23

11 comments

Please forgive me if this is ignorant, but I don't understand why surrogacy is a thing. I've tried searching for the reasoning and asking questions in other online spaces, but it seems to always come down to because someone wants a baby but can't conceive or carry on their own. Is that really all it is? People are willing to exploit and take advantage of women because they want a biological baby?

Yes. Its horrible. Puppies are not taken away from their mothers so quickly. It is absolutely cruel.

I know I've been terrified into believing it's pretty much impossible to adopt a baby, and if you do get the opportunity - the baby is likely to be from someone using drugs. When I look at the older kid listing in my state, it's full of warnings about how a kid needs to be an only kid with no siblings or pets in the home. Older kids are likely to have been abused or neglected. There's been a huge movement of people adopting children from other countries, and horror stories in the news about the children they adopted, as well as adults talking about the pain of being adopted and not knowing their birth families.

This claims that some babies who are born addicted turn out ok: https://adoptionconnection.jfcs.org/adopting-a-drug-exposed-baby-making-the-decision/#

All that really pushes people to want to use a surrogate, because then the chance of disability is very similiar to having children of their own. It's seen as less risky then adoption.

So I think I can understand your points here, but what I still don't understand is why people feel they're entitled to a baby.

Another woman who apparently had unprotected PIV sex while trying to concieve as a surrogate, has her own baby taken away right after birth. Already had 2 kids, became a surrogate for the money and because she had "easy pregnancies"

I couldn't watch the whole thing. It's the same exact story of the other one. The only reason shy even knew it was a biological baby was because it was blonde and not Asian like the intended parents were.

The ultrasounds were constantly 2 weeks ahead if where she should have been in the pregnancy.

Are these women not told to not have PIV sex while trying to concieve someone else's baby or what?

Are these women not told to not have PIV sex while trying to concieve someone else's baby or what?

Yes. They're given dates where they'll try to implant an embryo and are told not to have PIV during this time.

Even if one could successfully make the argument that commodifying women’s bodies and babies was ethical (one cannot), you’ve highlighted the fact that unlike other commodities, there is no way to regulate quality control, no guarantee of delivery, no neat and clean recourse for when things go terribly wrong, as they can and do.

Aside from a facility where women are guarded 24/7 or a chastity belt, there is NO way to ensure that the fertilization isn’t complicated by another naturally occurring embryo. Even the model surrogate, a paragon of chastity, could get raped. I see no way to guarantee the quality and delivery of the “product” without severely compromising the basic human rights of the surrogate, essentially amounting to imprisonment.

You can’t fix what’s broken at its core and surrogacy is badly, inherently broken.

[–] SparklingFem 10 points Edited

Are these women not told to not have PIV sex while trying to concieve someone else's baby or what?

Yeah, this seems like a very obvious thing. More than likely she is going to be required to pay back all or most of the funds she received so she’s put herself in an even bigger whole.

Edit: It actually seems like her lawyer has a good case that the agency wasn’t following protocol (i.e. didn’t give her an ultrasound before implanting the second time around) so she may have a case to not only keep the money she was given but also receive a payout from the agency. If enough of those kinds of lawsuits happen, the industry may decide there is too much financial risk and fold… Although that’s probably magical, wishful thinking on my part.

[+] [Deleted] 6 points