseas adoption.

But now it's been made so easy by the rich and jet set--offer a couple hundred thousand to a woman to do the work for you, and celebrate that you're gonna have a family without all the dirty stuff.

I know I'm being cynical. I know there aren't likely that many celebs who have gone that route, but isn't one enough? If we allow rich celebs to have the ability to just pay off a surrogate, without experiencing the difficulties inherent in carrying a baby to term, we are allowing babies to BE the commodity that separates the rich from the poor. The Handmaid's Tale is getting closer and closer to becoming one of the realities with which we will have to deal.

[alphafemale]

1. It's just another issue of free choice.

All who participate in this process have chosen to do so. I don't have a problem with it.

[pnwmom]

5. I agree. Either women can control their own uterus or they can't. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

19. money gives them the ability to control other women's uteri.

[pnwmom]

20. You could say the same thing about women who get an abortion because

they don't have enough money.

What if a pregnant woman appears to make enough money, but she thinks she doesn't. Should that give us the right to control her uterus?

[Hannah Bell]

22. abortions also cost money. googling it, i find $500-$1000 for a first-trimester abortion.

and can't even be accessed in some states, which = more cost to travel. plus many low-income women can't access it, as public funding has been dramatically restricted in many states.

birth control also costs money. so do doctors' visits.

so i don't see the analogy.

In the first instance, someone pays a woman for use of her uterus. apparently someone rather rich, considering the reported payment.

in the other cases, women pay someone else.

economic control still = control.

[pnwmom]

28. My point is that finances influence women's decisions on what happens

in their uterus -- whether they accept money in order to carry someone else's child, or whether they abort a baby because they think they can't afford it.

[Hannah Bell]

32. i.e. money allows some to control the wombs of others.

[pnwmom]

33. No one forces an Army wife, for example, to sign up with a surrogate agency

after she has completed her family. She could do other things for part time work -- she could be a waitress, or take a job on a road crew, or any number of other jobs -- but she chooses instead to carry a baby for another couple. I don't see the problem. Nobody is forcing her to go to the surrogate agency, the payment isn't high enough to be the prime motivator.

[Hannah Bell]

34. i have a different opinion.

[Posteritatis]

13. Agreed. (nt)

[sandnsea]

2. Who has done this?

I haven't heard of any celebrities doing this.

It does seem not much different than buying body parts. I bet women aren't paid several hundred thousand dollars either or there would be a line across the country.

[hyphenate]

15. I know of one couple

who deliberately went that route: Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick.

Another woman who wants kids but doesn't want to "ruin" her body is a trainer on "The Biggest Loser" named Jillian Michaels.

I'm sure if I did a full range Google search, I'd find more.

[kimmylavin]

18. Vanity?

Sarah Jessica Parker gave birth to a son in 2002, at the age of 37.
She was 44 when her daughters were born via a surrogate.

Perhaps that first pregnancy was difficult.
Perhaps they had trouble conceiving.
Perhaps her age came into play.
Maybe it has nothing to do with vanity, and everything to do with the same troubles that other infertile couples have...

[sandnsea]

23. I guess you better get googling

Sarah Jessica Parker could not conveive. Jillan Michaels is planning on adopting.

So neither of them fit the scenario in your OP.

[Hannah Bell]

24. not sure a high-profile woman who used a surrogate would

say she was doing so to preserve her figure or avoid being sick or taking time off filming or anything likely be read negatively by the public.

so i'm not sure how trustworthy such reports are.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. Did Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick really do that for vanity?

Their oldest child is about 7 and I thought they used a surrogate because of infertility problems. Conceiving and carrying in one's early 40s isn't all that easy to begin with. They also supposedly had problems conceiving their first child and had to use invitro.

[defendandprotect]

3. While I've noted situations among celebs like that once or twice, I wasn't really sure

if it was because the female had a health issue --

that it is vanity is a head-shaker . . .

Have it or don't have it -- but don't put another female into reproductive slavery

in your own selfish interests.

Actually, maybe it isn't so much that vanity issues have increased, but that wealth

has so increased that today humans can be bought very cheaply because so many are

vulnerable to this economy/capitalism's predatory practices -- ? -- !

[pnwmom]

4. What do you think of a situation where the woman

has a uterus defect and cannot carry the baby to term without possibly damaging the baby -- but she and her husband can produce healthy embryos. And the healthy surrogate has completed her family. Is the surrogate in any worse position than anyone else who takes a job that poses some physical risk?

I know a couple who were in this situation. They couldn't adopt because the woman had a genetic predisposition to another serious health issue. Her health was very good and stable, and the husband's health was excellent, but they were still barred from adopting. They ended up having their baby with the help of a surrogate and I'm glad for them.

[defendandprotect]

8. Well, the background to this is 7 BILLION of us . . .that's the reality now ....

Almost total pollution of environment and Global Warming --

and MIC back producing perpetual wars --

And this is only OPINION, of course -- everyone is free to do what they wish --

But, let me take your question around in another direction -- how many women would become

surrogates for free? How many family members would act as surrogates for their relatives?

I introduced the question of wealth as creating power -- specifically re this subject --

in this case the power for someone else to create a child for you.


But, why should any American be in a position to take a job that creates any physical risk ...

unless they are being exploited by an economic system they can't overturn?

I think if you really want a child it can be a very painful thing to not be able to have one --

but I do think we have for far too long put an overemphasis on having children --

especially more than one.

Again, reproduction is the choice of the female/couple -- this is only OPINION.


But I guess it reminds me of that old notion that simply having the power to do something

doesn't give you the right to do it. And I think that extends to creating children.


What do you think of a situation where the woman
Edited on Tue May-25-10 02:31 AM by pnwmom
has a uterus defect and cannot carry the baby to term without possibly damaging the baby -- but she and her husband can produce healthy embryos. And the healthy surrogate has completed her family. Is the surrogate in any worse position than anyone else who takes a job that poses some physical risk?

I know a couple who were in this situation. They couldn't adopt because the woman had a genetic predisposition to another serious health issue. Her health was very good and stable, and the husband's health was excellent, but they were still barred from adopting. They ended up having their baby with the help of a surrogate and I'm glad for them.

[pnwmom]

21. If you're worried about overpopulation, then you can control your own fertility.

A couple that has to hire a surrogate is unlikely to be enlarging the population (beyond replacement level).

And until we have NO jobs that create significant physical risk, I don't see why it would be wrong for a couple to hire a healthy, experienced woman to carry their baby to term.

P.S. Do you also think it's wrong for gay couples to hire women to donate their eggs and other women to carry the embryo?

[defendandprotect]

25. ... and YOU are free to hire a surrogate, if you wish . . .

and, I have controlled my own fertility.

Of course, patriarchy made that much more difficult for women all over the world by

destroying natural means of ending fertility, controlling conception, and interrupting

conception. Nature is pro-choice, but most of the plants which nature provided and

information about them were destroyed by patriarchy.

RU-486, for one, is based on one of those plant models.


First, for anyone aware of overpopulation and understanding the potential it has for

destroying the planet and, btw, creating slave labor -- the question would be:

"Who isn't concerned about overpopulation?"


Additionally, most often when couples engage in fertility intervention, we see multiple

births, evidently something you're not aware of? See: Jon&Kate, for one example.

And, further, one of the strongest reasons for fertility intervention is dropping sperm count

which many attribute to pollution of the environment.


Again, you haven't answered whether you or any female relatives you have would be willing to

act as surrogates? Or whether you would do it for free?

Or what role increased wealth is playing in this kind of decision making.

Fertility treatments are quite costly.

Should we subsidize them for every couple who wants fertility assistance?


You're also missing the point in regard to "risk" which you raised . . .

People in trouble will do crazy things in order to collect some dollar bills to solve

their immediate problems. Should we permit surrogate services to be a matter of having

the wealth to purchase them -- or should they only be provided as a gift?



Re homosexuals -- my awareness from stories I've read points to gay couples generally using a

family member as a sperm donor in the case of lesbians -- or friends.

Perhaps some have used sperm banks.

But, gay males do have the problem of needing a surrogate womb -- generally I'm of the opinion

that they are more likely to ADOPT children. And, I would add two other bits of information

on homosexuals as parents --

First, males are our child abusers.

Hetereosexuals males are 100X more likely to sexually abuse children than homosexual males.

Second, in Hawaii, homosexuals have long been honored as adoptive parents, caring for children

who have lost their parents.

Again -- from what I've read of homosexuals, they very often ADOPT . . . it may be mainly gay

male couples -- but many do adopt.



Finally, I'd say again, this is up to the individual to decide -- this is simply my OPINION.



PS: What do you think of US subsidizing vasectomies for any male who wants one?



If you're worried about overpopulation, then you can control your own fertility.
Edited on Wed May-26-10 01:21 AM by pnwmom
A couple that has to hire a surrogate is unlikely to be enlarging the population (beyond replacement level).

And until we have NO jobs that create significant physical risk, I don't see why it would be wrong for a couple to hire a healthy, experienced woman to carry their baby to term.

P.S. Do you also think it's wrong for gay couples to hire women to donate their eggs and other women to carry the embryo?

[pnwmom]

27. I would have been a poor candidate for being a surrogate when I was younger

because I was high risk. I can't speak for my other relatives -- I have no idea how they would feel if this was requested this of them. (One relative once said she'd love to do this for somebody but she'd already had a hysterectomy -- so who knows.)

I do have a friend whose relative carried her child for her; and the friend says it was harder (and she felt, more morally questionable) than if she had hired a surrogate from an agency. When you ask a relative to do this, there is just as much -- if not more -- worry that the surrogate is doing not doing this from free will (but because of a sense of family obligation).

As for the issue of gay couples using surrogates -- they do, and it's not uncommon in California, where the law is well-defined and there are more surrogate pregnancies than anywhere else. I remember reading about an Army wife in California who was having a baby for a gay couple -- who lived in France! She had gone to an agency and offered her services there. She had completed her family and thought this would be a good way to earn a little extra income while she stayed home with her kids.

So, if gay couples can use surrogates because they lack a womb, why not a straight couple who lack a normal womb but can produce healthy embryos? If the issue of population control should apply to the straight couple, why not to the gay couple? Neither was intended by nature to have a baby, if that is your argument.

[defendandprotect]

29. I think I've made clear, everyone is free to do what they wish . . . only guided or

hampered by their own level of consciousness raising --

My impression is also that lesbians were in the forefront of leadership in

raising consciousness re feminism -- and fighting for female equality.

Again, I know that many male couples adopt -- but I have I've no doubt that they

also use surrogates. But, again, should this be something decided by a dollar bill?

And what of the immense numbers of multiple births?


Further, though YOU seem to see a difference between hetereo/homo couples and consciousness-

raising re overpopulation, I see no difference. Right wing religious fanatics/corporatists

created a strong anti-population-family planning campaign in response to publicity re

overpopulation in 1960's -- and by buying influence over government and moving religous

fanatics into government. Not unlike what the oil industry did re Global Warming.

Everyone is capable of reproduction one way or another -- i.e., everyone should be making

decisions based on knowledge, not religious misinformation, not corporate disinformation.


You also touch on a subject of family vs public which is an issue which plays thru capitalism

and OPM/Other People's Money Very easy to see that things can be done at a distance --

animal factory farming, for instance -- which couldn't be done if the public had a better view

of it. If you wanted to start a business and needed assistance/labor and money from family and

friends, you would well understand that that would impact your level of control over the

business and involve more profit sharing. Same with corporations and Board of Directors where

share holders are kept at a distance.

Big difference when anything is done with family -- !!


Meanwhile, you're not acknowledging the issue of WEALTH and its influence over these reproductive

decisions -- for both sides of the issue -- the parent/the surrogate.



Rarely do I see Nature as limiting options -- as I mentioned Nature is Pro-choice which

means providing options.

[Karia]

7. Celebs do not owe us their medical info

Why assume it is vanity?

[defendandprotect]

9. First, I mentioned vanity because that's what the OP mentions . . .

I have no idea if that is the case or not --

But, I gave my opinion based on that possibility --

I'd actually concentrate more on wealth -- and dollar bills -- and the power that

money can create. And, what we think of WEALTH and the options it brings.


I'd repeat -- having the power to do something isn't the same as having the right to do it.

[LeftyMom]

6. Surros get "a couple hundred thousand" now?

Think 10-25K. Less if they're foreign, which is increasingly common.

[hyphenate]

16. Which makes it even worse, doesn't it?

According to the articles I've read on SJP and MB, their surrogate got paid "tens of thousands" of dollars, and that's not even covering her medical bills on top of it, or the harassment the surrogate endured from many people, including two police chiefs who burgled the woman's apartment looking for something juicy to blackmail SJP and MB with.

[likesmountains 52]

10. Well, I just have to say that people who don't want to be inconvenienced by pregnancy

will sure be surprised at how taxing parenthood is.

[JanMichael]

12. I also wonder how inconvenienced they might be by the actual child?

Hmm.

[defendandprotect]

26. Great question . . . !!!

Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter!!



:)

[Pisces]

11. I'm outraged that this is on your outrage list when there are so many serious issues at hand.

[hyphenate]

17. Oh, trust me

I have enough else to worry about, but it's a disturbing situation to me. It's once again (to me) the battle of what power the rich have and how they use it to exploit those who are poor.

And if nothing else, it's a womens rights issue which bears looking into.

[defendandprotect]

30. Agree with you, plus now issue of overpopulation 7+ Billlion of us now . . .

and overpopulation certainly impacts Global Warming and the state of our planet/

pollution --

So it is very relative, IMO --

PLUS -- many of these fertility treatments just happen to result in multiple births!

And it is a feminist and human rights issue --

Wealth is certainly playing a role in this --

And, I'd extend it to my concern for animal rights where female animals are consigned

to life-long enslavement as breeders! And males are often disposed of!



:)

[jp11]

14. Somewhere down the line it will be affordable for most women/families and maybe even won't require a

person to carry the pregnancy to term.

[Maru Kitteh]

35. #1. I find it more offensive when they hire 24/7/365 nannies AFTER the kids are born.

How one's child arrives to the world is a total non-issue for me so long as the child is cherished and loved once they are there.

#2. This is a self-limiting phenomena.

#3. People worry way too much about what other women do, or don't do with their uteri.

[SoCalDem]

36. A few things to think about on this one

1... just because a woman may "look good", does not insure that her "innards" are all working at topnotch speed...

2... "movie-star" women make their living by agreeing to contracts that are years-in-the-making, and those contracts probably have clauses written in that would cause her to lose the job if she got pregnant

3... eggs age, and if a woman is a 30/40-something who has never given birth before, medically she's considered OLD, and her pregnancy will be treated as high-risk.

if the goal is the baby, and you have the money, all options are open to you.

In the 30's & 40's, many "movie stars" adopted because it was pretty easy for them back then, and guess what?..some of those adopted kids were actually their own..(Loretta young, for one).

Back then promiscuity would ruin a woman's career, and single-Mom with illegitimate baby was not something they wanted to be, so they could "go abroad" for "exhaustion", and return months later with a baby they "adopted".

Wealthy women have always had things "done for them" when it came to their children.. governesses, wet-nurses, nannies..you name it.. Birthing is just another option, and if there's a willing "womb-for-rent", it will continue.

In a way it's not such a bad thing. If a young woman (who has breezy pregnancies), with some kids of her own and debt out the wazoo, wants to carry a rich woman's baby, why not? The money she could make might just be what lifts her and her children out of poverty, and could set them on a path to a comfortable life.

The downside is that it would take a special person to NOT bond with the life inside you, and if legalities are not tip-top, it could be a problem down the road. The child(ren) would have to aldso be told from the earliest available moment too, because someday that birth-mom and or her kids might just show up, if the adoptive mom & dad are high profile.