> Another high-profile case is Ms. Rachel, one of the most influential YouTubers in the United States, who has a channel with 21 million followers, a Netflix series, books and a commercial brand. [..] She has spoken out for LGBTQ+ rights, against the war in Gaza and against ICE mass detentions, especially of children — positions uncommon in the U.S. With a son aged eight, at 43 she became a mother again in 2025 via surrogacy, citing medical problems that prevented her from carrying a pregnancy. She drew no criticism.
Given her "I care about ALL children" stance, it would have been more on-brand for her to adopt an unwanted child than to lease a human body her own genetic lineage.
I get that it seems gross that these able-bodied and fertile celebrities can just pay money to get a baby, but I'm at a loss as to how to limit that while giving a path for intended parents that can't have a child to work with a consenting woman to make that happen?
Why is the answer to anything related to women's bodies always to propose controlling what women do with their bodies? If men could rent out their reproductive organs, nobody would say anything about it and there would be very few laws.
Yes it feels gross and exploitative in the worst case, where women in non-US countries are being signed up to carry babies for US intended parents (see Mexico's bustling surrogate industry offering 1/5 the cost of US surrogates, and the selling point is that you never have to talk to them or have a relationship with the woman carrying your child. Gross.)
On the other end of the cost spectrum here's an example of surrogacy that people like the Kardashians and Lady Gaga are using - upwards of $500k for the best you can get [1]
Disclaimer: having a child through surrogacy due to a lack of biological equipment for me and my spouse. I struggled with the ethics and morality of this course for many years, and it was only settled after meeting our surrogate the first time and establishing a great relationship with her.
That seems an unfair assumption. Both the women in the title have been upfront with their medical histories to the press in the last years. (For the record I'm pro-foster care / adoption myself, the wealthy have excessive resources to give unwanted youth a home).
>Why is the answer to anything related to women's bodies always to propose controlling what women do with their bodies? If men could rent out their reproductive organs, nobody would say anything about it and there would be very few laws.
Because it affects all of them, not only the surrogate. It's like pornography. The women that criticize it argue that it exploits and incentivizes the hypersexualization and objectification of women. While not agreeing with their requests, I don't think they are necessarily wrong.
These same people would have no problem with women having an abortion up to the day of birth, but if a woman wants to voluntarily have someone else’s baby, it’s unethical?
The motivation here seems mostly like a vague disgust at the concept rather than any concrete criticism of the system’s implementation.
>I’m not sure the U.S. model is the right one, but what it needs is some regulation. It looks too much like a free market. It looks like livestock trading.
Surrogates are treated incredibly well throughout the entire process. Not only do they make a large amount of money, but they are often showered with gifts throughout the process. Insurance is purchased for them if they don’t already have it.
The entire process takes up to a year of bureaucracy, medical screenings, and planning.
There’s nothing exploitative about the implementation of surrogacy in the United States. I say this as someone who is intimately familiar with the process.
> These same people would have no problem with women having an abortion up to the day of birth,
Do these people exist anywhere outside of your convenient rhetoric? Do you follow them individually and cross reference their opinions from one issue to another?
I have met many people in the US who have this opinion, absolutely. Even on this site you can find them easily. Heck some of my own family hold this opinion!
I don’t really care about abortion as an issue, I am simply making the point that the people who wrote this article would probably make two contradictory arguments: “My body my choice” and also “my body but NOT my choice because this choice is icky and it looks too much like a free market”.
My state voted in favor of a "right to reproductive freedom" recently, in response to the surpreme court decision on abortion, which includes a "right to make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy".
If it's my body and my choice, who are you to say I cannot be a surrogate?
Probably most of the "scandal" or lack therof in the united states is consumed by arguments for or against abortion, for which there is still no consensus.
There is a consensus and most Americans support abortion access. There's a reason why the GOP had to play games to install an SC majority which would overturn the precedent; it's not popular to ban abortion.
Because the desperation to have kids in the US from the religious outweighs the need to use it as an end around to attack lgbtq/disabled people so far.
Surrogacy is the only option for Gay couples to have genetic children and I will fight to the death to defend the most basic right of existence, to have genetic offspring. To use pearl clutching and conservative moral panic BS to deny someone, especially Gay people, the right to have children, the most fundamental right of every form of life on earth, is barbaric and Europe should be ashamed for their cruelty and sickness and crimes against the Gay people and anyone else who needs surrogacy.
13 comments
[ 0.66 ms ] story [ 12.6 ms ] threadGiven her "I care about ALL children" stance, it would have been more on-brand for her to adopt an unwanted child than to lease a human body her own genetic lineage.
Why is the answer to anything related to women's bodies always to propose controlling what women do with their bodies? If men could rent out their reproductive organs, nobody would say anything about it and there would be very few laws.
Yes it feels gross and exploitative in the worst case, where women in non-US countries are being signed up to carry babies for US intended parents (see Mexico's bustling surrogate industry offering 1/5 the cost of US surrogates, and the selling point is that you never have to talk to them or have a relationship with the woman carrying your child. Gross.)
On the other end of the cost spectrum here's an example of surrogacy that people like the Kardashians and Lady Gaga are using - upwards of $500k for the best you can get [1]
Disclaimer: having a child through surrogacy due to a lack of biological equipment for me and my spouse. I struggled with the ethics and morality of this course for many years, and it was only settled after meeting our surrogate the first time and establishing a great relationship with her.
[1] https://www.growinggenerations.com/intended-parents/surrogac...
That seems an unfair assumption. Both the women in the title have been upfront with their medical histories to the press in the last years. (For the record I'm pro-foster care / adoption myself, the wealthy have excessive resources to give unwanted youth a home).
Because it affects all of them, not only the surrogate. It's like pornography. The women that criticize it argue that it exploits and incentivizes the hypersexualization and objectification of women. While not agreeing with their requests, I don't think they are necessarily wrong.
These same people would have no problem with women having an abortion up to the day of birth, but if a woman wants to voluntarily have someone else’s baby, it’s unethical?
The motivation here seems mostly like a vague disgust at the concept rather than any concrete criticism of the system’s implementation.
>I’m not sure the U.S. model is the right one, but what it needs is some regulation. It looks too much like a free market. It looks like livestock trading.
Surrogates are treated incredibly well throughout the entire process. Not only do they make a large amount of money, but they are often showered with gifts throughout the process. Insurance is purchased for them if they don’t already have it.
The entire process takes up to a year of bureaucracy, medical screenings, and planning.
There’s nothing exploitative about the implementation of surrogacy in the United States. I say this as someone who is intimately familiar with the process.
Do these people exist anywhere outside of your convenient rhetoric? Do you follow them individually and cross reference their opinions from one issue to another?
I don’t really care about abortion as an issue, I am simply making the point that the people who wrote this article would probably make two contradictory arguments: “My body my choice” and also “my body but NOT my choice because this choice is icky and it looks too much like a free market”.
If it's my body and my choice, who are you to say I cannot be a surrogate?
Probably most of the "scandal" or lack therof in the united states is consumed by arguments for or against abortion, for which there is still no consensus.