68

https://www.distractify.com/p/why-khloe-is-in-a-hospital-bed-with-son?fbclid=IwAR1IOIwxZGAqyWHtVUYZYBu3gptE4QbKhxpT2wh2rpthwAPO-x9n_q7owa4

There's a reason I believe this is tied to women's liberation, and I'll get to that in a second. First:

"There are a lot of people questioning why Khloe Kardashian is laying in a hospital bed holding her son. And let me just repeat that, her son," emphasized TikTok user Colt Paulsen (@gaymanwithaspraytan) in a new video.

So, this dude is going to explain it to us, first emphasizing that the baby is the property of the buyer. I know the baby is genetically Khloe's. However there's a huge problem with the way we make DNA the be-all-and-end-all. (Unless adoption, in which case the one with the money wins again). And we put ZERO importance on the process it takes for a human baby to grow and be delivered. It's why we treat fatherhood parentage as equal before a baby is born, and even take babies away from mothers when tantrumings fathers want custody with their new wives. (They rarely bother if they don't have a new woman to do all the caretaking, btw).

Let's listen to "Colt's" nonsense explanation about Khloe's photos in the hospital bed. She seems to have quickly pulled the photos where I think she was in a delivery gown. I'm pretty sure that's what she was wearing. However, she's definitely kept up the ones of herself in the hospital bed.

"When it comes to giving birth via surrogate, most people do skin-to-skin contact." He motions to a picture of Khloe holding her son close to her chest. "I think that's what Khloe is doing right here," he adds.

She's fully clothed. Furthermore, parents usually do skin-to-skin contact, regardless of surrogate mothers being exploited. Furthermore furthermore, there is no need to use a hospital bed for this.

Medical resources are scarce. When Khloe is sitting her ass down on a hospital bed, that's a resource being used up. That's a room the nurses and staff need to clean from top-to-bottom, especially with COVID regulations. It makes you wonder where the surrogate mother is recovering. Was this a spare, unused room? Or was the surrogate mother sent home ASAP, as for-profit medicine usually requires? This means women who have just delivered have to wait if that room MUST be sorted for the next patient. It just clutters things up.

He continues to note that this is very routine. "As soon as the baby is born, it is not handed to the woman who gave birth to it.

A cruel and shitty thing to do to the baby and the "woman who gave birth to it." Who the baby recognizes as its mother. But of course it's handed to the purchasers, so they will hopefully leave the agency a five star review on Yelp.

It is handed to the mother or father for skin-to-skin contact to bond with their parent," he says, explaining that, as a gay man, he hopes to one day go through this process himself.

No mention of the surrogate mother at all, let alone reference to her as the surrogate mother.

No other article that I can see reports on the welfare of the surrogate. Any complications? What quality after-care was she given once they got the baby out of her? Who the fuck knows. She's deliberately invisible. She's likely had to sign an NDA to not speak about her experience, no matter how it turned out for her. Future complications from IVF implantation, carrying a foreign egg, pregnancy, and delivery will not be the problem of Khloe Kardashian, Tristan Thomas, or the agency. The costs of such problems could easily amount to more than what she was paid. The psychological impact of pushing a baby out, having your brain celebrate and immediately fall in love with the baby, only to have it be snatched by the customers? Also not their problem.

Khloe Kardashian is not the only one to present a surrogate's delivery in a staged way. Naomi Campbell gave a weird monologue that made it sound like she was delivering. Pete Buttigieg and his husband also sat in a hospital bed. Some well-known gay couple sat in the kiddie pool where the mother had just delivered, right in the swill.

The purchasers are insecure, knowing they didn't actually deliver the baby, so they set up these photoshoots to blur and fuzz out reality. Kinda the way a TIM tucks his dick and stuffs his bra, then photo-shops the hell out of the resulting picture. It's to make the surrogate mother even more invisible. We have to admit that she sort of existed, but only just. There's no hiding that two gay men can't have a baby, and Khloe Kardashian was never pregnant. But if we can make her a ghost, we don't have to think about her.

If we see pictures of Khloe sitting in a hospital bed, we think less about the surrogate mother. In fact, don't use the term surrogate mother. Use surrogate. Wherever possible, say "delivered via surrogacy" so the idea of a human is even MORE distant to the reader. Emphasize the glory of the buyers. Write about how long they waited. Hope much research they paid a lawyer to do. How they stayed up all night writing down names. THEIR journey.

Then write about how this baby is SOOOOOOO lucky, so they know later they have to be grateful and they owe their "parents."

Meanwhile, women all over the world are exploited to keep this industry afloat. And it MUST be an industry. It can't be a here-and-there thing if you're going to make it an investable, sustainable business. It can't be a cottage industry. You need surrogates available, and for competitive prices.

Women in bad economic situations are not told the full scope of physical risks. They're not fully informed of their rights, and they sure as shit are not told of the psychological ramifications. The buyers usually hold all the cards, and any laws not in their favor are presented in the press as cruel.

Most laws favor the rich. They favor the privileged. We shouldn't whine about ANY LAW that protects the poor or women.

So when "parents" pose for these creepy photos, it is an insult to women. It erases the seriousness of pregnancy and birth. It makes it a commodity, whose value goes up and down in a free market.

Anonymous is always a woman.

https://www.distractify.com/p/why-khloe-is-in-a-hospital-bed-with-son?fbclid=IwAR1IOIwxZGAqyWHtVUYZYBu3gptE4QbKhxpT2wh2rpthwAPO-x9n_q7owa4 There's a reason I believe this is tied to women's liberation, and I'll get to that in a second. First: > "There are a lot of people questioning why Khloe Kardashian is laying in a hospital bed holding her son. And let me just repeat that, her son," emphasized TikTok user Colt Paulsen (@gaymanwithaspraytan) in a new video. So, this dude is going to explain it to us, first emphasizing that the baby is the property of the buyer. I know the baby is genetically Khloe's. However there's a huge problem with the way we make DNA the be-all-and-end-all. (Unless adoption, in which case the one with the money wins again). And we put ZERO importance on the process it takes for a human baby to grow and be delivered. It's why we treat fatherhood parentage as equal before a baby is born, and even take babies away from mothers when tantrumings fathers want custody with their new wives. (They rarely bother if they don't have a new woman to do all the caretaking, btw). Let's listen to "Colt's" nonsense explanation about Khloe's photos in the hospital bed. She seems to have quickly pulled the photos where I think she was in a delivery gown. I'm pretty sure that's what she was wearing. However, she's definitely kept up the ones of herself in the hospital bed. > "When it comes to giving birth via surrogate, most people do skin-to-skin contact." He motions to a picture of Khloe holding her son close to her chest. "I think that's what Khloe is doing right here," he adds. She's fully clothed. Furthermore, parents usually do skin-to-skin contact, regardless of surrogate mothers being exploited. Furthermore furthermore, there is no need to use a hospital bed for this. Medical resources are scarce. When Khloe is sitting her ass down on a hospital bed, that's a resource being used up. That's a room the nurses and staff need to clean from top-to-bottom, especially with COVID regulations. It makes you wonder where the surrogate mother is recovering. Was this a spare, unused room? Or was the surrogate mother sent home ASAP, as for-profit medicine usually requires? This means women who have just delivered have to wait if that room MUST be sorted for the next patient. It just clutters things up. > He continues to note that this is very routine. "As soon as the baby is born, it is not handed to the woman who gave birth to it. A cruel and shitty thing to do to the baby and the "woman who gave birth to it." Who the baby recognizes as its mother. But of course it's handed to the purchasers, so they will hopefully leave the agency a five star review on Yelp. > It is handed to the mother or father for skin-to-skin contact to bond with their parent," he says, explaining that, as a gay man, he hopes to one day go through this process himself. No mention of the surrogate mother at all, let alone reference to her as the surrogate mother. No other article that I can see reports on the welfare of the surrogate. Any complications? What quality after-care was she given once they got the baby out of her? Who the fuck knows. She's deliberately invisible. She's likely had to sign an NDA to not speak about her experience, no matter how it turned out for her. Future complications from IVF implantation, carrying a foreign egg, pregnancy, and delivery will not be the problem of Khloe Kardashian, Tristan Thomas, or the agency. The costs of such problems could easily amount to more than what she was paid. The psychological impact of pushing a baby out, having your brain celebrate and immediately fall in love with the baby, only to have it be snatched by the customers? Also not their problem. Khloe Kardashian is not the only one to present a surrogate's delivery in a staged way. Naomi Campbell gave a weird monologue that made it sound like she was delivering. Pete Buttigieg and his husband also sat in a hospital bed. Some well-known gay couple sat in the kiddie pool where the mother had just delivered, right in the swill. The purchasers are insecure, knowing they didn't actually deliver the baby, so they set up these photoshoots to blur and fuzz out reality. Kinda the way a TIM tucks his dick and stuffs his bra, then photo-shops the hell out of the resulting picture. It's to make the surrogate mother even more invisible. We have to admit that she sort of existed, but only just. There's no hiding that two gay men can't have a baby, and Khloe Kardashian was never pregnant. But if we can make her a ghost, we don't have to think about her. If we see pictures of Khloe sitting in a hospital bed, we think less about the surrogate mother. In fact, don't use the term surrogate mother. Use surrogate. Wherever possible, say "delivered via surrogacy" so the idea of a human is even MORE distant to the reader. Emphasize the glory of the buyers. Write about how long they waited. Hope much research they paid a lawyer to do. How they stayed up all night writing down names. THEIR journey. Then write about how this baby is SOOOOOOO lucky, so they know later they have to be grateful and they owe their "parents." Meanwhile, women all over the world are exploited to keep this industry afloat. And it MUST be an industry. It can't be a here-and-there thing if you're going to make it an investable, sustainable business. It can't be a cottage industry. You need surrogates available, and for competitive prices. Women in bad economic situations are not told the full scope of physical risks. They're not fully informed of their rights, and they sure as shit are not told of the psychological ramifications. The buyers usually hold all the cards, and any laws not in their favor are presented in the press as cruel. Most laws favor the rich. They favor the privileged. We shouldn't whine about ANY LAW that protects the poor or women. So when "parents" pose for these creepy photos, it is an insult to women. It erases the seriousness of pregnancy and birth. It makes it a commodity, whose value goes up and down in a free market. Anonymous is always a woman.

98 comments

[–] FlorenceBlue 89 points Edited

Gay men need to shut up about women's issues. You have no greater insight into women's issues just because you fuck men.

Edit: I immediately regret being so stern about this lol. At the very least, they shouldn't SPEAK OVER women. Because I'm sure not all gay men are this oblivious.

no no, you were right the first time.

I just want to not alienate men like Mr Menno who has staunchly supported lesbians and women who want separate spaces from TIM's is all.

[–] Carrots90 29 points Edited

Mr Menno is a gem. Love him

The man you are speaking about, happens to be gay

The only reason he is coming to a woman’s defense is for his own reasons. He cannot even make it through this defense without giving it away

“I’m defending her because I plan on renting a woman too”

Pretty sure Mr Menno, who is pretty chill, isn't going to be offended because he knows we're not talking about him. He's not an idiot.

Good men like Menno will not be offended if we speak basic truths

No, they do need to shut up. Gay men aren't exempt from male entitlement. Tons of them think they have a right to use women's bodies if they want a baby.

They have a stake in surrogacy, they may not be attracted to women but by God will they make use of our bodies for their benefit. Typical males.

Women need to stop apologizing, backpedaling and making themselves small for speaking basic truths.

Surrogacy is vile. I don't care if it's a gay male couple or a heterosexual couple or a single person: DO NOT USE WOMEN'S BODIES AS BREEDERS.

I heard some argument a while back that straight men have it so easy because they can just have a baby with a woman so much easier than a gay man. Well, that's some hubris of ANY straight man to assume that 1. he can find a woman who wants to have a baby w/ him. 2. that he can just MAKE his wife have his baby 3. A woman who is pregnant by a man necessarily wants him to parent (think of all the shit fathers out there). No man should think he can just force or manipulate or pay women to be pregnant.

It's possibly an unpopular opinion, but I don't get societal indulgence of wanting to be parents? We all have things we want but can't have, and it's dreadful in some cases, but we need to get used to some things. I don't see why being a parent is so often seen as a right? If we were paying people to donate kidneys, people would be horrified, but it's seen as a beautiful thing to rent someone's body for a potentially destructive activity like pregnancy?

I agree. I also think it's massively selfish to be so insistent on having one's own biological child. If one is unwilling or unable to carry a pregnancy and still wants a child, why not help alleviate some of the suffering in the world by fostering or adopting? I know fostering and adopting have a lot of problems and can be an industry too, but it's the self-focus of such people I'm trying to point out.

You have the right to healthcare that restores your body to normal health as much as possible. If your arm is damaged in a way that prevents you from going about your normal life, you are entitled to medical care (whether it’s surgery, physio, drugs) to help you get full function. If your kidneys don’t work as they should, you’re entitled to medication, dialysis, and where possible a transplant* to get you closer to normal. And if your reproductive organs don’t work as they should, this is no different.

But just as you can’t compel someone to give you a kidney and we have very strict ethical guidelines around how people can donate kidneys, this is where reproductive medicine gets different. If you need your Fallopian tubes scoped, your hormones tweaked, or even IVF (with your and your partner’s genetic material), this is normal medical care. When you start requiring other people’s wombs or ova or sperm (which is less discussed here for obvious reasons but, apart from the relative ease of obtaining sperm vs ova, the same issue) then it crosses a line. We are very strict, in general, about how organs are donated and to whom, and with good reason, and that’s where the asterisk comes in for a kidney transplant. We need to be just as strict about fertility related donation (or ‘borrowing’ or however we want to define surrogacy.) But because it mostly exploits women, and because for some reason we take the “need” to have a baby more seriously than the actual need for a working kidney, so far it’s the Wild West in many places.

You’re entitled to ask the healthcare system, whether you pay for it through taxes or direct premiums, to restore your reproductive system to as normal as possible, just as if it were your elbow or your kidney. You are not entitled to someone else’s organs or genetic material.

Not at all unpopular, IME...no one has a right to have a child. If it's a right, the state would need to procure women to make babies for people who wanted them. And that is terrifying.

Right? I hate how men just assume they'll impregnate a woman one day. What if she says no? Eat shit. Doubly so if they say they want a big family.

There's a family at my daughter's school and they are going on their 7th baby. My husband and I joke about going up to the dad and saying, "Dude, fucking leave your wife alone. Get snipped."

I mean to be fair most people of either sex who want a kid end up finding someone to have one with them.

Yeah I don’t really want kids but most women do I don’t think most men imagine forcing a woman to bear their children they imagine finding a woman who also wants children and them creating a family together. It doesn’t make a man entitled to want children it’s only entitled if he dates child free women and pressures them into something they actively don’t want

You have to wonder if that would still be the case if women could have children alone with no negative repercussions at all. I probably would have had mine by myself.

Anytime I hear/see "____ have it so easy because...", I know whatever follows is likely to be bullshit.

"Delivered via surrogacy" is being used because we are used to terms like "delivered via caesarean" and it is to erase the enormity of the mother's labor and contribution. It erases 9+ months of physical work being done on behalf of her wealthy client. "Delivered, carried and grown by a surrogate mother at the possible expense of her fertility, well-being and physical health in exchange for money" doesn't sound quite as palatable.

9+ months of labour, a minimum of 6 weeks of recovery, and usually permanent health effects.

Not to mention lowered social status from loss of pre-baby body (shouldn’t be the case, but it is).

And women are actively trying to change the way we talk about c section deliveries because its often dehumanizing. I personally prefer caesarean birth to using delivery in any way.

"Dr X delivered her baby" always drives me crazy. No, "Dr X" attended the birth of her baby, she delivered it.

Also, see the absurd baroque "X was delivered of a baby boy," per old school royal announcements. Imagine divorcing the birthing mother from the act of childbirth. Deranged.

She’s not going to do shit in terms of actual childcare. Look at the daggers on the end of her fingers. They shouldn’t be around a newborn OR a 4 year old child. If you say I’m just women bashing, no I’m not. This is not safe in the least.

Wtf is up with the claw nail fashion anyway lol

Wtf is up with the claw nail fashion anyway lol

I don't get it. How can anyone do basic stuff like eat and wash their hands with talons glued to their fingers? LOL

Just like high heels, dagger nails are a women's fashion that only serves to limit a woman's mobility & functionality for an aesthetic.

Like the concubines of imperial China, the nail daggers serve to indicate a woman doesn't need to do physical work at all. Of course there are many working women who have them and manage, but the impression they give is that one doesn't have to do anything. She exists to be served.

[–] LuckyWater LuckyWater 1 points Edited

to limit a woman's mobility & functionality for an aesthetic.

I think it's a form of self-induced backlash. Women gain power in the form of more money and independence however some women want to signal the same amount of submission to males. So...nails it is. And corsets ("Skims"). Etc.

It's not woman bashing, it's bashing someone who clearly won't sacrifice even the most superficial thing for the sake of the infant she purchased. I'd be just as condemning of a man who cuddled a baby while wearing a spike necklace, eg.

I saw surrogacy referred to as "gestitution" and it's stuck with me ever since. Except arguably a lot of physical and emotional damage than prostitution. The notion that a woman consents for a paycheque, rather than consenting because there's a knife at her throat, and it constitutes real consent is toxic as well.

Gestitutiin is perfect.

Thank you

Both can damage the mind, the body, future fertility, etc

Std’s can cause pelvic inflammatory disease which can cause permanent pain and infertility

Its not woman bashing. There's no way she can do basic child care with those daggers on her fingers. That baby will spend 99% of his time with hired help and Chloe will only pick him up when she needs to pose for Instagram pics or film a scene in her stupid reality show.

Also, there's no way those claw fingernails are clean/sanitary (unless Khloe pays someone to wipe her ass for her). I had a hair appointment once and I walked straight out when the stylist had those things on her fingers. No thank you. 🤮

I love doing my nails but obviously trimmed them down and removed polish when I had my baby. It's common sense? Your baby is soft?

Agree. I like my natural nails a little long, not super pointy, but I still haven't had them since I had my baby over a year ago. Babies jerk around suddenly and it would be all too easy to poke an eye or cause other injury. Plus the simple truth that having a baby means dealing with faeces often. I don't have time to scrub under my nails with a brush every time I wash because the baby will already be getting into something. So they remain short and I admit I dislike them.

Surrogacy is this psych game that is similar to what TIPs pull. Tell the truth, getting credit for the truth, then tell a lie, and insist everyone accept the lie. "I know I'm a male........but I'm a real woman, dammit, and you better call me that."

"That woman who got pregnant, gestated, and delivered this baby is not a real mother." Even in the adoption world, people accept the term "birth mother." There's just no getting around it. That child buyers call surrogate mothers "surrogates," after insisting that "mother" be dropped, shows how $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ this business is.

Egg donor. Sperm donor. Not "genetic mother" or "genetic father."

We need to stop with the newspeak.

And if anyone asks, yes, I feel the same about sperm donation. It's not physically harmful the way egg donation and surrogacy are, but there are ramifications for the kid and genetic father.

[–] friedparata 12 points Edited

you all are free to disagree, but I think wanting genetic kids at all costs is extremely selfish when there are so many kids, including babies, that are already alive and in need of a home.

they call women who don't want children selfish, when people do things like surrogacy to have genetic babies at all costs. i mean, why?

maybe I just think this because I'm young and idk what motherhood is like. but when I think about it, it still sounds very selfish.

Yeah especially when you already have kids like Kim. Her pregnancies were risky so it made sense not to have more. She had her kids already. But she wanted more so she used a surrogate. It's so SELFISH.

you all are free to disagree, but I think wanting genetic kids at all costs is extremely selfish

It's that the kids usually have a deep, painful, never-ending yearning to have contact with their genetic family. Adoption is very difficult and there are a lot of unethical things about it. I would do IVF with my own eggs to avoid aiding that industry. It's not as simple as "just adopt."

There were many things about what Khloe and Tristan did that was selfish. Especially the way Tristan hid the fact that he had already impregnated another woman, and pressured Khloe into going forward with the surrogacy. My guess is he wanted more ties to Kardashian money.

idk, those kids aren't having a fun time in the foster care systems and orphanages. they need a proper stable home. they're gonna yearn for their bio parents either way, and I think it's way worse to yearn for your parents while you grow out of orphanages and foster care systems and become homeless.

maybe it's leaving your kid up for adoption that's unethical. but I'm talking about kids who have already been abandoned for whatever reason. the adoptive family can even help the child to get in touch with his/her bio family, if you're worried about that.

one of my cousins' children is also adopted, he is 18 now. I didn't even know he was adopted until this year. he is well cared for, and still has a home, and people who he can call family, even if we are not blood related. his mom is an angel in human form, she is very kind, and never indulged in the toxicity of the rest of our family, even with her sisters.

might I ask, what exactly do you think is wrong about adoption? I'm open to a discussion.

I just had a baby two weeks ago…it was traumatic and I feel I was treated like shit by the medical staff (and my own family), and I don’t know if it’s because I was “alone” being a single mom without a man standing around to make me seem more important or what (I also just so happened to receive the worst, tiny, corner, dirty, dinky postpartum room in the entire hospital that felt worse than a prison cell…some new employees had their first day while I was there and they came in shocked and made comments about it)

ANYWAY, point is I remember thinking “I’m still the sole patient here and this is my baby and we are going home together…” and just felt this immense dread and sadness for how women must be treated when they’re surrogates or single moms giving away a baby for adoption to parents already there in the room, too. It made me feel so sick. The shock of having that baby out of you, looking at you, is indescribable, and I truly mean it that if anyone had wanted to pass my baby off to someone else they’d have had to of murdered me. I had a c-section with too much anesthesia so I couldn’t physically move below my chest but I still would have somehow thrown myself off the bed and went rabid snake on someone.

My best assumption for how surrogates are able to do it— and what I’ve seen from surrogate “influencers”— is that they mentally prepare the whole time and buy into the wonderful life-giving savior narrative about themselves. I get that for some now with IVF it’s not genetically theirs and that surely adds to it…but again, you cannot tell me…I refuse to believe it…that a woman who went through 10 months of pregnancy, labor, and birth, and finally has a face outside of her looking at her does not feel dead inside when she’s treated like “well, all done with you now! thanks!” and sees that baby immediately go off to be held by someone else.

(…not to mention the baby has no clue what’s going on and is, regardless of DNA, biologically wired to look for the woman who is “home”, so you’re pretty much traumatizing your kid from birth as well)

I can tell you, if you’re in America, this is a problem. I have friends who are a straight couple who got a doula for their second birth to be advocates for them because they felt like they had absolutely no say in the process and were forced into a caesarean.

Birth is no longer treated as the miracle it is by most medical hospitals, just another money making procedure to wheel and deal you out of there for the next patient.

I’m newly pregnant myself and looking into midwives, because I’m so scared of being over medicated and medicalized.

Yep, pretty much. But they try to scare you into saying you’ll be taking the safest way out to go ahead with it and unfortunately my family members are ignorant and easily emotionally swayed by that kind of fear-mongering. I hired a doula, I researched the whole pregnancy, I came prepared, and it still happened to me. If you suspect ANYONE— husband boyfriend mother sister friend, anyone, of being the type to emotionally react and push you to do whatever a doctor says if they use the “baby could eventually be in danger” card then don’t even let them in your labor room, because a doctors comments + my emotional family + the doctors being content and happy to have “back up” and everyone in the room just letting me be ambushed even though it wasn’t anything close to an emergency is how I ended up with my c-section.

I’d even planned a HOMEBIRTH I was so committed to avoiding this horrendous system… but as a single mom I had no choice but to rely on my parents and they showed up to my house when I said I was in labor about to call the midwife and demanded to take me to the hospital. I was in so much pain and so stunned I didn’t have it in me to argue and I went… and here I am feeling butchered and depressed…I knew better and still walked right into it.

Don’t let anyone bully you and always remember regardless of the pressure you still can ask people to leave, tell doctors the final answer is no, etc. Labor pains will beat you down and wear away at your will power to challenge other people…I didn’t expect it to hurt that badly so it weakened my resolve. I hope you prepare yourself and that your birth goes as close to the way you want it as possible.

Oh wow, thanks so much for this advice I hadn’t even thought about my other family. My Dad would absolutely be swayed by that kind of manipulation. I think it’s just going to be a doula, my husband and me and he knows how important it is to me to do it as naturally as possible, he’s also someone who stands very firm for me, so I’m glad to have him there too.

Ugh I’m sorry your birth experience was so difficult, but I hope you and your baby are now healthy and as happy as possible.

PS is your friend going for a VBAC? I hope I can have one one day :(

She did! Just delivered two weeks ago at a totally different more natural clinic and she said it was the easiest thing in the world. She said she would have 1000 more babies if she could do it that way every time.

[+] [Deleted] 15 points

Creepy pics are creepy. They can try to spin it, but she was pre-empting the mother, and, as you say, taking up valuable hospital real estate. Unless it was all a stage set, which I would not entitrely discount.

Especially in these times where healthcare has gotten even worse for the working class. Showing how she not only has the ability to purchase a woman to rent, but also able to purchase a whole human baby. And then to have the audacity to sit on the bed and take those photos. It's unbelievable.

And I don't care if NO ONE else was in the hospital that day. The optics matter. Women are swept out of hospitals after delivery speedy quick. All to widen profit margins at the expense of the mother's safety. They shouldn't further insult the public by showing how they'll lick the boots of the rich by letting them play pretend in the recovery room. Take selfies somewhere else.

And don't make extra work for the staff. They shouldn't have to clean for someone who wasn't a patient.

[–] Carrots90 6 points Edited

Notice she isn’t actually bonding with the baby in any of her pictures?

Almost as if there was some sort of unnatural interruption of the maternal process?

Just pictures of her holding the baby like one would hold a flower bouquet a fan handed her at an awards ceremony

Yes, when I first clicked on the link, before reading the article, I thought the scandal was how she was ignoring the baby and attached to her phone. I don't want to romanticize birth, because it's obviously different for different women, but I'm sure we can all think of photos of women moments after their babies were laid on their chests: that mixture of exhaustion and shock and overwhelming love and joy can be just palpable even in a photo.

Even terror (me with my first, lol)

They are going to let me take a newborn home?

I know the phrase "white feminism" often gets tossed around inaccurately (such as claiming it's somehow "white feminism" to say women don't have penises, or some nonsense). However, surrogacy is one of those issues where the criticism really does apply. Surrogacy predominantly involves wealthy white couples exploiting poor women to the point of airbrushing them out of the narrative. I've taken part in online discussions in which concerns about the exploitation involved are met with cries of "How dare you judge women who are desperate for a child?" as though the surrogate mother's wellbeing is irrelevant. I even remember one woman saying that the solution to the horrors of Indian surrogacy clinics is to remove some of the rights that British surrogate mothers have, so that British couples will be less likely to look abroad in the first place. I found that chilling.

I've taken part in online discussions in which concerns about the exploitation involved are met with cries of "How dare you judge women who are desperate for a child?"

Those morons tend to forget that the babies born of surrogacy are actual human beings and not just expensive toys. Those babies are traumatized by surrogacy when they're ripped from their birth mothers. And there are no protections in place for surrogacy babies who are abandoned by the purchasers because of a disability, because the relationship between the purchasers dissolved, because the purchasers wanted an abortion but the surrogate didn't, etc. These children are especially screwed if they're the product of an overseas surrogacy arrangement because they might not have full citizenship in their birth country if their genetic parents are foreigners.

Also, infertility is sad. But surrogacy doesn't benefit a working class woman who can't have babies. Its only a tool for the super rich. So its disingenuous to use infertile women to tug at heartstrings when it comes to the surrogacy issue

Well the two highest profile mothers of surrogate babies right now are Khloe K and Priyanka Chopra, so I think the better class signifier is 'wealth' rather than 'whiteness' but that aside, I entirely agree. (There are also a lot of poor white women in 'flyover country' who are exploited as surrogates, in the US, which has fewer protections than most of Europe.) For a while, the war in Ukraine seemed poised to draw attention to this issue, but I fear it's (understandably) getting lost in all the other aspects of that nightmare.

The desperation of infertile women is an interesting diversion. (It's also worth pointing out that both Chopra and the Kardashians were not incapable of bearing children but found it unpleasant/inconvenient, fwiw.) Someone whose child needs a kidney is significantly more desperate for a donor kidney than anyone can be for a 'surrogate,' but we recognize that their desperation does not negate the very real ethical problems with buying (especially buying coercively) a kidney. Being unable to bear a child when you want to must be tragic and agonizing; I'm in favour of mandating that health insurance cover whatever treatments they ethically can to treat infertility. But coercing other women to provide genetic material and/or to gestate is a bridge too far (and lavish payments are in fact a form of coercion.) I feel rather differently about women who offer to donate an egg or carry a baby for their sister/best friend, etc - ditto for philanthropic organ donation.

Priyanka Chopra admitted that they did surrogacy because she and her husband couldn't make time to fuck each other because they're busy. She thinks she can handle the full time job of a child when she and her husband can't even make time to bang on her fertile days. Rich people are so fucking entitled and stupid

That is incredible! "I need a surrogate because I don't have time to fuck my husband". WTF (literally).

Yes, you're right that wealth is the main factor here.

Load more (9 comments)