Social Surrogacy

pcourtade

Happy Easter everyone!!

I saw this story yesterday and was pretty shocked and I wanted to know what you ladies thought.

https://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/social-surrogacy-option-moms-shun-pregnancy-160413402--abc-news-parenting.html

I agree with some of the commenters on the story. If people are doing this because they don't want to interrupt their career, what do they think raising a child is going to be like?? I also think it's pretty selfish. What do you think?

jshrop

I think I'm with @Merie412‌, to each their own. I can see the positive and negative of both sides. I can see the wanting a baby and not wanting to be miserable for 9-10 months. I don't think it'll mean they will be terrible mothers. I also don't believe that just because mom doesn't want to disrupt her career means the kid gets neglected or dumped into day care. There are plenty of stay at home dads too. I feel like this is another way women feel entitled to judge each other (as if we don't have enough ways already).

ElTrain5

I mean....I get it. It wouldn't interest me personally, but if you REALLY don't want to be pregnant and you've got a ton if cash and a willing surrogate, why not? Frankly I'm sure there's a surrogate out there willing to eat an all organic balanced diet and participate in regular exersizes and otherwise be the "perfect pregnant" woman for a fetus, if you paid her enough....so why not let her? IF that's what you want. I would miss out on having the experience, but it doesn't seem to hurt anybody.

curlylocks3

I just can't get worked up over it. I don't think they are harming the baby in any way to go this route and I feel like discussing "acceptable" reasons for using a gestational carrier starts a slippery slope of people judging which medical reasons are valid and which aren't---just another way to judge moms. Don't we have enough of those already?

curlylocks3

Also, I'm just gonna say that while I didn't see it specified in the article, I am guessing most of the women mentioned are probably using a gestational carrier vs doing traditional surrogacy...which means that the woman opting to do this is also going through stims and an egg retrieval- and that is certainly no walk in the park.

Eta: it was bugging me so I did go to agency's website. Any parent choosing to go this route also has to go through psychological screening and be cleared to do this, it's not like people are able to do this just on a whim.

Read247

If I had the money I'd do it. Pregnancy is hard, emotionally and physically. If I could get my sweet beautiful baby without all the pain and depression I go through during and after pregnancy, hells yeah I'd do it!!

I'm not going to say a woman is "selfish" because she chooses to skip it. Carrying a child isn't the only way to be a mother. A woman should be free to choose what she does with her own body whether it's having a child, not having a child, or choosing to give the gift of life to another mother.

CherSomething

First world problems, yo. 

tbmadeamistake

I kind of feel like if you want a child and don't want to go to through pregnancy, adoption should be your first option.  There are so many babies that need homes.  I also understand that many of the children in the US who need adoption are no longer infants, and that negates the whole "having a baby" part.  I wonder if anyone's looked at the cost of surrogacy vs. the cost of international adoption (more infants available). 

That said, I hate pregnancy.  I would love to have my sweet baby without having to go through 40 weeks of this crap. 

lest12

I guess my biggest concern with this new "trend" is how it would impact a woman who needs a surrogate but doesn't have a lot of $. As in, if this trend continued, would the (presumably limited number of) willing surrogates in the state/country end up choosing moms who don't need a surrogate but can pay big money for the convenience of their lifestyle, instead of helping a mom who can't carry her own child, but can't offer the same financial compensation?

I don't know much about the going rates for surrogates anyway, I would just feel awful if the moms who needed them got "outbid" by women with more disposable $.

I don't know if that would realistically happen though. It's just something that came to my mind.

pcourtade

Ok, I've been convinced that I'm being judge mental. Hey, I'm hormonal and can be a bit bitchy sometimes lol. I guess I'm just surprised. I couldn't imagine skipping this bonding experience with my LO but do realize that it's not for everyone.

lest12

lyracelesti said:

@lest12 surrogates are already expensive. I looked into it when i thought the problem might be with my body rather than my eggs; it costs WAY more than i could afford (and I could "afford" the IVF and FETs out of pocket without going into too much debt.)

@lyracelesti - I kind of figured they were expensive already, I just don't know if richer women could pay more than the already crazy amount or something. Maybe it's a little far fetched But still... I might sound judgey or naive or something, but it makes me sad that some woman can pay for a surrogate as not to have their life disrupted, when there are so many woman who wish they could carry their own children and can't (and aren't as financially well-off). I know it's a whole other issue, but it bums me out. To each their own but this doesn't give met he warm and fuzzies, either.

lest12

@lyracelesti‌ - good point! And god bless surrogates in general, this shit ain't easy.

LadyMacaron

Lilygrace48 said:

I kind of feel like if you want a child and don't want to go to through pregnancy, adoption should be your first option.  There are so many babies that need homes.  I also understand that many of the children in the US who need adoption are no longer infants, and that negates the whole "having a baby" part.  I wonder if anyone's looked at the cost of surrogacy vs. the cost of international adoption (more infants available). 

That said, I hate pregnancy.  I would love to have my sweet baby without having to go through 40 weeks of this crap. 

Except for that adoption is a much bigger deal than "just adopting" and can cost up to 50K as well. Not everyone is prepared to handle the issues that come with adoption, and not everyone's path to parenthood even includes thinking about adoption. Some people would rather not be parents than adopt...It's a very personal decision that applies to everyone wanting to be a parent. I mean, consider the cost, the 2+ years of waiting, the fear of failed adoptions, unknown medical records, not being comfortable with an open adoption (most agencies are now open only), court dates and lawyers...It's not for everyone. We will adopt a child in the near future, and the process has certainly opened my eyes to why a lot of people wouldn't be open to it. Also, why is it always up to the infertile or people with alternate ideas (like social surrogacy) to adopt all of the children of the world? Last I checked, fertile, singles, and "normal" people can adopt just as "easily".

Sorry, people saying "the should adopt" always grinds my gears. No snark intended!

curlylocks3

Exactly what @ladymacaron said.
I'm not picking on you @Lilygrace48‌, but it always seems to be the people who haven't been faced with the decision of possibly not being able to be a mother that say others should adopt, as if it doesn't come with it's own share of struggles. It also means giving up any genetic connection to your child, which surrogacy allows you to maintain. That connection matters more to some than others, but to some people it's very important.

tbmadeamistake

@curlylocks3, I actually have been faced with that possiblity, and my choice was still adoption first.  It caused a lot of friction between my husband and I at the time, because the biological connection was way more important to him than it was to me.  To me, being a mother is bringing up a baby.  To him, being a father is bringing up a baby that was literally a piece of him.  I didn't mean at all to diminish that choice in my original answer, as I know how hard that decision can be for people who have to make it.  I was lucky and it didn't end up needing to be a decision that we had to make. 

 

ETA: Didn't see @LadyMacaron 's response initially.  Same goes.  I DO know what that choice entails, and I have had to have those discussions.  I don't think it's "just adopting" at all, and I understand, as my DH is one of those who wouldn't have a baby over adopting if it were his choice alone, that not everyone can get on board with it. 

flerlgirl

curlylocks3 said:

Exactly what @ladymacaron said. I'm not picking on you @Lilygrace48‌, but it always seems to be the people who haven't been faced with the decision of possibly not being able to be a mother that say others should adopt, as if it doesn't come with it's own share of struggles. It also means giving up any genetic connection to your child, which surrogacy allows you to maintain. That connection matters more to some than others, but to some people it's very important.

Ditto. Some friends of mine just adopted their baby and it was a really overwhelming, emotional, expensive, and overall draining process. They are so happy but the road to get there was hard. 

Personally, I don't see the issue with this. I also don't enjoy being pregnant that much. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way to the ladies on this board who have struggled; I just never got into the whole bonding experience and being pregnant has been hard on me both times. So I'm sure that colors my opinion. But I don't really care either way if someone wants to use a surrogate for any reason.