Meghan Trainor has welcomed a baby girl Mikey Moon via surrogate

[apollorowling 892]

34 minutes ago, nkta said:

If we look at this so broadly - then most of capitalism is abuse.

What about sex workers whose bodies involved in exchange for money?

What about people working in harsh environments and risking their health for money (firefighters for instance)?

At every work, there is a possibility of power dynamics going wrong because of unfair conditions, bad bosses, and so on

THANKS!

[apollorowling 892]

22 minutes ago, ANVEEROY said:

Oh my f god, why GGD is full of anti-surogacy!!!!

I don't know if that's it, or if they want to consider all the possibilities of everything. Super utopian 😒

[Ziggy 13,908]

yay her but...why this post exhaustion pic if you're going to be so upfront about having a surrogate?  i totally get reasons you may want or need to have someone who could more safely handle a pregnancy do it, but...the stolen valor here 

[Ziggy 13,908]

57 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Look as soon as you are paying a human to provide a service via their body you open up all the grounds for abuse and exploitation. 

Tbf I think that's just the nature of work that you aren't doing 100% for yourself by yourself. Any time you interact with capitalism, the potential for abuse and exploitation of the body and person emerges. The only person who isn't feeling that is the farmer who grows only his own food for himself. Imo it's less about if* the potential of abuse emerges and more what you do to mitigate that risk and protect people's dignity

[NewUsername 11,745]

Oh dear... Guys, while there are definitely real concerns about surrogacy,  you need to understand that surrogacy is not unethical de facto. Sadly there indeed is abuse and exploitation and we have to talk about this, but this is not the standard in countries like the US, UK and Canada (iirc). I remember reading about a clinic that had very strict rules, resulting in them accepting only 4% or so from all the women who applied to be a surrogate. For this discussion, the most important ones being: both the woman and her partner could not have a wish to become parents again and they have to be in a great financial situation. This prevents exploitation.

You can absolutely acknowledge the bad practices, but not without acknowledging that people really can also do this (and do this) out of altruism.

10 hours ago, himerosxo said:

This take oversimplifies surrogacy to the point of being inaccurate and ignorant. Surrogacy is a voluntary, legally regulated process where surrogates are medically, psychologically, and legally protected, and are not biologically related to the child. Reducing it to “buying women’s bodies” actually removes women’s agency rather than defending it.

Also, for you to come onto this forum and expecting someone with a documented hip injury and chronic pain to “take the risks anyway” is selfish of you. Pregnancy is not a moral obligation, and avoiding unnecessary medical risk is not selfish. Adoption is meaningful but it is not simple, accessible, or ethically uncomplicated, and children are not substitutes in a moral argument.

Ultimately, reproductive choices are private medical decisions. Let people make their own decisions without opinions like yours. There’s more than one ethical path to parenthood. 

exactly

4 hours ago, Aglaya said:

Thank you for actually bringing on a real argument about surrogacy. The thing is, no one really cares about the baby's DNA. In fact, implying this is a great method of having a baby because it is "biologically yours" is just WRONG in many levels, as it also implies that an adopted baby is "less" than a baby because there's not a shared DNA in the process. Wrong and loud. Having +200K children waiting to be adopted just alone in the US and choosing to pay for a womans body is and will always be wrong. 

Let us remind ourselves that being a mom/dad is in fact NOT a right. If you can't have a baby by your own body or age... you souldn't be able to buy a baby online as a cake, cause is not a right. You may want to be a mom or a dad still, wich is totally fine! But in that case you should only adopt an already existing baby, as that's a real industry and a real problem with real children in most cases just growing up orphans. Many people, (almost alawys americans) argue that the adoption industry takes a long process and it can take years to have your baby delivered to you. I don't see how this is a problem lol. Having a baby should never be something you decide as a random thought. And also, having a baby in your own body is not something you do in a day. Being a parent IS an important decision, and I agree with the fact you should take years being ready to do so.

What do I mean by having a baby not being a right? It is not mandatory for your life, but rather a "wish". The same thing goes to bald people, or amputees. Why are we not just buying people's scalp or arms and legs? If we pay them, someone must agree to sell a limb, right? The ONLY TIME a surrogacy will be a good scenario, is if a dear friend or someone close to you agrees to carry your baby / for free / out of love and receiving nothing in exchange (even if after having the baby you decide to give that woman a million dollars, no one cares). The thing is, when you set a PRICE, you are setting the opportunity to poor people to enter an already existing market of buying their integrity. The same goes to the 100% hair wig market, wich also presents many unethical questions about where are those industries taking that hair out from. You can't sell your blood because there will be always an industry waiting for poor people to sell their bodies. That's why we have campaigns to donate blood, rather than a market. 

The scenario of putting an actual price on a baby is wild. If your surrogate woulnd't carry your baby for free, then this whole conversation is over, cause she is only doing it as a work, and a work should never be able to take advantage of your body.

If your own body can't handle a baby, you should never just buy another woman to do so. It's just an industry for the wealthiest people on earth to go on and take advantage of, in fact, random woman. You can look at the already exsisting cases of rich people backing up from a surrogate when they are informed the baby may be born with a disability lol. That's how great of an industry it is. And don't get me started on the fake post-partum picture with Megan and her bought baby as if she was the one delivering it. She would be way more real if she just took a selfie at a store.

- some people prefer to share DNA. Is that narcissistic? In a way I think it is, but this counts for people who conceive "normally" as well. And I know that two wrongs don't make a right, but preferring to share DNA doesn't automatically mean that you think of adopted children as less... You're just being rude.
- it is not a right, that is correct. Nor is it for people than can and do conceive. Your explanation seems very pointed to people that can't and it's reading as "that's too bad! Well you shouldn't be old/infertile/gay/... if you wanted a child" 
- the long process absolutely matters. If a couple has been sure to want to start a family for a long time (so weird of you to draw the "random thought" card), it still not wants to have to wait 12-15 years...

Btw, your text has quite some fallacies.
 

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

If the surrogate was paid then absolutely. 

It's not wealthy women selling their uterus as a service. 

 

Read my first paragraph, it absolutely is a rule for serious clinics.

Edited January 22 by NewUsername

[Bronco 24,037]

1 minute ago, Ziggy said:

Tbf I think that's just the nature of work that you aren't doing 100% for yourself by yourself. Any time you interact with capitalism, the potential for abuse and exploitation of the body and person emerges. The only person who isn't feeling that is the farmer who grows only his own food for himself. Imo it's less about if* the potential of abuse emerges and more what you do to mitigate that risk and protect people's dignity

Yeah and the issue is that surogacy is still a relatively infant thing in the scope of medical science and legal acknowledgement. 

And despite a wealth of cases and sociological research showing the scale of abuse and inherent risks - people are sticking their heads in the sand. 

2 minutes ago, NewUsername said:

Oh dear... Guys, while there are definitely real concerns about surrogacy,  you need to understand that surrogacy is not unethical de facto. Sadly there indeed is abuse and exploitation and we have to talk about this, but this is not the standard in countries like the US, UK and Canada (iirc). I remember reading about a clinic that had very strict rules, resulting in them accepting only 4% or so from all the women who applied to be a surrogate. For this discussion, the most important ones being: both the woman and her partner could not have a wish to become parents again and they have to be in a great financial situation. This prevents exploitation

Its neither ethical or unethical on a defacto basis. 

Because the health implications on the child and surrogate mother are under-researched. Its impossible to make a defacto claim about the ethics of the practice without a full understanding of the health risks.

As for legal protection - its patchy. There absolutely is abuse in the US, UK etc.

On the first page of this thread I shared a case where a US couple had had 21 children born via surrogacy across the US. They'd lied to all of the surrogates identified thus far by the legal process about their circumstances. And all 21 children were abuse victims and there's even an investigation into potential trafficking crimes. 

As a wider discussion- there's no federal law on surrogacy. It varies across all 50 states. Multiple states don't allow for surrogacy contracts to be enforced by law, which is the main avenue of exploitation. It is entirely unregulated in 19 states. 

In the UK, surrogacy contracts are legally unenforceable. So there is no legal protection for the surrogate mother if the parents don't pay to cover any agreed medical cost, pregnancy support costs or lost earnings reimbursments. So no, exploitation is not prevented. 

Canada is the only example you've given where surrogacy is both altruistic only by law (no profitmaking) and where contracts are legally enforceable. Its the only example you've given where I fully agree and support the laws on surogacy.

But there still remains the questions about the lack of medical research into surrogacy's safety for the mother & child. 

[PornoDanceFight 1,981]

6 hours ago, Aglaya said:

I'm sorry but an american talking about turning a brain on..... Move on

You’re 2 for 2 with the logical fallacies an sweeping generalizations 

[Delulu Rogers 7,646]

Seems like people on here are for women doing what they want with their bodies until they make a decision they don’t agree with 🙃

[Ilia Malinin 2,827]

15 hours ago, LunaUniverse said:

Oh no, autism. How evil 

Nevermind that men are mostly responsible for that

can confirm, both kids my father had have autism

[Aglaya 8,505]

2 hours ago, Delulu Rogers said:

Seems like people on here are for women doing what they want with their bodies until they make a decision they don’t agree with 🙃

She's not getting a tattoo, she paid another woman for using her body, hope that helps!

[Delulu Rogers 7,646]

5 minutes ago, Aglaya said:

She's not getting a tattoo, she paid another woman for using her body, hope that helps!

Helps with what? I understood what happened

[Aglaya 8,505]

25 minutes ago, Delulu Rogers said:

Helps with what? I understood what happened

You sure did

[Economy 52,746]

On 1/21/2026 at 12:13 PM, Bronco said:

Because surogacy is linked to abusive practices. 

In countries where its possible to pay surrogates, it is predominantly poor women being used as breeding stock by the rich. 

In many countries it is linked to criminal activity including child abuse and human trafficking. 

Its largely unregulated and allows nefarious actors to circumvent child safeguarding. 

Surrogate children in some recent studies are showing signs of worse long term health and development outcomes.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-couple-21-children-surrogate-babies-custody/

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-calls-recognition-surrogacy-system-violence-exploitation-and-abuse

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-sale-of-children/surrogacy-and-sale-children

 

Ok but do we have any reason to think Megan would treat her like that?

[Franch Toast 27,734]

On 1/21/2026 at 12:45 PM, gagzus said:

No it isn’t BUT she increases the risk of her children having things like autism and Down syndrome and she could easily just enter menopause without warning.

Actually, recent studies have shown that it's the sperm that determines this, not the egg. 

But for all we know, she could've frozen her eggs and/or they could have embryos already. 

[Bronco 24,037]

21 minutes ago, Economy said:

Ok but do we have any reason to think Megan would treat her like that?

The person I responded to asked "why are people so anti-surogacy". 

Not "Why are people so anti meghan trainor specifically".