This raises the question as to the actual source of the embryo. Was is Emma's egg or the surrogate's? Was it the Bosshard DNA? Probably yes, but the source of the egg is something which may be evident as the child grows up, or she may just look like Joe. But in any event it is none of my business.
I am someone who believes that both surrogacy and adoption are complicated and it's okay to question the ethics of both. But so many posts on this thread just seem to be coming from frustrated men that are mad women now have other options.
Pregnancy and childbirth are difficult and complicated even for the healthiest women. It changes your body, and in some cases can cause serious and permanent health issues. It seems like a lot of men on here are fetishizing women going through it in all circumstances. Please remember, you have no idea why Emma and Joe chose this route to parenthood.
There are reasons most civilized countries outlaw surrogacy as it can be a gateway to baby selling.
France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Australia all outlaw surrogacy.
In Arizona, it doesn't even matter if you use your own eggs, the person that gives birth is the legal mother; as it should be. Surrogacy contracts are illegal and financial arrangements to sell a wealthy couples your baby should be illegal everywhere. And no, this is not a women's right to chose issue, women don't have a right to buy or sell babies. Have the baby if you want, get an abortion prior to birth if you want, but once the baby is a baby, you can put it up for LEGAL adoption if you want to, or drop it off at a fire station, but you SHOULD NOT be selling it to professional athletes that want to shortcut the process so they can continue to compete without delay.
There are reasons most civilized countries outlaw surrogacy as it can be a gateway to baby selling.
France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Australia all outlaw surrogacy.
In Arizona, it doesn't even matter if you use your own eggs, the person that gives birth is the legal mother; as it should be. Surrogacy contracts are illegal and financial arrangements to sell a wealthy couples your baby should be illegal everywhere. And no, this is not a women's right to chose issue, women don't have a right to buy or sell babies. Have the baby if you want, get an abortion prior to birth if you want, but once the baby is a baby, you can put it up for LEGAL adoption if you want to, or drop it off at a fire station, but you SHOULD NOT be selling it to professional athletes that want to shortcut the process so they can continue to compete without delay.
You're a moron.
A surrogate is not genetically related to the child it's carrying. It's not their child. That's why it's different than adoption.
8
16
the american government is totally trustworthy with these kinds
Thank you to the poster that brought up the topic of surrogacy. I think it is good to discuss, and not just slap a gag order on people for fear that we are disrespecting Emma Coburn. She is partaking in a complicated issue, and that’s just that.
I DO worry about the slippery slope of being able to make commerce out of carrying babies and harvesting human eggs for surrogacy, or the broader example of being able to buy and sell human organs.
I don’t know if there is a country in the world enact a policy of surrogacy being both ethically and legally provided, but I don’t think we have what it takes in America to lead the charge in doing this only the right way.
In America, informed consent is poorly executed — “Before you sign that document, I have to warn you that you COULD have serious complications” — and the clinic that makes their money on these procedures is in charge of helping a potential egg donor or surrogate make an informed decision?
In America, our government seems happy to allow money and power to get their way.
The money and power I think is being served here, is not couples like the Bosshards, who are probably just regular folks who want a family and will fork over an obscene amount of money because of fertility issues. The money and power that I think is being served, is the fertility clinics and such, who don’t really give a crap about the surrogate or the Bosshards because it is a business and they want to make every penny.
The interests of business, is to ensure that enough surrogates are found to meet demand, no matter what. And to drum up as much demand as possible, to maximize profits.
There are reasons most civilized countries outlaw surrogacy as it can be a gateway to baby selling.
France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Australia all outlaw surrogacy.
In Arizona, it doesn't even matter if you use your own eggs, the person that gives birth is the legal mother; as it should be. Surrogacy contracts are illegal and financial arrangements to sell a wealthy couples your baby should be illegal everywhere. And no, this is not a women's right to chose issue, women don't have a right to buy or sell babies. Have the baby if you want, get an abortion prior to birth if you want, but once the baby is a baby, you can put it up for LEGAL adoption if you want to, or drop it off at a fire station, but you SHOULD NOT be selling it to professional athletes that want to shortcut the process so they can continue to compete without delay.
You're a moron.
A surrogate is not genetically related to the child it's carrying. It's not their child. That's why it's different than adoption.
That would depend on whether it was traditional or gestational surrogacy and either way, in places where it's illegal, the person that gives birth is the legal parent regardless of who's egg or semen was used for fertilization. In fact, let's use Arizona as an example, if a fertilized egg was implanted in the surrogate, when the baby is delivered, the surrogate, otherwise known as the mother, has legal custody of the child and if married, her husband is the defacto father. In many ways, gestational surrogacy is worse as rich women who don't want to bear the burden of child birth, exploit less fortunate women who are motivated by money and support through the pregnancy "do all the heavy lifting" for them and they just show up on delivery day with the final payment to collect their reward. Kind of like Amazon delivery day but with a twist.
gestational surrogacy is worse as rich women who don't want to bear the burden of child birth, exploit less fortunate women who are motivated by money and support through the pregnancy "do all the heavy lifting" for them and they just show up on delivery day with the final payment to collect their reward.
If you want to go on a crusade against the 0.1% of women who pursue surrogacy for convenience, assuming it's not actually 0%, be my guest. But leave everyone else out of it who comes to surrogacy as a last resort when other ways to start a family aren't possible.
If you want to go on a crusade against the 0.1% of women who pursue surrogacy for convenience, assuming it's not actually 0%, be my guest. But leave everyone else out of it who comes to surrogacy as a last resort when other ways to start a family aren't possible.
I guarantee it's more than 0.1%, especially among the rich. There was a Hollywood trend of designer babies where rich women specific selected the "mothers" and "fathers" that they wanted genetically for the babies they would eventually purchase. You know the Beverly Hills type that could never possibly be inconvenienced by a pregnancy. I say purchase because they would find a woman, down on her luck and in need of cash and they would house her in the guest house for the pregnancy, covering all of her bills and send her off after the delivery with a modest check for her trouble. Whether they used their own egg for fertilization or not, that is obscene and it happens more than you think.
As for your comment: "But leave everyone else out of it who comes to surrogacy as a last resort when other ways to start a family aren't possible." There are a few hundred thousand children in the foster care system in the US who would love to have a family. The idea that surrogacy is the last resort is ridiculous. It's the last resort for people that have specific requirements for "their" child, not just the desire to have one.
I'm more curious as to why she'd put such a private moment out on the Internet.
Look, I kind of get why a pro athlete female wouldn't want to give birth herself and would instead door dash it, but I don't get why you need to broadcast you meeting the baby on the internet. If you want to film it for you family, fine. But to put it out on the Internet is sick to me.
This raises the question as to the actual source of the embryo. Was is Emma's egg or the surrogate's? Was it the Bosshard DNA? Probably yes, but the source of the egg is something which may be evident as the child grows up, or she may just look like Joe. But in any event it is none of my business.
Yeah it is none of your business. Your toxic masculinity is showing.
Sometimes when a man comments on female medical issues it’s toxic masculinity, but not always. However if a woman uses a surrogate without any medical reason, then that is a woman showing her toxic masculinity. But , none of my business
If you want to go on a crusade against the 0.1% of women who pursue surrogacy for convenience, assuming it's not actually 0%, be my guest. But leave everyone else out of it who comes to surrogacy as a last resort when other ways to start a family aren't possible.
Agreed actually.
Where is the evidence that rich women or that Emma herself is "renting a womb" for convenience sake? All this pearl clutching about surrogacy, but is what you fear actually even happening?
Let's think about the richest powerful celebrity women out there.
Jennifer Aniston, Taylor Swift, Oprah, Ellen Degeneres
Aren't mothers.
And for celebrities who used surrogates I know of:
Kim Kardashian, Ellen Pompeo and Gabrielle Union and all three spoke openly about going through serious medical complications or long infertility journeys which was why they resorted to surrogacy.
It really makes you think. If you really believe Emma chose this for convenience sake, why didn't freaking Beyonce do the same so she could continue her career? Why did Kim have two children of her own and dealt with the media calling her fat, when she could have just rented a womb? Why did Serena Williams, Naomi Osaka, and countless athlete mothers not choose surrogates?
Could it be that this is actually not an ideal option for majority of women? Could it be that women WANT to be pregnant most of the time? It makes me really think something was going on behind the scenes.
Until I see droves of our richest women doing this for convenience, I will not question it. But I haven't seen it yet.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.