But the context and commentary is remarkably similar. Let’s unpick a couple of the more erroneous responses to Lily’s news.
“Rich people using women as incubators once again lmao.”
*shudders* Well this is disgustingly disparaging and frankly, shortsighted. It infers that the most obvious explanation for any celebrity using a surrogate is vanity. Or laziness. Either way, they have money, so someone else can do it for them.
Courtesy of Sophie Beresiner
Courtesy of Sophie Beresiner
Surrogacy is unquestionably a practice reserved for a privileged minority – and I count myself among them. It is expensive. Extortionately so if, like ours, it doesn’t go to plan. Medically, the process is straight IVF, and as such it might take several tries – each round of treatment is several thousand pounds in this country, and tens of thousands in America. I was exceptionally lucky that I was in a position to afford it – but I use the term loosely. We had a home we could remortgage – twice. We will be in debt for the rest of our lives but we were able to raise the funds – and I could never put a price on my family, it will always be worth it.
I sometimes resent the fact that we had to pay an uncomfortably large amount of money for something that literally everyone has a right to, and most don’t need to pay for. Even those who society might deem unfit for parenthood. But because of my illness, it cost us a lot, both financially and emotionally. So yes, celebrities are privileged to earn exponentially more than the average person, but that does not make them immune from infertility, does it? It doesn’t immediately nullify their moral or ethical values. There will be the same number of reasons for a rich famous person to need to use a surrogate as anyone else, and there is nothing to ‘lmao’ about any of that.
“People unable to conceive have the option of adopting millions of children that don’t have homes.”
This is an interesting point, and one that I came up against time and time again, and my response is simple: it is not the responsibility of the people who struggle to conceive to adopt children. It’s true that there are millions of children that don’t have homes, but it is also true that there are millions of healthy people who could potentially offer them one. In my mind, adoption is as incomparable to surrogacy as a natural pregnancy is — a different route to parenthood open to both fertile and infertile people, and it is a true feat of superheroic selflessness.
I often felt that I needed to justify myself in my choice to become a mother by surrogacy, but I would also say that it wasn’t quite a choice. My first choice – the obvious choice – was not possible for my own specific set of circumstances, and whilst I chose to share those with the world, it really would not have made a difference to my right to privacy had I not. Essentially. What is up with any woman’s body, or any of her choices is none of anyone’s business but hers.
Courtesy of Sophie Beresiner
Courtesy of Sophie Beresiner
The topic of surrogacy is an interesting one and it should be open to informed debate or discussion, because yes, there are still so many situations or circumstances in countries where it is open to exploitation. But what really bothers me is generalising that this is the issue in every case.
Anyone who wants to be a parent should be able to be a parent, fertile or infertile, gay or straight, celebrity or citizen; it shouldn’t make a difference. It’s just harder for some people than others. The fact that they have to go above and beyond is a feat. I always think how amazing medicine is that we even have this opportunity, and I wish Lily, Charlie and their extraordinarily wanted baby every happiness from my very full heart.
