May 29, 2023 - 3:00pm
Khloé Kardashian has revealed that she struggled to bond with the baby she procured via surrogacy. Having paid someone else to gestate for her, the reality TV star reports that “I definitely buried my head in the sand during that pregnancy” and “didn’t digest what was happening”. Kardashian says that “when I went to the hospital that was the first time it really registered.”
The segment in the latest series of The Kardashians sees Khloé acknowledge that in effect she bought a baby, calling it “such a transactional experience”. And, centrally, that none of this was in the baby’s interests: “it is not about him”. No, indeed. Surrogacy often is, as many of its critics point out, more about the needs of the adults than those of the baby.
A baby’s needs are fundamental and unchanging. A newborn cannot survive on its own. This isn’t just about physical care: a considerable body of research shows that maternal attunement plays a crucial role, from birth, in laying the foundations of healthy psychic development. In other words, Donald Winnicott said, ‘There is no such thing as a baby”, for “a baby cannot exist alone, but is essentially part of a relationship”.
Some argue that it’s a patriarchal myth that mothers possess an extra capacity to be attuned to a baby. After all, dads and adoptive parents also love their children. From this perspective, why should a surrogate mother not be just as good as a birthing one? Well, it’s true that there is some evidence that non-birthing caregivers become similarly attuned to their baby. But (and from the perspective of a newborn, it’s a big but) research shows that while non-gestating parents undergo similar neurological changes to a pregnant woman, this takes longer, and comes via contact with the baby. In contrast, the physiological process of pregnancy doesn’t just create a baby; it also creates a mother, priming the pregnant woman for attunement to and devoted care of her newborn.
So we can’t simply say that because some babies need adoptive parents, the relationship between birth mother and baby is of no importance. Adoption involves a baby who is already there. For such a baby, the choice is between a non-maternal caregiver or not surviving at all. Humans’ ability to develop loving attunement to non-related infants means more babies are able to survive, and be raised in loving homes. Unless we’re returning to the Roman practice of exposing unwanted babies, in these circumstances a non-maternal caregiver is clearly better.
But babies who must be adopted will inevitably suffer some measure of attunement deficit, until their caregiver develops the same level of attentive devotion through contact and caregiving as would normally be primed by pregnancy. And while this is better than nothing for an adopted baby, gestational surrogacy involves conceiving a child in the full knowledge that he or she will experience this rupture of a fundamental bond, and subsequent deficit of attunement.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI am a man, but nobody will convince me that removing a new born baby from its mother can be anything less than extremely traumatic for both mother and baby. There is 400 million years of evolution behind the bond between the two, and I doubt that a cheque for services rendered can compensate for that broken bond. Some things are not for sale.
True, anyone who has tried to take a foal or a calf from it’s mother will have seen the inconsolable distress it causes. We are mammals too.
True, anyone who has tried to take a foal or a calf from it’s mother will have seen the inconsolable distress it causes. We are mammals too.
I am a man, but nobody will convince me that removing a new born baby from its mother can be anything less than extremely traumatic for both mother and baby. There is 400 million years of evolution behind the bond between the two, and I doubt that a cheque for services rendered can compensate for that broken bond. Some things are not for sale.
I’m not sure why the baseline stupidity and lack of insight exposed by KK should be treated as anything other than what it is. Is she really supposed to be a role model, that other females should slavishly follow? Okay… so anyone who watches, listens or otherwise pays attention to anything she does is equally culpable. Unfortunately, that seems to amount to a great many… and probably males too.
MH has an absolute open goal in front of her with this issue, and it’s a sad indictment of our cultural realm that she even has to tap this particular ball over the line.
Let me be clear; there are plenty of examples where non-birthing mothers and parents are able and willing to care for and love new human lives. Those newborns will always be with us and society owes parents who take up that responsibility a debt of gratitude.
As a lifestyle choice, it’s an abomination. Studies looking into the bonding differences between natal and non-natal parents are scarcely needed, since the instinctive human drive to protect and nourish (in every sense) one’s own genetic inheritance is the basis of practically everything we do. Any parent will know the unique frisson of joy and responsibility involved when their offspring appears in the world. As a newish grandparent, that sensation rebounds through the generational layers and produces a coherent and meaningful societal realm. Without it, or in its deliberate abandonment, lies breakdown and a bottomless well of chaos. I hope that’s what KK felt, perhaps for the first time in her life. That’s the meaning of guilt.
Totally agree, but give KK credit for noticing and worrying about it. That’s more than I would have expected.
Exactly.
Exactly.
It’s a lifestyle choice that gay couples make the whole time. Lesbians couples are able to actually birth. I think Khloe showed surprising honesty and vulnerability for someone in her position. She didn’t have to say anything.
Totally agree, but give KK credit for noticing and worrying about it. That’s more than I would have expected.
It’s a lifestyle choice that gay couples make the whole time. Lesbians couples are able to actually birth. I think Khloe showed surprising honesty and vulnerability for someone in her position. She didn’t have to say anything.
I’m not sure why the baseline stupidity and lack of insight exposed by KK should be treated as anything other than what it is. Is she really supposed to be a role model, that other females should slavishly follow? Okay… so anyone who watches, listens or otherwise pays attention to anything she does is equally culpable. Unfortunately, that seems to amount to a great many… and probably males too.
MH has an absolute open goal in front of her with this issue, and it’s a sad indictment of our cultural realm that she even has to tap this particular ball over the line.
Let me be clear; there are plenty of examples where non-birthing mothers and parents are able and willing to care for and love new human lives. Those newborns will always be with us and society owes parents who take up that responsibility a debt of gratitude.
As a lifestyle choice, it’s an abomination. Studies looking into the bonding differences between natal and non-natal parents are scarcely needed, since the instinctive human drive to protect and nourish (in every sense) one’s own genetic inheritance is the basis of practically everything we do. Any parent will know the unique frisson of joy and responsibility involved when their offspring appears in the world. As a newish grandparent, that sensation rebounds through the generational layers and produces a coherent and meaningful societal realm. Without it, or in its deliberate abandonment, lies breakdown and a bottomless well of chaos. I hope that’s what KK felt, perhaps for the first time in her life. That’s the meaning of guilt.
We haven’t been allowed to buy adults for some long while, why is it now OK to buy babies????? And the rupturing of he mother-child bond is a heinous crime as we now recognise in the censure of the forced adoptions of more puritanical times.
But can you believe anything that a ‘reality’ star says?
And what about the “pro-lifers” who blithly say to those who don’t want give birth “oh just give it up for adoption”. Just one aspect of their sanctimoneous cruelty.
But can you believe anything that a ‘reality’ star says?
And what about the “pro-lifers” who blithly say to those who don’t want give birth “oh just give it up for adoption”. Just one aspect of their sanctimoneous cruelty.
We haven’t been allowed to buy adults for some long while, why is it now OK to buy babies????? And the rupturing of he mother-child bond is a heinous crime as we now recognise in the censure of the forced adoptions of more puritanical times.
As the mother of both biological and adopted children, Mary is right on target here. The first weeks after giving birth were magical, I would watch the baby sleeping when I could’ve been sleeping myself. I couldn’t wait until they woke up sometimes, and we kept them in our bed the first months. Two other children were adopted at 3 weeks and 5 months. 30 years later I struggle to relate to the one adopted at 3 weeks and he shows definite signs of attachment issues in all relationships. The one adopted at 5 months was a much quicker and more intense attachment, he was very small for his age, turned out to have orthopedic and learning issues, but has a wonderfully loving personality, and is attached to his older siblings as well as his father and I.
I have talked to a lot of adoptive parents and it is not always as smooth a relationship as people like to think. Depending on the child’s personality there is a primal sense of rejection which cannot be overcome no matter what you do.
I would love to know what made the difference in how you felt between the two adoted children, that is if you know.
I would love to know what made the difference in how you felt between the two adoted children, that is if you know.
As the mother of both biological and adopted children, Mary is right on target here. The first weeks after giving birth were magical, I would watch the baby sleeping when I could’ve been sleeping myself. I couldn’t wait until they woke up sometimes, and we kept them in our bed the first months. Two other children were adopted at 3 weeks and 5 months. 30 years later I struggle to relate to the one adopted at 3 weeks and he shows definite signs of attachment issues in all relationships. The one adopted at 5 months was a much quicker and more intense attachment, he was very small for his age, turned out to have orthopedic and learning issues, but has a wonderfully loving personality, and is attached to his older siblings as well as his father and I.
I have talked to a lot of adoptive parents and it is not always as smooth a relationship as people like to think. Depending on the child’s personality there is a primal sense of rejection which cannot be overcome no matter what you do.
Amen and thanks!!
It is irrelevant to the discussion, but out of sheer curiosity was she unable to conceive or did she “just” choose surrogacy?
Also, in this case who was the child conceived from Khloé and her husband/partner, or was there a third party involved, also now out of the picture?
Ok, I have clicked on the first link and found out that the father is known (although from what I read, one must ask oneself… why????? You had surrogacy, hardly a drunken encounter, so it was an active and expensive choice).
Money is no problem, of course. I don’t think Kim birthed all of her kids, either.
Money is no problem, of course. I don’t think Kim birthed all of her kids, either.
Curious, yes. I wonder if it was her egg fertilized with his sperm and then put into a surrogate to carry.
Ok, I have clicked on the first link and found out that the father is known (although from what I read, one must ask oneself… why????? You had surrogacy, hardly a drunken encounter, so it was an active and expensive choice).
Curious, yes. I wonder if it was her egg fertilized with his sperm and then put into a surrogate to carry.
Amen and thanks!!
It is irrelevant to the discussion, but out of sheer curiosity was she unable to conceive or did she “just” choose surrogacy?
Also, in this case who was the child conceived from Khloé and her husband/partner, or was there a third party involved, also now out of the picture?
You want to be a surrogate for someone you know, that’s a beautiful thing and I think we should even subsidize it in some way. But paid surrogacy should be banned. Full stop.
We don’t allow people to buy other people. We don’t allow people to buy babies. We don’t allow people to buy organs. Yet we act like people renting other people’s wombs to create a baby that they “own” is somehow OK.
End commercial surrogacy.
Easy for you to say, Brian. There are many women unable to carry a child for medical reasons. Who are you, as a man, to say what women do with their bodies.
The same way I have a right to decide you can’t shoot up heroin.
I believe it is demonstrably against the common good to allow any person to rent his or her body (or any part of it) to another person. That’s called slavery and I am opposed to it. That’s the only basis I need. I’m a post-liberal so I don’t have any problem with law being based on the common good instead of on the Enlightenment idea of maximal individual autonomy.
As to my cred on this issue? My wife and I don’t have any biological children. All 3 of daughters were adopted out of foster care. So yes, I do have skin in the game.
The same way I have a right to decide you can’t shoot up heroin.
I believe it is demonstrably against the common good to allow any person to rent his or her body (or any part of it) to another person. That’s called slavery and I am opposed to it. That’s the only basis I need. I’m a post-liberal so I don’t have any problem with law being based on the common good instead of on the Enlightenment idea of maximal individual autonomy.
As to my cred on this issue? My wife and I don’t have any biological children. All 3 of daughters were adopted out of foster care. So yes, I do have skin in the game.
Easy for you to say, Brian. There are many women unable to carry a child for medical reasons. Who are you, as a man, to say what women do with their bodies.
You want to be a surrogate for someone you know, that’s a beautiful thing and I think we should even subsidize it in some way. But paid surrogacy should be banned. Full stop.
We don’t allow people to buy other people. We don’t allow people to buy babies. We don’t allow people to buy organs. Yet we act like people renting other people’s wombs to create a baby that they “own” is somehow OK.
End commercial surrogacy.
Very good article. This appears to be a very transactional arrangement, and it feels kinda creepy. But what about women who cannot conceive, who want their own biological baby? I think this would account for the largest proportion of surrogacy cases. Is it okay for an outsider like me to tell them to adopt? What gives me the right to dictate the choice of others? I know this won’t be a popular opinion, but the criticism will be much stronger if someone shows research showing surrogacy leads to worse outcomes for children.
What gives you the right is what IS right. Things are right or wrong, and there is no natural right to do what is wrong. Even on the scale of democracy, you have a right to “tell others what to do” to some degree (which is what every law does) the same as those with differing opinions do. Someone’s ideas of what are true, good, and beautiful will prevail in any system of law. Why shouldn’t those ideas belong to those who think that some things are simply wrong?
Absolutely! I’ve found the more time people spend worrying about abstract “rights” the less willing they are to accept that some things just aren’t “right”.
Rubbish. There speaks a man who will neve rhave to make that kind of choice.
No Clare. As I said above, 3 adopted children means I have put my money where my mouth was on this issue.
No Clare. As I said above, 3 adopted children means I have put my money where my mouth was on this issue.
Rubbish. There speaks a man who will neve rhave to make that kind of choice.
Nunya and Brian, I’ve tried to discuss this in my note to Jim. In the proverbial nutshell, though, I’ll add here that not everyone agrees that “some things are simply wrong” (or right). Democracies must keep finding ways of negotiating between competing claims about truth and justice. The majority rules, but “liberal democracies” that intend to endure don’t rely merely on numbers. They try to prevent not only the tyranny of a majority but also the tyranny of a minority–that is, in this woke age, allied minorities.
My body my choice, guys.
The idea that “democracies negotiate between competing definitions of right and wrong” is actually not that accurate. Democracies can handle lots of disagreement about “means” (how to achieve our mutually agreed goal?) but very little disagreement over “ends” (what is the goal?)
If my definition of “good” = your definition of “evil”, you will not voluntarily surrender power to me. You will fight me using every tool at your disposal (lying, cheating, vote fraud, intimidation, outright force, murder?) to make sure my agenda is thwarted. And you should. True evil should not be tolerated. Because they are rooted in tolerance for dissent, democratic structures are ill suited for this kind of disagreement.
This is one of my worries about American politics. The Democrats have spent 7 years convincing themselves that Donald Trump is the second coming of Hitler. If they truly believe that (as their loudest and most activist supporters clearly do), and Trump were to win in 2024, they will by unable to surrender power to him. If you’re fighting Hitler, ANYTHING is acceptable.
My body my choice, guys.
The idea that “democracies negotiate between competing definitions of right and wrong” is actually not that accurate. Democracies can handle lots of disagreement about “means” (how to achieve our mutually agreed goal?) but very little disagreement over “ends” (what is the goal?)
If my definition of “good” = your definition of “evil”, you will not voluntarily surrender power to me. You will fight me using every tool at your disposal (lying, cheating, vote fraud, intimidation, outright force, murder?) to make sure my agenda is thwarted. And you should. True evil should not be tolerated. Because they are rooted in tolerance for dissent, democratic structures are ill suited for this kind of disagreement.
This is one of my worries about American politics. The Democrats have spent 7 years convincing themselves that Donald Trump is the second coming of Hitler. If they truly believe that (as their loudest and most activist supporters clearly do), and Trump were to win in 2024, they will by unable to surrender power to him. If you’re fighting Hitler, ANYTHING is acceptable.
What gives you the right to judge and tell women what they can and can’t do with their bodies. There are many reasons why a woman might need to use a surrogate.
Absolutely! I’ve found the more time people spend worrying about abstract “rights” the less willing they are to accept that some things just aren’t “right”.
Nunya and Brian, I’ve tried to discuss this in my note to Jim. In the proverbial nutshell, though, I’ll add here that not everyone agrees that “some things are simply wrong” (or right). Democracies must keep finding ways of negotiating between competing claims about truth and justice. The majority rules, but “liberal democracies” that intend to endure don’t rely merely on numbers. They try to prevent not only the tyranny of a majority but also the tyranny of a minority–that is, in this woke age, allied minorities.
What gives you the right to judge and tell women what they can and can’t do with their bodies. There are many reasons why a woman might need to use a surrogate.
It depends on whose rights are paramount, the parents’ or the child’s.
More to the point, is having a child a right? I personally would say no.
I would say having a child is a fundamental right. The species literally depends on it. Should someone who cannot physically give birth have a right to surrogacy? That’s a different question. You would have to show me it leads to bad outcomes for children.
Having a child by artificial means is not a fundamental right. It’s an atrocity to forcibly sterilize people, but there is nothing wrong with outlawing surrogacy, especially commercial surrogacy.
I never said having a child by surrogacy is a fundamental right:
Why should it not be?
Why should it not be?
And what of forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child? Is that not the worst crime of all for both mother and baby?
I never said having a child by surrogacy is a fundamental right:
And what of forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child? Is that not the worst crime of all for both mother and baby?
You profoundly misunderstand the notion of “rights”. Having a child is at once a privilege and a lifelong responsibility. It’s not a “right”.
Those who suffered the consequences of China’s one-child policy might disagree with you.
Amy, we can be opposed to the oppression in China that, amongst other things, forbade a family from having a second child, without saying that the family had a right to have that child. After all a right can be said to produce a demand or obligation on another to satisfy it or enable it.
Amy, we can be opposed to the oppression in China that, amongst other things, forbade a family from having a second child, without saying that the family had a right to have that child. After all a right can be said to produce a demand or obligation on another to satisfy it or enable it.
A priviledge granted by the state to approved serfs. I do love your kind of “liberal progressive”
It should be a choice.
Those who suffered the consequences of China’s one-child policy might disagree with you.
A priviledge granted by the state to approved serfs. I do love your kind of “liberal progressive”
It should be a choice.
You are right, I should have said “have a child by *any* means”.
I never said surrogacy is a right.
Why should it be wrong?
Why should it be wrong?
I never said surrogacy is a right.
There are many bad parents one would think that just using a surrogate is the least of humans problems. These children are, at least, wanted.
Having a child by artificial means is not a fundamental right. It’s an atrocity to forcibly sterilize people, but there is nothing wrong with outlawing surrogacy, especially commercial surrogacy.
You profoundly misunderstand the notion of “rights”. Having a child is at once a privilege and a lifelong responsibility. It’s not a “right”.
You are right, I should have said “have a child by *any* means”.
There are many bad parents one would think that just using a surrogate is the least of humans problems. These children are, at least, wanted.
I would say having a child is a fundamental right. The species literally depends on it. Should someone who cannot physically give birth have a right to surrogacy? That’s a different question. You would have to show me it leads to bad outcomes for children.
Besides the fact that by the time sufficient data is available (given the complex other factors which would need to be controlled for) the trend will be irreversible, the reality is publishing studies which indicated surrogacy resulted in worse outcomes would be career endangering.
It is not a matter or better/worse outcome, but whether children and motherhood should be seen as a commodity.
Besides, unless we end up in the Twilight Zone (I remember an episode about this, it was something about humanity being “like ants”), numbers will always be very small indeed.
What about fundamentalist Christians who pump out litters of babies with the goal of making more of the cult. Is that right or wrong?
What about fundamentalist Christians who pump out litters of babies with the goal of making more of the cult. Is that right or wrong?
I have a reply in purgatory, not sure why…
Shouldn’t there be sufficient date by now? It’s been happening for about 20 years.
Not on any great scale until recently. But meaningful research will be curtailed for ideological reasons.
Exactly. Where there’s a profit to be made, it’s suspiciously hard to get data on harm.
Do you know that for a fact?
Exactly. Where there’s a profit to be made, it’s suspiciously hard to get data on harm.
Do you know that for a fact?
Just because it’s been happening for 20 years doesn’t mean there is good data on its effects on children – especially since it is primarily those who are economically advantaged who can afford surrorgacy.
It’s more important to study the effects of the many other horrors of having children willy nilly.
It’s more important to study the effects of the many other horrors of having children willy nilly.
Not on any great scale until recently. But meaningful research will be curtailed for ideological reasons.
Just because it’s been happening for 20 years doesn’t mean there is good data on its effects on children – especially since it is primarily those who are economically advantaged who can afford surrorgacy.
It is not a matter or better/worse outcome, but whether children and motherhood should be seen as a commodity.
Besides, unless we end up in the Twilight Zone (I remember an episode about this, it was something about humanity being “like ants”), numbers will always be very small indeed.
I have a reply in purgatory, not sure why…
Shouldn’t there be sufficient date by now? It’s been happening for about 20 years.
Many women opt for donor eggs and if conception is successful will carry the baby to term. Adoption is unusually difficult because of abortion unless you are willing to take on a drug addicted baby or abused child.
Rubbish. Abortion has nothing to do with difficulty in adopting. For the right price a child can be acquired.
Rubbish. Abortion has nothing to do with difficulty in adopting. For the right price a child can be acquired.
You’ve introduced a thorny topic, Jim, by referring to “rights.” But it’s an important topic, one that might never have even occurred to Kardashian. It’s easy to confuse rights with desires, after all, which have nothing at all to do with each other. It’s easy to confuse rights with duties, moreover, which interact with each other.
One underlying problem, moreover, is the origin or rights. Is saying “I have a right” enough to make it so? Who decides? On what basis? Where do rights come from? From intuition? From divine revelation? From natural-law philosophy or some other philosophy? From the state or quasi-state? We need to ask these questions, because the answer is far from self-evident. That’s because the notion of rights is a secular, modern and Western one. The answers of communities vary considerably, therefore, which has led to debates over cultural imperialism (among other things).
In 1948, however, the United Nations proclaimed its Declaration of Human Rights. One of these rights is the right to found a family, which is really about the right to do so free from interference by the state, not about a right to own children. No one has a right to own anyone. In 1959, moreover, the United Nations proclaimed its Declaration of the Rights of the Child–followed in 1989 by its Convention on the Rights of the Child (including the apparently controversial right to life). All of these proclamations have been controversial on various religious and ideological grounds. Some feminists don’t like the emphasis on women as mothers, for instance, or which rights, if any, the fetus has.
Advocates of surrogacy might claim that infertile couples or even single people have some right to children, but many would oppose them by pointing instead to the competing rights of children. That brings me to another problem in any discussion of rights. They often clash with each other. According to the United Nations, unlike many member nations, priority always goes to the child, not the parents.
Well we know who probably won’t like your opionion, which is the same as mine – the so called “pro-lifers” who are so quick to tell women what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
What gives you the right is what IS right. Things are right or wrong, and there is no natural right to do what is wrong. Even on the scale of democracy, you have a right to “tell others what to do” to some degree (which is what every law does) the same as those with differing opinions do. Someone’s ideas of what are true, good, and beautiful will prevail in any system of law. Why shouldn’t those ideas belong to those who think that some things are simply wrong?
It depends on whose rights are paramount, the parents’ or the child’s.
More to the point, is having a child a right? I personally would say no.
Besides the fact that by the time sufficient data is available (given the complex other factors which would need to be controlled for) the trend will be irreversible, the reality is publishing studies which indicated surrogacy resulted in worse outcomes would be career endangering.
Many women opt for donor eggs and if conception is successful will carry the baby to term. Adoption is unusually difficult because of abortion unless you are willing to take on a drug addicted baby or abused child.
You’ve introduced a thorny topic, Jim, by referring to “rights.” But it’s an important topic, one that might never have even occurred to Kardashian. It’s easy to confuse rights with desires, after all, which have nothing at all to do with each other. It’s easy to confuse rights with duties, moreover, which interact with each other.
One underlying problem, moreover, is the origin or rights. Is saying “I have a right” enough to make it so? Who decides? On what basis? Where do rights come from? From intuition? From divine revelation? From natural-law philosophy or some other philosophy? From the state or quasi-state? We need to ask these questions, because the answer is far from self-evident. That’s because the notion of rights is a secular, modern and Western one. The answers of communities vary considerably, therefore, which has led to debates over cultural imperialism (among other things).
In 1948, however, the United Nations proclaimed its Declaration of Human Rights. One of these rights is the right to found a family, which is really about the right to do so free from interference by the state, not about a right to own children. No one has a right to own anyone. In 1959, moreover, the United Nations proclaimed its Declaration of the Rights of the Child–followed in 1989 by its Convention on the Rights of the Child (including the apparently controversial right to life). All of these proclamations have been controversial on various religious and ideological grounds. Some feminists don’t like the emphasis on women as mothers, for instance, or which rights, if any, the fetus has.
Advocates of surrogacy might claim that infertile couples or even single people have some right to children, but many would oppose them by pointing instead to the competing rights of children. That brings me to another problem in any discussion of rights. They often clash with each other. According to the United Nations, unlike many member nations, priority always goes to the child, not the parents.
Well we know who probably won’t like your opionion, which is the same as mine – the so called “pro-lifers” who are so quick to tell women what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
Very good article. This appears to be a very transactional arrangement, and it feels kinda creepy. But what about women who cannot conceive, who want their own biological baby? I think this would account for the largest proportion of surrogacy cases. Is it okay for an outsider like me to tell them to adopt? What gives me the right to dictate the choice of others? I know this won’t be a popular opinion, but the criticism will be much stronger if someone shows research showing surrogacy leads to worse outcomes for children.
The surrogacy issue got me to thinking about the fact that fetal cells are transferred to the mother. In Kloe’s case the surrogates.
Mothers sometimes feel that they are still carrying their children with them. In a sense this is true.
Studies are ongoing with babies cells migrating to particular organs of their mothers.
Could it be a part of the reason mothers can sense their children’s presence when separated from their children?
In Kloe’s case it is the surrogate whose tissues harbor her babies cells.
How might this impact the attunement a mother develops with her child as stated by Kloe, when “you are separated’?
Yes! I think so. I remember, as usual, being treated like an idiot by doctors for suggesting (25 years ago) that mothers were physically experiencing characteristics of their children unique to the personality and phenotype of each child, symptoms that could be documented w/ some methodological rigor after accounting for the obvious validity challenges.
Beyond that, I think that the precognitive “spooky action at a distance” could very well be related to literal quantum entanglement from birth, though I don’t know the anecdotal gender breakdown on that and whether biological fathers and/or simply very paranormally attached loved ones can pick up on those events too. Maybe the initial quantum entanglement is simply a stronger signal that overrides the brain filter of otherwise psi-insensitive women, thereby picking up signals to which psi-sensitive people are attuned w/o the physiological prior connection.
Or how a mother who gives her child up for adoption feels?
Yes! I think so. I remember, as usual, being treated like an idiot by doctors for suggesting (25 years ago) that mothers were physically experiencing characteristics of their children unique to the personality and phenotype of each child, symptoms that could be documented w/ some methodological rigor after accounting for the obvious validity challenges.
Beyond that, I think that the precognitive “spooky action at a distance” could very well be related to literal quantum entanglement from birth, though I don’t know the anecdotal gender breakdown on that and whether biological fathers and/or simply very paranormally attached loved ones can pick up on those events too. Maybe the initial quantum entanglement is simply a stronger signal that overrides the brain filter of otherwise psi-insensitive women, thereby picking up signals to which psi-sensitive people are attuned w/o the physiological prior connection.
Or how a mother who gives her child up for adoption feels?
The surrogacy issue got me to thinking about the fact that fetal cells are transferred to the mother. In Kloe’s case the surrogates.
Mothers sometimes feel that they are still carrying their children with them. In a sense this is true.
Studies are ongoing with babies cells migrating to particular organs of their mothers.
Could it be a part of the reason mothers can sense their children’s presence when separated from their children?
In Kloe’s case it is the surrogate whose tissues harbor her babies cells.
How might this impact the attunement a mother develops with her child as stated by Kloe, when “you are separated’?
Adoption of infants is insanely difficult in the US: I had two neighbors, a vibrant couple w/ two young kids who couldn’t have any more, who were still waiting FOUR YEARS to adopt a little girl from Haiti. For all I know, six years later, they still are–maybe the child can come to boarding school or college in the US, and they’ll “adopt” her then. The outright bribery required–called “paperwork”–to get that child out of the country was ridiculous. They were trying to parent her remotely–she’d been identified, they’d been through all of these hoops, they’d met each other (and siblings), and yet, the child still had to remain in an orphanage due to all sorts of additional “regulations.”
Something tells me this wasn’t just an abundance of caution about trafficking, considering how many children continue to be trafficked, easily (the open border has provided a generation’s worth of victims for the usual pedophiles). This is/was about squeezing as much money as possible out of loving, American, potential adoptive parents, before giving up the child, while the child is being further damaged in an orphanage and creating even more trauma to be undone once she arrived in the US.
It would perhaps have been better to use a surrogate.
It would perhaps have been better to use a surrogate.
Adoption of infants is insanely difficult in the US: I had two neighbors, a vibrant couple w/ two young kids who couldn’t have any more, who were still waiting FOUR YEARS to adopt a little girl from Haiti. For all I know, six years later, they still are–maybe the child can come to boarding school or college in the US, and they’ll “adopt” her then. The outright bribery required–called “paperwork”–to get that child out of the country was ridiculous. They were trying to parent her remotely–she’d been identified, they’d been through all of these hoops, they’d met each other (and siblings), and yet, the child still had to remain in an orphanage due to all sorts of additional “regulations.”
Something tells me this wasn’t just an abundance of caution about trafficking, considering how many children continue to be trafficked, easily (the open border has provided a generation’s worth of victims for the usual pedophiles). This is/was about squeezing as much money as possible out of loving, American, potential adoptive parents, before giving up the child, while the child is being further damaged in an orphanage and creating even more trauma to be undone once she arrived in the US.
I sure hope she didn’t use a surrogate simply to preserve her figure. I’ve never looked up anything about the Kardashians in my life and rush to the remote (when one even needs to use it anymore) like I did during the Bush years to ensure I don’t have to hear anything about them. So I apologize in advance if she had a hysterectomy for a very serious condition early on and truly cannot get pregnant. Adopting infants is very hard, so I understand why surrogacy (w/in families, not-for-profit) is an option.
However, it’s notoriously easy to create a healthcare “risk” to justify coercing a stranger to endure the extreme discomfort and actual physical risk of pregnancy and childbirth. You could just claim a predisposition to breast or ovarian cancer, and voila–pregnancy increases your lifetime risk and thus it’s unsafe! Or say that you’ve got a mental illness that requires ongoing meds you can’t stop during pregnancy, and that the emotional burden of pregnancy will cause too much stress: voila! Can’t carry a child.
Never mind that pregnant women have to undergo these very difficult withdrawals and risks all the time–but if you’ve got enough money and a willing doctor, presto, you qualify.
I don’t think we are allowed to sell our organs in the US, so I’m not sure how we’re allowed to sell babies, OR sexual access. Worse, any process like that inevitably attracts pimps (or, reproduction counseling managerse) that will exploit females like dairy cows to get the most out at the least cost.
Fundamentalist Christians view women as dairy cows, and so called “pro-lifers” are the same.
Fundamentalist Christians view women as dairy cows, and so called “pro-lifers” are the same.
I sure hope she didn’t use a surrogate simply to preserve her figure. I’ve never looked up anything about the Kardashians in my life and rush to the remote (when one even needs to use it anymore) like I did during the Bush years to ensure I don’t have to hear anything about them. So I apologize in advance if she had a hysterectomy for a very serious condition early on and truly cannot get pregnant. Adopting infants is very hard, so I understand why surrogacy (w/in families, not-for-profit) is an option.
However, it’s notoriously easy to create a healthcare “risk” to justify coercing a stranger to endure the extreme discomfort and actual physical risk of pregnancy and childbirth. You could just claim a predisposition to breast or ovarian cancer, and voila–pregnancy increases your lifetime risk and thus it’s unsafe! Or say that you’ve got a mental illness that requires ongoing meds you can’t stop during pregnancy, and that the emotional burden of pregnancy will cause too much stress: voila! Can’t carry a child.
Never mind that pregnant women have to undergo these very difficult withdrawals and risks all the time–but if you’ve got enough money and a willing doctor, presto, you qualify.
I don’t think we are allowed to sell our organs in the US, so I’m not sure how we’re allowed to sell babies, OR sexual access. Worse, any process like that inevitably attracts pimps (or, reproduction counseling managerse) that will exploit females like dairy cows to get the most out at the least cost.
who is Kloe Kardashian? Never heard of her…
who is Kloe Kardashian? Never heard of her…
‘Parents have a duty to put their children’s needs first.’
Magnificent Mary is as usual,acutely en point.Unfortunately,the narcissism of Chloe and her ilk would define that statement as positive affirmation of their actions.There is no cure for stupidity!
‘Parents have a duty to put their children’s needs first.’
Magnificent Mary is as usual,acutely en point.Unfortunately,the narcissism of Chloe and her ilk would define that statement as positive affirmation of their actions.There is no cure for stupidity!
I’m surpried Kloe was willing to be so honest and vulnerable knowing there would be a backlash. She didn’t have to reveal that observation. Many years ago when babies began to be born in hospitals rather than at home, they were whisked off to be weighed and measured and not returned to the mother for quite some time, and many of us were not breast-fed. Not much was known about bonding then, but it must have negatively impacted both mother and baby in ways that we’ll never know.