Meghan Trainor has welcomed a baby girl Mikey Moon via surrogate

[Bronco 18,082]

19 minutes ago, Franch Toast said:

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. 

It's not due to the egg that there's a link between age and autism in mothers. You are right about the issue of spontaneous mutation in older paternal sperm, but there's equally a seperate not fully understood U-Curve of risk around young & older mothers in some studies. Some studies point to the fact that mutations can occur in older maternal eggs (to a lesser extent than sperm mutations). But basically biology points to the fact that there's a golden age for men & women to have children, and that it's quite narrow. 

Then there's also social factors at play - older parents are typically more wealthy, children of wealthy parents are more likely to be diagnosed even for low-level neurodivergence because of easier access to diagnostics. People with autism may find partners later due to social difficulties which naturally means they're having children at an older age and potentially passing it on genetically. 

[apollorowling 673]

Looks like we got Donald Trump between us 😒

[apollorowling 673]

2 minutes ago, Bronco said:

It's not due to the egg that there's a link between age and autism in mothers. You are right about the issue of spontaneous mutation in older paternal sperm, but there's equally a seperate not fully understood U-Curve of risk around young & older mothers in some studies. Some studies point to the fact that mutations can occur in older maternal eggs (to a lesser extent than sperm mutations). But basically biology points to the fact that there's a golden age for men & women to have children, and that it's quite narrow. 

Then there's also social factors at play - older parents are typically more wealthy, children of wealthy parents are more likely to be diagnosed even for low-level neurodivergence because of easier access to diagnostics. People with autism may find partners later due to social difficulties which naturally means they're having children at an older age and potentially passing it on genetically. 

You're MAGA or something? 🤦

[Bronco 18,082]

19 minutes ago, apollorowling said:

You're MAGA or something? 🤦

You must be low-IQ if you think someone talking about the inherent inequality born through labour relationships in a globalised capitalist economy is MAGA. Especially when that user has repeatedly skirted the site rules to call for Trump & his supporters to be killed indiscriminately. 

[Bronco 18,082]

3 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 🙃

Do you think its fine for women & children to be exploited? Because that's whats been raised as the issue.

The lack of legal protections for surrogate mothers and children born via surrogacy. 

[Delulu Rogers 7,613]

53 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Do you think its fine for women & children to be exploited? Because that's whats been raised as the issue.

The lack of legal protections for surrogate mothers and children born via surrogacy. 

Are there women being exploited by this type of service? 100%

Are there women happy to give the gift of life for others and do it legally, for free, out of kindness, etc? 100% 

Are there people who want to be parents but are unable to carry/have their own children and need surrogates to help achieve their dreams? 100% 

Only the first one poses an issue. That doesn’t mean all surrogates/people that seek surrogates are a problem. And it’s definitely not the intention of the OP post. 
 

My best friend was a surrogate for a gay couple and she was not exploited, forced,  pressure or anything like that. She wanted to do it and she’s even signed up to do it again. 
 

Bottom line, we don’t know Megan Trainer’s intentions or circumstances and it would be nice just to be happy for someone that is clearly happy to have become a mother. 

[Bronco 18,082]

Just now, Delulu Rogers said:

Are there women being exploited by this type of service? 100%

Are there women happy to give the gift of life for others and do it legally, for free, out of kindness, etc? 100% 

Are there people who want to be parents but are unable to carry/have their own children and need surrogates to help achieve their dreams? 100% 

Only the first one poses an issue. That doesn’t mean all surrogates/people that seek surrogates are a problem. And it’s definitely not the intention of the OP post. 
 

My best friend was a surrogate for a gay couple and she was not exploited, forced,  pressure or anything like that. She wanted to do it and she’s even signed up to do it again. 
 

Bottom line, we don’t know Megan Trainer’s intentions or circumstances and it would be nice just to be happy for someone that is clearly happy to have become a mother. 

But just because you can name a few good examples does not negate the fact that surrogacy is open to rampant abuse due to a lack of regulation in the vast majority of countries. 

And it is blatantly disrespectful to the women and children harmed as a result of this to attempt to dismiss people discussing that lack of regulation by misusing feminist talking points and slogans. 

The very principle you flippantly used to dismiss legitimate discussion about the inherent risks of surogacy and the misinformation in this thread I'll add is actually about ensuring that the victims you flippantly dismissed are protected from the abuse you are trying to minimise. 

It is not feminist to dismiss and minimise victims because some people weren't victims either by luck or by being based in one of the minority of legal jurisdictions where effective and complete legal protections exist. 

There is a reason why the feminist position is pro-choice (my body, my choice). Its because pro-choice is about ensuring the best protections are in place for women because the alternative as we know from real life examples is abuse, coercion and death. 

Dismissing people debating the lack of effective protection and the need for effective protection of surogates is not feminist. So don't you dare try and bastardise a slogan you clearly don't understand because you're incapable of contributing to a topic seriously. 

[Delulu Rogers 7,613]

4 minutes ago, Bronco said:

But just because you can name a few good examples does not negate the fact that surrogacy is open to rampant abuse due to a lack of regulation in the vast majority of countries. 

And it is blatantly disrespectful to the women and children harmed as a result of this to attempt to dismiss people discussing that lack of regulation by misusing feminist talking points and slogans. 

The very principle you flippantly used to dismiss legitimate discussion about the inherent risks of surogacy and the misinformation in this thread I'll add is actually about ensuring that the victims you flippantly dismissed are protected from the abuse you are trying to minimise. 

It is not feminist to dismiss and minimise victims because some people weren't victims either by luck or by being based in one of the minority of legal jurisdictions where effective and complete legal protections exist. 

There is a reason why the feminist position is pro-choice (my body, my choice). Its because pro-choice is about ensuring the best protections are in place for women because the alternative as we know from real life examples is abuse, coercion and death. 

Dismissing people debating the lack of effective protection and the need for effective protection of surogates is not feminist. So don't you dare try and bastardise a slogan you clearly don't understand because you're incapable of contributing to a topic seriously. 

The first sentence in my response is agreeing that people are being exploited, so where am I dismissing the lack of effective protection or minimizing the issue? And I was not minimizing the victims by sharing a positive experience of someone I know. You’re projecting so much. 

My sharing of a positive experience was meant to show that there are people on the other side of this that do this willingly,  on legal and protective terms. Many people in this thread have been ignoring that side and making out people who seek surrogates as monsters. 

And the main point of my post that went completely over your head; we don’t know Megan’s circumstances or intentions. People in this thread have been speculating over her body and condition which is not right. 

[apollorowling 673]

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

But just because you can name a few good examples does not negate the fact that surrogacy is open to rampant abuse due to a lack of regulation in the vast majority of countries. 

And it is blatantly disrespectful to the women and children harmed as a result of this to attempt to dismiss people discussing that lack of regulation by misusing feminist talking points and slogans. 

The very principle you flippantly used to dismiss legitimate discussion about the inherent risks of surogacy and the misinformation in this thread I'll add is actually about ensuring that the victims you flippantly dismissed are protected from the abuse you are trying to minimise. 

It is not feminist to dismiss and minimise victims because some people weren't victims either by luck or by being based in one of the minority of legal jurisdictions where effective and complete legal protections exist. 

There is a reason why the feminist position is pro-choice (my body, my choice). Its because pro-choice is about ensuring the best protections are in place for women because the alternative as we know from real life examples is abuse, coercion and death. 

Dismissing people debating the lack of effective protection and the need for effective protection of surogates is not feminist. So don't you dare try and bastardise a slogan you clearly don't understand because you're incapable of contributing to a topic seriously. 

But you're doing the same thing, how can you not understand? All we want you to understand is that while there is abuse, there is also abuse that isn't. With your position that all cases are abuse, you're denying the existence of people who do it by their own choice or to help others. Don't you like helping anyone? God 😒

[27monster27 15,111]

Why are so many upset that she is crying about having a baby. What is this "acting like she pushed" BS? Can she not be happy and wanting to hold her baby close?

[Chromanne 2,208]

8 hours ago, Franch Toast said:

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. 

You are incorrect. There's no recent study that says it's the sperm that determines down syndrome and autism, not the egg 

Down syndrome is caused by trisomy 21, one extra chromosome with the 21st pair. That one extra chromosome can come from either egg or sperm, but in more than 90% of cases, it comes from the egg. Advanced maternal age is one of the most important factors for it.

Autism is caused by multiple factors. It arises from a combination of genetic mutations and environmental factors. Neither sperm nor egg alone “determines” autism.  Although advanced paternal age could be one of the factors for genetic mutations.

[Franch Toast 27,550]

17 hours ago, Chromanne said:

You are incorrect. There's no recent study that says it's the sperm that determines down syndrome and autism, not the egg 

Down syndrome is caused by trisomy 21, one extra chromosome with the 21st pair. That one extra chromosome can come from either egg or sperm, but in more than 90% of cases, it comes from the egg. Advanced maternal age is one of the most important factors for it.

Autism is caused by multiple factors. It arises from a combination of genetic mutations and environmental factors. Neither sperm nor egg alone “determines” autism.  Although advanced paternal age could be one of the factors for genetic mutations.

I over simplified, but I was trying to draw attention to recent studies that acknowledge it's not only advanced maternal age that increases certain risk factors but also paternal age. In short, I was trying to express that even if Gaga used a surrogate and an egg donor, if they still use Michael's sperm, there would still be these risks. In other words, it's not just from the egg, but you're correct that I worded it too simply because I made it sound like it's only the sperm, when in short, it's both [plus other factors]. I could have been clearer in my earlier post. 

But here in fact are some studies about the effects of aging sperm on autism, Down's syndrome, and other issues: 

https://www.aging-us.com/article/206348/text

//Research findings suggest that advanced paternal age is associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children. The biological process behind this father-to-child inheritance of a disease may be driven by sperm epigenetic marks. This has been suggested earlier, but the identification of epigenomic regions responsible for these age-related responses have not been further elaborated. To identify sperm-specific marks, we conducted an epigenome-wide association study in sperm from 63 men, using the Illumina 450K array.//

https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/aging-sperm-may-influence-autism-risk-before-conception-408745

//In a new epigenetic study, age-related changes in sperm DNA methylation were found at sites linked to autism and early brain development. While the effects are subtle, they offer insight into how paternal age could influence autism risk before conception.// 

https://www.nyp.org/news/male-biological-clock-may-be-ticking-for-down-syndrome-in

//Men over age 40 were twice as likely to have a Down syndrome child than men less than 20 years old, notes Dr. Fisch. Since older women tend to be have children with older men, the increased incidence of this genetic abnormality in women older than 35 is likely to be the result of a combination effect of maternal and paternal age, rather than the result of maternal age only. 

This finding of the paternal age influence on Down syndrome suggests that there is a sperm contribution to the trisomy; increased paternal age may lead to an increased frequency of chromosome abnormalities in sperm, according to Dr. Fisch. Our finding of a paternal contribution to trisomy 21 indicates a structural chromosomal risk than had not previously been appreciated. It is our belief that increased paternal age, as well as maternal age, may be responsible for a wide variety of health problems in children. This effect has been underestimated and warrants further research. The reduced semen quality in older men may increase the risk of genetic abnormalities in their children and some of our current research is seeking to evaluate ways to reduce this risk, he concludes.//

[apollorowling 673]

12 minutes ago, Franch Toast said:

I over simplified, but I was trying to draw attention to recent studies that acknowledge it's not only advanced maternal age that increases certain risk factors but also paternal age. In short, I was trying to express that even if Gaga used a surrogate and an egg donor, if they still use Michael's sperm, there would still be these risks. In other words, it's not just from the egg, but you're correct that I worded it too simply because I made it sound like it's only the sperm, when in short, it's both [plus other factors]. I could have been clearer in my earlier post. 

But here in fact are some studies about the effects of aging sperm on autism, Down's syndrome, and other issues: 

https://www.aging-us.com/article/206348/text

//Research findings suggest that advanced paternal age is associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children. The biological process behind this father-to-child inheritance of a disease may be driven by sperm epigenetic marks. This has been suggested earlier, but the identification of epigenomic regions responsible for these age-related responses have not been further elaborated. To identify sperm-specific marks, we conducted an epigenome-wide association study in sperm from 63 men, using the Illumina 450K array.//

https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/aging-sperm-may-influence-autism-risk-before-conception-408745

//In a new epigenetic study, age-related changes in sperm DNA methylation were found at sites linked to autism and early brain development. While the effects are subtle, they offer insight into how paternal age could influence autism risk before conception.// 

https://www.nyp.org/news/male-biological-clock-may-be-ticking-for-down-syndrome-in

//Men over age 40 were twice as likely to have a Down syndrome child than men less than 20 years old, notes Dr. Fisch. Since older women tend to be have children with older men, the increased incidence of this genetic abnormality in women older than 35 is likely to be the result of a combination effect of maternal and paternal age, rather than the result of maternal age only. 

This finding of the paternal age influence on Down syndrome suggests that there is a sperm contribution to the trisomy; increased paternal age may lead to an increased frequency of chromosome abnormalities in sperm, according to Dr. Fisch. Our finding of a paternal contribution to trisomy 21 indicates a structural chromosomal risk than had not previously been appreciated. It is our belief that increased paternal age, as well as maternal age, may be responsible for a wide variety of health problems in children. This effect has been underestimated and warrants further research. The reduced semen quality in older men may increase the risk of genetic abnormalities in their children and some of our current research is seeking to evaluate ways to reduce this risk, he concludes.//

Yeah, and what's your problem with Meghan?

[27monster27 15,111]

I didn't think I could dislike Riley Gaines more than I already do, but here we are:

 

[StrawberryBlond 15,206]

On 1/22/2026 at 9:29 AM, 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.

Caring about the DNA is literally the entire point of doing surrogacy. If they didn't care, they'd just adopt. Some people want to have a child knowing that they have healthy genes to pass on, you can't guarantee that with an adoptee. Nor do you know what familial traits the adoptee could've inherited. We never hear about the many cases of fostering/adoption where the children in question are extremely badly behaved and maybe even dangerous because even child services have no idea of this child's background and what they could be capable of as we don't know what their parents were like. It may be harsh, but this is one of the many reasons why people are too wary to adopt and would rather they had a child knowing there's a big chance they will be physically and mentally healthy because they know their own family history. Of course being adopted doesn't make you less than but there's a reason why most people want children of their own DNA. 

Many people want their own child from birth because then they can influence them to be the best they can be and pick up the least bad habits. Many children from adoption agencies have gone through trauma and hardships, struggle to trust, maybe even have a lack of respect for authority in some cases. Not everyone is equipped to handle that and turn that child's situation around. If you raise a child to be a certain way from the start, they're much more likely to turn out well than trying to get an unruly child to change their ways and turn out well. Some people really want to experience every part of raising a baby, they don't want to start parenthood with someone who's approaching teenhood. There's a beauty in every stage of being a parent and they want to experience it all. It also helps you truly feel that this child is yours. Some people, women especially, have an overwhelming biological urge to be a biological parent and look after a baby. I think it's very insensitive to deny them that right because their physical body had other ideas. Wanting to do as nature intended should be supported.

Most people who are surrogates, even it's a trusted family member/friend, will be paid. It's extremely rare that someone isn't because being pregnant is a full-time job. The surrogate will have to follow a food plan and be careful through every aspect of their life, avoiding certain behaviours and will have to take time off work to some degree, they may even risk losing their life in pregnancy, all for a baby that isn't even theirs. They need financial compensation, to not offer that is just unthinkable. I know I would demand payment in order to be a surrogate, regardless of my financial situation. Even if a surrogate doesn't ask for money, the would-bbe parents nearly always insist upon it out of politeness and decency. Payment doesn't always need to be a gross act of capitalism. Sometimes, it's a basic human right.

I already went over why Meghan was holding her baby like she was the one who had given birth. Because it's her biological child, her first daughter, she's in the hospital where the surrogate gave birth and staff encouraged her to do skin-to-skin contact for bonding, which she will especially need seeing as she didn't incubate the baby for 9 months and the baby will need to get used to what is essentially a foreign body to them. What "store" would she be standing outside exactly? You don't buy babies in shops and she's been upfront from the start that this was a surrogate birth.