On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Page Six was quoted as saying:
> New York Post [Page Six] - February 5, 2008
>
> Rent-a-womb
>
> HAVING a baby without nasty stretch marks is all the rage among rich
> socialites.
Just out of curiosity, do they have any evidence that that's why they are doing it? And not for the reasons that 99.9% of people use surrogacy, namely that they can't have a baby themselves? Rich people can be infertile too -- esp. when, like Alex Kucyznski, they're 40 years old.
It's funny how surrogacy is lately beginning to impinge on mainstream consciousness as if it were weird or outrageous. They'll be even more outraged when they find just how normalized it's become in the 2 decades since Baby M. Unlike adoption, which is closely regulated, surrogacy is now handled directly by the parties involved and people make connections over the internet. It's become as regular as buying a house.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have an inner weirdness. But most of that weirdness is how normalized it's become.
If anyone's interested, a good place to sample this world is:
http://www.allaboutsurrogacy.com
Michael