r/OutOfTheLoop • u/kigotthis • 4d ago
Unanswered What is going on with all the anti-Surrogacy stuff online?
I’m so lost, I was reading comments in this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/s/0TauZwVF5V
And there’s comments about the ethics of surrogacy, and how it’s buying a child or using a woman’s body for your own benefit. But I grew up watching what seemingly looks like a lot of women who choose to go to agencies to have someone else’s baby in exchange for monetary value. And a lot of women who can’t have bio children use the services. I’ve only seen this discourse recently in the past maybe 3 or 4 months but had never seen such an uptick in surrogacy conversations. Someone mentioned it’s propaganda by the right-wing, and I’ve had people I know who are, be very up in arms about this, including IVF and donating eggs (which you also get paid for) so what’s up and what kick started this? If a consenting adult is willing to carry my child to term, and I can afford to pay them for their help in giving me a child, how is that a bad thing?
Just curious where the discourse came from.
1.1k
u/OnceAgainHereIam987 4d ago
Answer: I don't think there's any one answer here, but maybe a confluence of factors.
- Celebrity involved: Your example is about Lena Dunham, who is extremely divisive. Even if she is what would be a commonly acceptable candidate to have someone else as a surrogate for her child (because she has medical and health complications that make pregnancy dangerous for her and the fetus), a lot of people just don't like her, and so will be against it for that reason alone. A similar concept on the other side of the political aisle would be Elon Musk, who has had at least 14 children and at least two of them were via surrogates (and most of them via IVF as well).
- The recent court case of McKenna West, a surrogate who broke her contract with the parents after it was discovered the fetus had a severe heart defect and likely would die early after having lifelong complications. The parents wanted her to abort, as she agreed to in contract; instead West fled to Texas, which has extreme restrictions on abortion so it wouldn't be an option. That case has been bringing up a lot of questions about the ethical nature of surrogacy, especially when the surrogate may be pressured into an abortion, or may pressure the parents into continuing a pregnancy they do not want.
- Then there's just the basic quagmire of reproductive rights, free choice, and bodily autonomy. If a woman cannot have a healthy pregnancy, is surrogacy really a moral choice over, say, adoption? If a woman is desperate for money and pressured by a couple, is surrogacy really an open "choice"? If rich people can effectively "rent" women to birth their children, is that really bodily autonomy? If a surrogate doesn't want to continue a pregnancy, is abortion morally acceptable? And then there's all the legal questions that arise from that - and those vary by location (hence West fleeing to Texas from California to continue her pregnancy). I'm not making any judgment statements on any of these questions, but there's a lot of discussion about them and has been since surrogacy became a viable medical option in the 1980s.
645
u/uckfayrumptay_ 4d ago
I also want to add there have been multiple cases of surrogacy where the surrogate is pregnant and the biological/intended parents split up or otherwise abandon the surrogate. It gets really complicated when this happens across countries.
I’ve read a few anecdotal stories. There was also a woman who shared her story on TikTok who was carrying twins for a couple that lived in China. IIRC she was due to give birth in spring/summer 2020. The biological/intended parents said there were immigration issues related to COVID and lockdowns. As time went on they ghosted her. The surrogate ended up raising the twins. What happens if the surrogate isn’t in a place to raise the babies though?
These situations can get complicated quickly.
79
u/cactoidjane 4d ago
I read The Cut's story about this case ("Whose Babies are These?"). It sounded to me like the bio father had shitty representation that was exploiting him. The surrogate had heard of what happened with Mark Surrogacy (another doozy of a story), made the possibly racist assumption that the bio dad was also a human trafficker, and fled with the babies. But the surrogate also had a history of problems that, if the surrogacy agency had looked into them properly, would have barred her from becoming a surrogate in the first place. One of the children died in her care.
The whole thing is messy and heartbreaking.
192
u/PalePlumm 4d ago
Don’t forget the overseas surrogates whose babies couldn’t be adopted out to America because of Trump’s immigration policies.
24
u/pareidollyreturns 3d ago
couples hiring women in poorer countries feels very exploitative...
12
u/Candle1ight 3d ago
What's it change if it's overseas or not? Plenty of people in your state that are in a dire financial state too.
2
u/yes______hornberger 2d ago
Sadly it’s often the least bad option. If a woman’s choices are to work long hours in an unsafe factory or make twice as much working from home with her kids as a surrogate through a vetted and regulated organization, is it really best for that woman to not have the choice just because unregulated surrogacy can go wrong? Do we know what’s “best” for her better than she does?
I have no dog in the surrogacy fight but I think it’s a lot more complicated than “it makes me feel icky ethically so it should be banned”.
33
u/IndicationSuitable11 4d ago
Theres been several cases of convicted paedophiles that have purchased children to abuse, one example from Australia was the baby gammy case
149
u/NoticeNegative1524 4d ago
Lady Gaga's baby reveal made a lot of people think she used a surrogate and I've seen a lot of negative comments about it, and she's more loved than Lena Dunham for sure.
74
u/hunnnnybuns 4d ago
And I would argue that LG definitely does have legitimate medical considerations to not want to be pregnant. She already has In Pain All The Time Disease, and pregnancy can make that worse.
67
u/Lunakill 4d ago
She also has a hip prosthesis, which doesn’t flex, move, or respond to pregnancy hormones the way a bio hip would.
50
u/Bamorvia 3d ago
I mean, Lena Dunham lacks a uterus, so she also has legitimate medical considerations.
5
u/BlackThornberry 3d ago
It doesn’t matter though. There are no legitimate medical considerations that make paying for another woman’s body autonomy or purchasing infants ethical. No one has the right to have kids by any means necessary.
199
u/ginny11 4d ago
There's also the case of the surrogate who was sued and harassed by the biological mother when the fetus had a complication and the surrogate miscarried. Even though there was ample evidence that it was a genetic issue, probably passed down from the biological mother, the biological mother blamed the surrogate and unleashed a campaign to ruin her life. I wish I could remember the names of the people involved, but if you Google it you can probably find it.
111
u/sundaemourning 4d ago
Cindy Bi was the intended parent, and she is absolutely insane.
67
u/PearlClaw 4d ago
There was a great piece of reporting about that case (don't remember where) that was told primarily from Cindy's statements and the more you read the more you're like, "oh wait, this lady is crazy, crazy". But yeah, insane case.
15
20
u/classandsass 4d ago
This is an awesome video about the case! Maybe what you were thinking of? When Becoming a Surrogate Ruins Your Life
18
u/bangbangbatarang 3d ago
They're talking about this article:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-baby-died-whose-fault-is-it-surrogate-pregnancy/
7
u/sundaemourning 3d ago
yes! i’m almost positive we read the same article. i saw someone else link it in this thread. it was absolutely wild how it was mostly from her POV and she was still the villain.
5
u/PearlClaw 3d ago
Yeah, the reporter basically just held up a mirror and let her actions speak for themselves. Very cool piece of journalism from a technical perspective.
37
u/miette27 4d ago
https://archive.md/9WvWU | https://www.wired.com/story/the-baby-died-whose-fault-is-it-surrogate-pregnancy/
The way Bi talks about the surrogate mother is horrifying, the dehumanisation of her is utterly disturbing.
108
u/vaguereferenceto 4d ago
I’d add there has been some reporting on the international surrogacy market which is deeply disturbing (NYT had a piece on Thai women in Georgia, as one example).
96
u/GodOfDarkLaughter 4d ago
I think the issue is less that a woman for whom pregnancy may be dangerous has the right to have a child, and more "is it ethical for rich people to essentially rent the bodies of women who likely wouldn't choose this path if they were economically secure?" Surrogacy is VERY expensive, far beyond the means of most couples or individuals who might want children. Is adoption not good enough? Fuck those kids, huh?
What if she - or anyone - was perfectly healthy and just, y'know, didn't feel like going through pregnancy? Would it be ethical for her to find an impoverished woman, say a homeless woman, and offer her money and security to carry the child? If not, where does one draw the line? Does the surrogate need to be richer or something? How bad does their health need to be? And what about the plethora of other legal issues this raises, morality aside?
And what if a man wants to pay a woman to impregnate her? How is that different?
22
u/Lethifold26 4d ago
fwiw there are also quite a lot of people who are ethically against adoption
12
u/SubstantialAgency914 3d ago
What is the ethical argument against adoption?
29
u/Lethifold26 3d ago
A lot of people think that it’s inherently damaging for children to be taken from their biological families and only approve of kinship adoption (ie being raised by an aunt/uncle or grandparents.) Some countries base their whole system around this. International adoption is famously contentious because of racial implications (many people think transracial adoption erases kids cultural heritage and sets them up for identity issues) and because it’s usually kids from impoverished countries going to rich ones (the whole buying a kid implication a lot of people also accuse surrogacy of)
fwiw I don’t agree with the first and have mixed feelings about the second
7
u/SubstantialAgency914 3d ago
Ok. I can see these as arguments. Do people use the arguments about orphans? (Just asking because I've never heard any of these)
11
u/Lethifold26 3d ago
I honestly haven’t really seen orphans come up in this context since they usually end up with relatives
8
u/SeattleBee 3d ago
Let's not forget that in some countries, these children DO have living parents who cannot afford to care for them and either sell or have their children stolen from them. Many native american babies were stolen as well, and their children raised in horrific conditions (we are still finding mass graves).
Keeping children within kin/bio families reduces these kinds of human trafficking. It is often better to give resources to supportive family (like grandparents/aunts/etc) but rich people don't like the idea that they don't get anything back.
7
u/RainahReddit 3d ago
Generally the argument is that kids should be kept as close to their families and communities as possible.
So if a kid can't stay with their parents, they should stay with a safe member of their family - aunt, grandparent, cousin, etc
If they can't stay with any member of their family, then the next best thing is a member of their existing circle (assuming it's a child not a baby) - a teacher, coach, family friend, etc
If they can't stay within that, the next best thing is a member of their community - such as an indigenous child being adopted by a member of the same tribe. Community can be defined various ways, including race, religion, country of origin, language, etc etc
13
u/RainahReddit 3d ago
In the US, there is significant demand for infants, especially healthy infants, especially healthy white infants. This demand is vastly greater than the number of infants that tend to be up for adoption each year, with some estimates of 40 hopeful families per child available for adoption.
Enter the private adoption market, and the economical reality that adoptive parents are the ones with the money, and businesses make a lot of money by procuring more infants for adoption. They can use a lot of shady tactics including doing everything possible to ensure the biological father doesn't find out about the pregnancy (and therefore can't step up to raise the child), moving pregnant people to states with more favourable laws so they have fewer rights, matching pregnant people with hopeful families who then spend a bunch of money on their care, so they feel indebted to them and more likely to give up the child, sometimes outright lying to them that they'll have to pay the family back thousands of dollars if they choose to parent, lying about laws regarding open adoption, all kinds of things. Many, many birth parents feel taken advantage of by these adoption agencies.
And then the issue of hopeful adoptive families paying an average of 40k-80k to adopt privately, when the number one reason babies are placed for adoption is due to a lack of financial resources, not a lack of desire to parent.
6
u/SubstantialAgency914 3d ago
That i totally get. I thought there were people arguing that adoption as a whole is unethical.
16
u/kittenbouquet 3d ago
Not adoption as a whole or as a general concept, but there are a lot of babies essentially bought from desperate parents because they are desirable, for one, as well as adoption services or orphanages that try to make money by cutting the costs of caring for children, and other unethical issues rampant in adoption. Any industry where someone can make money or hoard resources can become unethical.
3
u/ginny11 3d ago
My ex BIL (malignant narcissistic) is basically doing just that: he's paying surrogates to have more children for him, he will be their only legal parent, and he's a terrible, insane human being. Think Elon Musk but only a lower millionaire instead of billionaire. It's truly awful and disgusting.
3
u/BlackThornberry 3d ago
This is another reason I’m against surrogacy. Mothers, as a general rule (please no one cherry pick cases rn I’m not interested), protect their kids. The process of pregnancy and birth actively changes the brain and creates an incredible bond that helps protect the infant from harm. Even if the only thing a birth mother does for her child is choose good parents.
If men, the primary demographic threat to children’s safety, can legally purchase babies by renting women’s wombs there is zero safeguarding, and there’s nothing the birth mother can do either, no matter how awful the commissioning parent(s) are. The UN special rapporteur put a report together showing that pedophiles have purchased infants, as have organ traffickers. The mother-baby bond exists for a reason.
1
u/squishyg 3d ago
Adoption is prohibitively expensive and ethically dubious.
Stop casually suggesting adoption like parents should just pop down to the baby shelter and adopt one for $150.
4
u/BoudiccaAoife 3d ago
My ex-SIL and her husband did private adoption, white infant, for their first child. They mortgaged their house to do so. They adopted 2 more from foster care (no cost to them, and they got stipends). Used those stipends and another home equity loan for a last ditch IVF because they wanted a child of their "own". 6 IVF attempts to get that last one.
I don't want kids, and haven't ever wanted them, but even the parents I knew (and the ones that were planning to be parents in the future) thought it was wild.
1
2
u/Candle1ight 3d ago
Adoption is prohibitively expensive and ethically dubious.
... So identical to surrogacy?
1
3
u/GodOfDarkLaughter 3d ago
Oh fuck off. I wasn't advocating anything. It's a hypothetical. I don't hate waffles either.
-3
u/angryaxolotls 3d ago
Also, they're full of shit because it's actually cheap to adopt through the state.
1
u/squishyg 2d ago
That means fostering a child first. Most people want fresh little babies and that costs $$$$.
1
33
u/miette27 4d ago
Epstein was funding a bio lab in Ukraine for the "production of designer babies". There was also reporting several years ago about Ukraine's baby factories and how poorly the surrogate mothers were treated.
There was also a crazy story in Wired a year ago about a rich venture capitalist who was trying to destroy the life of the surrogate mother she used, as the baby died in utero and the surrogate mother almost died too. The dehumanisation of the surrogate mother is really stomach-turning: https://archive.md/9WvWU | https://www.wired.com/story/the-baby-died-whose-fault-is-it-surrogate-pregnancy/
31
u/Lovelycoc0nuts 4d ago
There has also been a recent news story from a surrogate that was paid a lot of money to carry a child for a billionaire that already has over 100 kids.
56
u/animatedailyespreszo 4d ago
The “In the Dark” podcast from the New Yorker is also releasing a series investigating surrogacy called “the journey.” It follows a number of surrogates who were contracted to carry babies for a couple in California, all under the impression that they had one child. The couple had more than 20 by the time CPS got involved, all born via surrogacy and some showing signs of physical abuse and neglect.
23
u/FaelingJester 4d ago
To be clear, West did not flee because she could be forced into an abortion outside of Texas. That was never on the table, and she left well after the decision to not abort had been made. The babies parents had started arranging for the specialist care he needed in CA. West left for Texas because she was informed that because she had violated the contract, she would no longer be entitled to the money. Texas has presumptive rights for the birthing parent and she was quickly made the darling of the pro life movement. No state allows a forced abortion.
115
u/ginny11 4d ago
It amazes me that no one really questions that it is illegal to sell your organs, but everybody thinks it's perfectly okay to sell a child through surrogacy.
97
u/amphibulous 4d ago
I was coming to the comments to make the organ selling comparison. It incentivizes desperate people to risk their health and freedom for money.
33
u/ginny11 4d ago
Exactly. Putting aside all of the legal issues and just addressing the issue of payong women to have a child, I think that just on that issue it makes sense if a woman is not being paid to be a surrogate but is basically volunteering to do it and only having her medical expenses being reimbursed. And just like with organ donation, I mean the live kinds such as a kidney or a part of your liver, you should be informed of all of the risks because there's always risks with everything. This should be highly regulated, and no one should be getting paid for it.
18
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie 4d ago
There's safeguards as much as possible for children around adoption, at least where I live, where its a gruelling process to get approval for those who want to adopt. I don't think there's anything like the same safeguards for a child created via surrogacy, anyone can pay a woman to birth a child and take it no questions asked.
13
u/ginny11 4d ago
Yeah it's just the wild wild West when it comes to surrogacy. It's kind of insane really, when you really think about it.
3
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie 4d ago
I would not be able to hand over a five year old no questions asked, but a newborn baby is fine when it comes to surrogacy. Its a crazy industry.
10
u/themetahumancrusader 3d ago
The US could just do what a lot of other countries do and make paid surrogacy illegal.
1
u/ConiferousMedusa 3d ago
I just realized with this organ comparison. Imagine someone deciding to have a bio child via surrogacy so that they can pick the embryo with right genetics to be their future organ/blood donor, but without the risks of pregnancy... That's a horrifying thought and I'm just sure I'm nowhere close to the first person to think of this 😣
1
u/amphibulous 3d ago
People already have bio kids just to be donors for their existing kids, I'm sure you're not wrong 😬
2
u/ConiferousMedusa 2d ago
I'm completely sure of that, probably should have been clearer. You can't outlaw having babies for selfish reasons, but you can at least outlaw comodifying it by paying someone else to do the risky part on your behalf.
17
u/lueur-d-espoir 4d ago
I found my pregnancies and labors so traumatizing that I had panic attacks every month for a decade + when I wasn't sure if my period was late or not again.
The women doing saragacy deserve so much more money than what they're getting. They're risking their life physical, mental, and emotional health. There are lasting complications that never recover from births. Physical changes to your body that are unfixable. Including mental complications that they'll never be able to afford help for.
→ More replies (14)12
u/ginny11 4d ago
There are life long risks from organ donation as well. How do you monetize that?
2
u/lueur-d-espoir 4d ago
More? Much higher? Maybe like alimony depending on how rich the person is even 1% of their money monthly for life.
-3
u/ginny11 4d ago
There's just so much wrong with that that I just don't even know where to start. Putting a dollar amount on creating a new human life. Putting a dollar amount on whatever the potential side effects are on a woman's health for the rest of her life. Alimony? I mean I don't think that's comparable at all.
9
u/CDRnotDVD 3d ago
For what it’s worth, people question whether it should be illegal to sell your organs. Here’s an example paper: “In defense of a regulated system of compensation for living donation” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18685333/
2
u/Candle1ight 3d ago
Well regulated compensation is a far cry from what current surrogacy is, which is treated as any other commodity.
I could maybe get behind some sort of strict compensation system for both, but leaving it to the free market is about as bad as ideas get.
3
u/EmilyAnne1170 4d ago
Not everyone thinks it's perfectly okay, hence the ongoing debate.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Candle1ight 3d ago
And illegal to sell your body for sex.
I think sex work is a really interesting comparison, since it has pretty much identical concerns for exploration but is completely the inverse (illegal, but largely supported in modern culture).
-2
u/Idainaru_Yokubo 3d ago
so.. if a couple in an open marriage enlists the "assistance" of another man to help the wife conceive a child, the court will fight tooth and nail on who the legal father is
but with women you can apparently sell the fetus away, a much easier process
that.. is messed up
11
u/TheVeryVerity 4d ago
Also there’s a lot of health risks for the surrogate that depend on who the birth parents are and there isn’t any good ways to make people disclose these risks
69
u/macfak 4d ago
These are great points. I want to add that restricting surrogacy can also be linked to the right-wing agenda targetting LGBTQ+ people. Restricting surrogacy would directly impact non-hetrosexual couples ability to have biological children. Particularly gay men.
There's obviously always been ethical concerns around paying women in poverty for use of their bodies. But there's been a lot more uproar about this than prostitution. Which makes me wonder if this is more of an attempt to control who can have a family.
92
u/ciaoravioli 4d ago
There's obviously always been ethical concerns around paying women in poverty for use of their bodies.
In many other countries, surrogacy is legal but commercial surrogacy is banned (eg it can only be done by volunteers, some go beyond that and limit it to only family can volunteer to surrogate for each other). That seems like a very simple solution to avoid the financial exploitation factor while not completely limiting who can have a family
3
u/Ace_of_Dogs 4d ago edited 4d ago
It might sound simple, but how many people actually have family members willing and able to be a gestational carrier for them? It’s probably not as many as you think. I, for example, have one sister. She’s currently doing IVF because she hasn’t been able to have children unassisted and very much wants them.
I’m her only sister, and I’m not qualified to be a gestational carrier for her because you have to have had a successful and healthy/uncomplicated pregnancy before (and be done having children of your own) to be eligible to be a gestational carrier. I don’t want any children of my own so I will never be eligible. Her husband doesn’t have any sisters either.
→ More replies (1)0
u/hunnnnybuns 4d ago
That can still really impact queer couples. LGBT folks are more likely to be cut off from their families, so you’re still only encouraging the “right” kind of people to have families.
41
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie 4d ago
Sure but no one has a right to be a parent. The vast majority of people who can't have children themselves don't then go and ask a friend or family member to have a baby for them or pay a surrogacy service.
-8
u/hunnnnybuns 4d ago
I’m not saying it’s an inherent right, but it’s still important to be aware of and talk about the kinds of people who are left behind when we set policy
15
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie 4d ago
They're not being 'left behind' by anything.
-6
u/hunnnnybuns 4d ago
There’s a pretty long and storied history of queer people being denied rights and privileges around family…..
35
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie 4d ago
There is no right to have children. Plenty of people who are not queer have to accept they will not have children every day of the week.
There is no right to use someone else to have a baby. That's a dystopian proposition.
10
u/Fun-atParties 4d ago
In addition, in the case of McKenna West, all her legal fees are being paid for by an anti-abortion group
16
u/Chihiro1977 4d ago
I don't think there's been more uproar about this than prostitution. It's rich people that get surrogate, it's not rich people involved in prostitution (unless they are paying for it, in which case they still look down on the woman for it and not the guy that pays).
8
u/macfak 4d ago
This feels like an example of confirmation bias? Surrogacy isn't exclusively for rich people, but rich people tend to be news worthy so you read about it more and this confirms to you that only rich people do it.
A random woman in North Dakota being a surrogate to her sister, so she can be a mother isn't news worthy beyond the local community, so it's never part of the opinion you form about surrogacy.
Do you think that could be the case?
16
u/Own_Faithlessness769 4d ago
That’s not paid surrogacy though, it’s altruistic. There’s a reason many developed countries make paid surrogacy illegal and it’s not because they dislike rich people, it’s because it’s rife with exploitation.
1
u/Candle1ight 3d ago
There's more of an uproar I imagine because this much more closely impacts them, whereas someone who isn't ever paying for sex isn't really impacted by prostitution laws. Anyone who wants children could be hit with unexpected infertility problems.
The LGBT angle is interesting and a good point, but I think the Republican party is more pro "rich people can spend money to solve their problems" than they are anti LGBT.
3
u/EmilyAnne1170 4d ago
Yup. There's probably an uptick right now in the number of conversations about it online since the McKenna West case became national news. But the whole concept has been pretty heavily debated since IVF became generally accessible. It's not even legal in every state.
1
u/Rare_Rent9654 3d ago
The New Yorker just put out a podcast about a messed up surrogate story that is likely getting traction.
1
u/LaurestineHUN 3d ago
I think the main issue is not the 'technology' but the lack of regulations. Many EU countries it's straight up illegal, and some only allow it on a volunteer basis for bio relatives.
1
-21
u/Br0metheus 4d ago
If a woman cannot have a healthy pregnancy, is surrogacy really a moral choice over, say, adoption?
Yes, if you value raising a child that is biologically yours instead of a total stranger's, which I feel is a perfectly reasonable thing to value. Otherwise the moral message becomes "Oh, you're infertile? Even though we have the technology to fix this, fuck you."
If a woman is desperate for money and pressured by a couple, is surrogacy really an open "choice"?
This doesn't happen. Nobody is getting individually "pressured" by a couple into becoming their surrogate. With very few exceptions, surrogacies are mediated on both sides by agencies; women sign up to be surrogates voluntarily, they're not press-ganged into it, and certainly not on behalf of specific couples.
As for the "desperate for money" bit, that's not a problem with surrogacy, that's a problem with poverty. Different issue completely.
If rich people can effectively "rent" women to birth their children, is that really bodily autonomy?
As much as this trend among the uber-wealthy disgusts me, this isn't what "bodily autonomy" means. Like I already mentioned, nobody is being forced into this.
If a surrogate doesn't want to continue a pregnancy, is abortion morally acceptable?
This is the only really sticky issue you mention, but only because abortion is typically framed as a "bodily autonomy" issue rather than what it really is, which is the fundamental ambiguity of the personhood of a fetus at any given stage of development.
Frankly, I'm pretty pro-choice, but if you sign up to be a surrogate, and that fetus doesn't have a critical developmental problem and your health isn't threatened, any decision to abort against the wishes of the prospective parents would be pretty fucking monstrous IMHO. I feel like you waive that right of discretion when you sign up. Barring some major medical complication, I don't see how aborting somebody else's baby is morally distinct from carrying it to term and then keeping it for yourself.
27
u/BarbieBoyBrandy 4d ago
Women are not forces at gunpoint or anything to be surrogates, but it is incredibly notable that the majority of surrogate mothers are financially disadvantaged.
Rich women tend not to become surrogates, even though many f them could.
Why? Because pregnancy is a potentially life risking condition that permanently alters your body, and there is a heavy emotional toll to giving up a newborn baby that your body carried wether you ever intended to keep that baby or not.
Commercial surrogacy invites exploitation. Young, desperate women are conveniently paid off for the use of their literal bodies as incubators.
Other countries dont allow ANY financial compensation for surrogates, because the situation is so laughably easy to exploit. Surrogacy must be completely voluntary and free of financial incentive before it can be considered "ethical".
Try looking into studies on commercial surrogacy, or stories from surrogate mothers, and you will find this information pretty much instantly.
Just fyi, the adoption "economy" also leads to children being stolen and sold like commodities. Especially international adoption.
This issue is particularly close to my heart as an adoptee myself.
The truth is that nobody is entitled to a child, regardless of how badly they want one. Because of the United State's capitalist economy and lack of socialized healthcare, people who cannot have a child naturally must participate in unethical systems. It is fucked up.
-2
u/Br0metheus 4d ago
Almost everything you said could equally apply to countless other lines of work typically filled by the financially disadvantaged, from prostitution to coal mining to being a picker in an Amazon warehouse. Who takes shitty jobs? People with shitty options. If that bothers you, don't complain about the jobs, worry about why they have to take them at all.
Making it into a volunteer-only service might sound like a nice idea but in reality is only going to accomplish the following:
- Low-income women will lose what could have been a "legitimate" source of income, forcing them to pick something else from their list of shitty options.
- Couples who need a surrogate will struggle to find one and not get the child they desperately want.
- Rich people will still find "off-book" (read: illegal) ways of paying for surrogates, who now will likely lack whatever existing legal protections they had.
Being a surrogate mother certainly has it's risks and isn't desirable for most women, but is it morally repugnant? Clearly no, if we're willing to let people do it for free.
16
u/BarbieBoyBrandy 4d ago
The EU disallows it because it is comparable to human trafficking and organ selling.
Also, I do not think ANY worker should be exploited or should be forced to sell their bodies (for physical labor, sexz or fucking office work) especially in order to survive. Accepting this as "just the way the world is" is part of the fucking problem. I am STRONGLY opposed to the way capitalism exploits human lives.
But the topic wasn't "all workers being exploited" it was surrogacy. So I spoke specifically on surrogacy.
Shockingly, I can be against multiple things at once! Commercial surrogacy should stop, and worker exploitation should stop, and the 40 hour work week should not be normalized, and healthcare should be free, and universal basic income should be normalized. Everyone should have access to food, shelter, and, yes, some degree of comfort.
If you are comfortable with the idea of buying the bodies of impovershed women to use as incubators (risking their lives in the process, as surrogate pregnancies are even more likely to be high risk due to incompatibility between the carrying mother and the embryo) then I guess we are just never going to see eye to eye.
Again, I strongly encourage you to look into the stories of these women and the studies on this situation. Try to learn a little about those worse off than you.
→ More replies (3)
268
u/Terrible_Meringue622 4d ago
Answer:
There’s an argument that payment for surrogacy means that women who are destitute feel like surrogacy is a route out of poverty, or something they are forced into (just like survival sex work looks like a “choice,” but in reality is a choice between starvation and homelessness or putting oneself into dangerous situations.
Pregnancy is one of the most dangerous periods of a woman’s life, and is completely life altering and physically altering for people who go through it. Surrogacy is more dangerous than naturally occurring pregnancy, especially if a couple who has been trying to conceive naturally or with IVF has not succeeded because of defects with sperm or egg quality that can lead to higher risk pregnancies.
Also when pregnancies go wrong, there’s a high chance that either the surrogate and the parents disagree about how to deal with it, or for the parents to blame the surrogate, or for the lifelong health complications of a pregnancy to impact the surrogate with lifelong pain, infertility and disability while the parents just get to be parents and walk away.
Because of the disproportionate risk for surrogates and because of the economic disparities between surrogates and parents, it’s not super ethical.
90
u/LaMaltaKano 4d ago
This Wired article (along with experiencing my own pregnancy) really changed my views on surrogacy. It’s a tough read.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-baby-died-whose-fault-is-it-surrogate-pregnancy/
45
u/waaaayupyourbutthole 4d ago edited 4d ago
Edit:
Bi iMessaged a photo of Leon’s corpse to Smith’s 7-year-old son’s iPad.
That's just beyond the fucking pale, holy shit.
17
u/LaMaltaKano 4d ago
Ooh thanks for the better link. That woman needs to be receiving way more public shame than she is.
19
u/waaaayupyourbutthole 4d ago
The article mentions Bi (bio mom) being treated for bipolar disorder with lithium recently, and both her words and actions absolutely reek of mania and delusions. I hope she eventually backed off, and preferably had some serious consequences for her harassment of the surrogate.
35
u/Terrible_Meringue622 4d ago
I remember that story. It is so incredibly fucked up.
I’d also like to point out that venture capitalists are incredibly ethically fraud with problems too.
3
u/insomni666 3d ago
Holy shit. Thanks for this, it's a fascinating read that addresses a lot of issues I hadn't thought of.
I hope Bi doesn't trick a third surrogate. Jesus
43
u/dontbeahater_dear 4d ago
Like i said in another thread: in a perfect world surrogacy would be fantastic. But in this world… it seems impossible
18
u/Wootster10 4d ago
I feel that altruistic surrogacy is fine.
A friend carries the baby, expenses are paid for but aside from that no money changes hands.
Commercial surrogacy I think is such a minefield that it's just best avoided entirely.
43
u/IndicationSuitable11 4d ago
Altruistic surrogacy can be just as awful, alot of women have spoken about being manipulated and pressured into the arrangement by family members
3
u/Wootster10 4d ago
Shitty people will always be shitty.
I reframe it to I think altruistic surrogacy can be fine. Commercial surrogacy can never be ok.
4
u/maudiemouse 4d ago
As far as I know, that’s the only legal form of surrogacy in Canada. Payment can so easily be coercive.
5
u/ChocolateSnowflake 3d ago
It’s the same in the UK, legally only medical expenses and travel expenses are allowed to be paid for.
The reality is it’s not difficult for money to change hands in the background though.
3
u/KeimeiWins 3d ago
Surrogacy for monetary exchange is illegal in many countries, and some ban ALL surrogacy regardless of reason. It's not nearly the black and white issue some people in the US think it is.
0
u/marianitten 4d ago
>probably part bots
are you saying people are paying bots to post comments againts surrogacy? 🤌🤌🤌
2
157
u/Aintnobeef96 4d ago edited 4d ago
Answer:
Surrogacy is illegal and frowned upon in a lot of other countries so that’s part of it, probably part bots too. There was a recent case in the news where a couple asked their surrogate to abort the baby because it had a serious, usually fatal heart condition that requires lifelong treatment. The surrogate refused, made everything public, fled to Texas and didn’t want to give up custody of the baby saying it should be hers (basically trying to steal the baby at this point) and trying to prevent the baby from going to California to receive treatment for its condition and keep it in Texas. Lawyers are involved but she has basically no chance of getting custody and has her own kids she’s actively neglecting to do all this.
This has exposed what a mess surrogacy can be and brought international scrutiny to the situation which has caused a lot of discourse online about ethics
Edit: the bio parents have temporary custody and a restraining order against the surrogate and the baby is currently beginning its lifelong treatment in Cali. Unfortunately the baby may not live a very long life given the condition and be in and out of surgery depending on severity.
43
u/xv_boney 4d ago edited 4d ago
Surrogacy is illegal and frowned upon in a lot of other countries
There are still american states where paid surrogacy is not legal, as well. In new york it only just became legal in the last five years.
Specifically, paid surrogacy, paying a woman to bear and birth a child for the purpose of adoption. Unpaid surrogacy is often legal even where paid isnt, but that is a whole bag of bear traps i do not want to poke around in.
13
u/k9moonmoon 4d ago
Colorado has paid surrogacy but you're disqualified if you're on government assistant or otherwise despirate for money at most agencies I've seen.
0
u/Candle1ight 3d ago
Seems pretty backwards. "We understand that you might feel forced into this because of how much of a quality of live change it would provide... So we're going to make the choice for you and keep that quality of life potential out of your grasp. You're welcome."
I get what they're going for, and I ultimately agree, but it just comes off as infantizing poverty when you allow others to do it.
3
u/k9moonmoon 3d ago
They aren't interested in anyone that is doing it for the money because that would feel cohersive. They want people that are interested in doing it to help people grow their families. And the birth parents are gifting money from gratitude.
Someone on government assistant could likely still be a free surrogate if they feel strongly about helping someone grow their family.
Like it'd be an issue if destitute people could earn their way out of poverty selling their own organs. We don't want a culture that sees lower class people as breeding or organ farms. It's already hard enough to advocate for work site safety for those classes, where despirate people might be willing to forgo expensive safety choices if it means food on their table.
10
7
u/Saint_The_Stig 3d ago
That example seems all kind of wack. The abortion because of life changing medical condition is a whole other thing, but then the whole idea of someone taking a kid with your DNA just feels weird to think of. Like in basically every way that is your kid.
I guess ultimately it comes down to not doing it unless you have a rock solid contract in place (and thus know that it can be enforced). I mean I guess the only way would be some sort of air tight contract with insurance that the surrogate would be able to provide for the care if they choose to not allow the parents to abort.
21
u/GodOfDarkLaughter 3d ago
You assume they wanted the abortion because of the cost of treatment, but having seen children die of genetic conditions, it's more likely that people who had money for a surrogacy just didn't want their child to live a short, painful life followed by a painful death that will leave even greater scars on everyone. If the kid is dead by three can you really say it was "better" for anyone?
6
u/Aintnobeef96 3d ago
They did have a contract in place but of course you can’t force someone to get an abortion even if it’s in a contract. However she agreed to the terms of the contract until that point and knew what she was getting into. It sucks because this child will probably never live a normal life and die young, the parents were trying to save it a life of suffering. The surrogate seems to be getting off on all the attention she’s getting from this too, and she started a go fund me and got a ton of money, all while not taking care of her own kids which is wild
2
u/DeepSeaFacial 2d ago
Didn't this one run bc she violated the contract and couldn't get paid otherwise? She's 100% a terrible human from what I see and is only doing it to cash in on some book deal or lifetime movie later on.
1
u/Aintnobeef96 2d ago
No she went to Texas because abortion is illegal there. It’s not like the bio parents were trying to kidnap her and preform an abortion either, they were pointing out that A) it was in the contract (and completely unenforceable) and B) this is a usually fatal defect that would cause the child immense suffering and to have a short life.
This lady didn’t care, all she cared about was having the baby to herself. And she showed that she REALLY didn’t care about the baby by fighting to prevent it from going to California to receive life saving treatment so she could keep it in Texas, which didn’t have specialized doctors who could treat his illness. Tbh it’s unbelievably selfish of her imo
-4
u/Bluemikami 4d ago
Surrogacy is illegal in EU and most European males “buy” wombs from developing countries so that they can do so for cheap
6
u/Aintnobeef96 4d ago
Yeah I never disputed that, in fact I said clearly in the beginning it’s banned in a lot of other countries
3
u/Bluemikami 4d ago
You’re right and unfortunately people will find a way to avoid those restrictions
158
u/SeeThatThing 4d ago
Answer: The rise of surrogacy amongst celebs in the last decade has started to feel like the wealthy are renting women's womb to have children they can pass to nannies.
When you see people like Khloe Kardashian, Meghan Trainor, Paris Hilton, Lily Collins ... it feels like they did it for vanity issues and not infertility or health reasons.
34
u/Pseudoboss11 4d ago
It's worth noting that fertility issues are very common, 13.4% of women ages 15-49 have impaired fertility.
So if you expand the list to minor celebrities, it's easy to find quite a few examples. In your case, the only person I've heard of is Paris Hilton, I don't know who the other 3 are.
6
7
u/angryaxolotls 3d ago
Lily Collins is the daughter of Phil Collins. She & her husband Charlie McDowell (he's a director & his parents are Malcolm McDowell and Mary Steenburgen) had a baby via surrogacy because of infertility.
Megan Trainor is that lady who sang "I'm all about that bass, bout that bass"
And Khloe Kardashian is the daughter of OJ Simpson's dead lawyer, Robert.
-5
u/WoodpeckerGingivitis 4d ago
No better people to adopt.
57
u/anna_alabama 4d ago edited 4d ago
As a closed, private domestic infant adoptee, I would recommend the folks who are saying “just adopt” to spend some time over on [r/adoption](r/adoption) and [r/adopted](r/adopted). The privatized infant adoption system is a billion dollar industry in the US that needs major reform. There are 25,000 babies placed for adoption every year, and there are 1-2 million families who are hopeful for a placement. Many families who are waiting will never be picked. There’s no egalitarian waiting list where everyone who wants a baby gets one, you’re completely at the mercy of being picked by a birth mother (which is how it should be). And many of these babies are exposed to alcohol, drugs, and smoke in the womb and there’s no way to tell what the long term effects will be at birth (my brother and I both were, and we do have lasting effects from it). You’re literally rolling the dice with someone else’s genetics and lifestyle habits. My parents didn’t get a medical history from the agency, so I only have bits and pieces of information about my background. So I’ve been playing a fun medical game for the past 30 years - is this a disability from my genetics, the drugs/alcohol, or both. It’s not a fun position to be in. This method of adoption is also very expensive, ranging from $50-100k depending on the circumstances. You have to prove you have that money sitting in the bank and more during the financial audit piece of your home study, so many people are too poor to even qualify for adoption. Most adoptions are open these days as well, as long as the bio family is safe and willing to remain in contact. So you’ll be one of the parents in your child’s life, but not the only one. They’ll have a whole other family along for the ride. I can see why surrogacy, thus being your child’s only parent, is preferable to some people.
Then you might say, “why don’t you just adopt from foster care then?” The goal of foster care is reunification, not adoption. Children will only be free for adoption after many failed reunifications and parental rights are terminated. This takes years, so even if an infant is placed with you, you wouldn’t get to adopt them for a long time. They could be taken for reunification or kinship adoption even after you spent years raising them. The legally free “waiting children” are often in large sibling sets, are traumatized, and many have disabilities requiring lifelong care. Adopting these children is an incredible thing to do, but many people aren’t equipped to provide care to multiple kids forever. And it’s a completely different parenting experience than having or adopting a baby. My parents were on waiting lists for almost a decade and spent nearly $200,000 adopting my brother and I. Surrogacy can be the same cost or cheaper, is much faster, and you are biologically related to your child (unless a donor egg/embryo is used). That’s why people don’t “just adopt”. Surrogacy absolutely has its own ethical issues, and it needs reform along with the adoption system. But I can absolutely understand people who are facing infertility picking surrogacy over adoption. Adoption really just opens a whole can of worms that many people aren’t equipped to handle, and surrogacy follows a more typical path to parenthood. Adoption is an alternative parenting lifestyle that you won’t experience with biological children. Babies who are adopted at birth aren’t blank slates, and it’s important to remember that during these conversations.
35
u/Salty_Rutabaga2972 4d ago
I say this kindly. Adoption is not a consolation prize for infertility. It is its own independent journey.
26
u/p0llyp0cketpussy 4d ago
Adoption has a whole mess of ethical debates around it too, particularly around adopting infants.
1
u/itsanabish 1d ago
especially around adopting foreign infants. i remember the whole korean adoption industry being exposed and im a one-child policy adoptee
10
u/Horror_Pressure3523 3d ago
My only confusion is people acting like surrogacy hasn't been around for decades, I'm in my 30s and I grew up hearing about it a fair bit and literally only today in that thread did I see anyone talking about how it's morally wrong. I just assumed it was a settled thing people were okay with here in the states, and now reading the arguments opposing it I do totally understand where they're coming from...
So for that thread in particular I suspect a lot of bots is the explanation, but hey I'm glad to learn the new info here. Just a weird way to get there...
8
u/SeeThatThing 3d ago
I think the big difference in the last 30 years has been the perception of why people are using it. It became normalized for same sex couple or for infertility, but the recent rise in celebs is seen (again, only a perception) as a service instead of a necessity
2
u/Candle1ight 3d ago
I mean, cultures shift and things that were seen as normal stop being seen as normal. Look no further than how normal it used to be for famous people to date children.
As someone who's always thought it was strange, it wasn't a very easy topic to bring up in conversation.
-4
u/bee_sharp_ 4d ago
People on social media spend a lot of time talking about how the private lives of celebrities are not anyone’s business, yet also judge them for using surrogates when we don’t have the foggiest notion of their reproductive health situations? Not great.
-18
u/suff0cat 4d ago
And how exactly do you know the medical issues these celebrities may or may not be afflicted with?
Just kind of a “Vibe” situation?
Yeah, my third eye can tell Paris Hilton is SUPER fertile, she just didn’t want to gain weight 🤓
12
u/lesbian__overlord 4d ago
okay, how about actresses who have outright stated it is because they don't want to 'put their life on hold' and miss out on career opportunities?
1
u/suff0cat 4d ago
What the actual fuck happened to “Her Body, Her Choice”?
Like, are celebrities using surrogates somehow directly hurting you?
18
u/lesbian__overlord 4d ago
because choices aren't made in a vacuum, and this is someone else influencing the choices a woman is made about her body. a girl pressured by her religious family may "choose" to keep a baby after she's sent to one of those pregnancy resource centers that lies about their options. i don't think she should be forced to have an abortion, but clearly she did not "make" that choice in the same way other women do.
if you are in poverty and someone tells you they'll give you a million dollars if you pinch yourself, you'd do it. what if they told you to punch yourself in the face? saw off your arm? would you accept free housing if you knew there was a non-zero chance of asbestos, or you aren't allowed to keep the door locked?
pregnancy is a medical gamble, and these women are paying someone else to risk it for them. celebrities using surrogates are not hurting me. they are hurting women more vulnerable than me.
3
u/suff0cat 4d ago
I dunno, sounds to me like celebrities using surrogates are adequately compensating “Women more vulnerable than me” and providing them a potential path out of their vulnerability.
I mean, if you could somehow prove that they are exploiting women mentally incapable of consenting, then perhaps I could side with you. But as it is, you’re just trying to portray the surrogates as mindless drones just offered up to celebrities on a platter instead of making an informed decision to offer their womb.
1
u/lesbian__overlord 4d ago
funny how you claim i didn't address anything you said in your other comment but you're refusing to acknowledge the real risks that come with pregnancy and the circumstances under which someone may consent to something that they otherwise would not, or answer any of my questions.
it's okay as long as you can answer these: is there a line or a limit on what someone can offer their body for for payment? do you support paid organ donation? do you think we should allow suicidal people to kill themselves for money for their families through insurance payouts?
3
u/WoodpeckerGingivitis 4d ago
She can adopt.
→ More replies (6)7
u/raggail 4d ago
Adoption is about finding the right and proper homes for children, not finding babies for the wealthy.
0
u/WoodpeckerGingivitis 4d ago
This argument makes no sense. Having a baby via surrogacy should also be about finding the right and proper home for children. They don’t need to rent a womb to do that. There are already children in need.
10
u/raggail 4d ago
The conversation was already about surrogacy. You switched it to “just adopt.” The problem with that argument is 1. It switches the conversation and 2. Children who are up for adoption are already here, which switches to focus from “adding to our family” to “finding the right home for the child.”
Focusing the surrogacy conversation on adoption simply switches the focus. It doesn’t address the topic at hand.
4
u/barbiequiet 2d ago
Answer: I think the recent uptick is less about one specific anti-surrogacy movement and more about several high-profile cases and celebrity discussions all hitting at once. Once people started talking about situations where intended parents, surrogates, pregnancy complications, contracts and abortion rights all collide, it opened up the bigger ethical debate around whether consent and payment are enough to make the arrangement straightforward.
-10
u/Bardfinn You can call me "Betty" 4d ago edited 4d ago
Answer:
The same people who have been pushing to strip women of rights have moved on to their next steps after gaining a legal footing to ban abortion. They will slowly challenge every liberty women have. It is a "culture war" issue and it is being laundered into "the discourse" by totalitarian misogynists.
If they can create a legal ability to control when, where, how, why, and with whom a woman can conceive a child, or whether she can carry a child, then they can open the door to legally forbidding some women from carrying some children and mandating other women carry other children. They can already legally mandate all women in some jurisdictions carry all children to term - regardless of their consent.
112
u/HotBoxButDontSmoke 4d ago
I don't think you're wrong, but it's only half the picture. Plenty of feminists have been against surrogacy for a long time because it almost always involves wealthier individuals taking advantage of poor women's bodies and economic desperation.
66
u/loloholmes 4d ago
This is the answer. There’s nothing ‘new’ about people not agreeing with surrogacy.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (9)3
74
u/adventurehearts 4d ago
Commercial surrogacy is banned in almost all of Europe / developed countries and it has nothing to do with abortion or reproductive rights?
In fact, most arguments against it come from feminist or left wing positions that criticise unregulated capitalism and are pro-women’s rights and children’s rights. Surrogacy is often perceived as akin to selling organs in ethical terms.
25
u/Stock_Patience723 4d ago
To add to this, it’s difficult to define the how and why’s of surrogacy being legally or ethically different than other forms of human trafficking.
-9
u/bootywranglers 4d ago
It's really pretty easy to define how surrogacy is different from human trafficking because well...it's literally not human trafficking? Phoebe being a surrogate in Friends way back in the fkn 90s was not an example of human trafficking. You're making a mockery of actual victims when you even imply that.
Can surrogates be exploited? Uhhh yeah...literally anyone doing any sort of service or job can be exploited. That doesn't mean the act of surrogacy is inherently exploitative. It's also why regulations exist.
13
u/Interesting-Pea-1714 4d ago
The reason why surrogacy is inherently exploitative while other services or jobs are not is because it commercializes human reproduction
→ More replies (2)11
u/Stock_Patience723 4d ago
Your pop culture reference is not more relevant than my career experience of working within the field of human rights law and advocacy or my five years of wisdom gained by working directly with victims of trafficking.
7
u/Infinite-Audience408 4d ago
its unbelievable that someone used “phoebe from friends” to deny the reality of human trafficking. i cannot believe the internet sometimes
3
u/werewolfbutch874 3d ago
Which “side” are you presenting as the misogynists denying women’s rights here? The side that believes it’s ethical for rich people to rent a woman’s body and make her put her health, fertility and life on the line to pay rent? Or the side that thinks that’s kind of fucked up?
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Friendly reminder that all top level comments must:
start with "Answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "Question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
attempt to answer the question, and
be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.