Am I being unreasonable to want to get paid to be a surrogate?

(200 Posts)
Geanie Tue 26-Mar-13 18:03:33

I have already been a surrogate once, I didn't get paid a penny, not even for any expenses. The parents of the baby didn't pay anything towards the pregnancy, which I was fine with at the time as I had a good job and I didn't feel that I needed any reimbursements.

I have been contacted by quite a few people asking if I am planning on doing another surrogacy soon as they are looking for a surrogate.
I do straight surrogacy and there aren't that many of us in the UK so there are always a lot of people out there looking for a straight surrogate.

I definitely want to be a surrogate again, however, since my last surrogacy I was made redundant and am now self employed doing whatever I can to earn and get by, and to be honest I am really struggling.

I use quite a few surrogacy forums online and have noticed quite a lot of UK surrogates are now asking for a specific amount of 'payment' for their part as a surrogate.

I know that it is not allowed to be paid for surrogacy in the uk, but a surrogate is allowed to be paid 'Reasonable expenses' and they are pretty easy going when it comes to what those reasonable expenses are for as long as it is under a certain amount, usually around £15,000.

When we went through all the legal stuff after my last surrogacy I was told that they don't usually even question or check up on anything under £10k, as that is considered the standard amount.

I have thought about it quite a lot and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to benefit from this, I mean realistically I am going to be giving the parents a child, and pregnancy is hard. I don't see why, as long as I am upfront about it, I cant ask for a certain amount towards my 'expenses' during the surrogacy.

I'm not looking to make a profit or buy fancy gadgets or go on holiday. I would just use the money to help pay my rent and bills during the pregnancy.

So would I be unreasonable to do this?

(I have NC for this BTW. Pom bears, the MN scarf, bum sex at centre parks on a friday, and so on.)

There's nothing wrong with being paid 'expenses' - as long as it is actual expenses. I think £10-15K exceeds that tbh. Surrogacy should primarily be about giving a gift.

I think there's a lot wrong with thinking 'hmm I'm struggling to get by, I know time for another payday surrogacy'

Do you see what I mean? It's your motivation that matters. From your OP it seems to be mostly financial and I find that off putting.

Dannilion Tue 26-Mar-13 18:08:04

I personally don't see the problem in wanting help with your food/bills etc whilst carrying someone else's child. However, I suppose the law is there to protect vulnerable women from being exploited.

Dannilion Tue 26-Mar-13 18:08:46

And desperate couples from being exploited too obviously.

Poppet48 Tue 26-Mar-13 18:09:22

YANBU, Of course you should expect some sort of payment, I thought that that was a standard thing anyway.

Hats of to you OP, You are doing an amazing thing and I'm sure that the couple that you give the child to would happily pay £15,000.

flowery Tue 26-Mar-13 18:10:31

Will you incur £10k of expenses over and above your normal living costs by doing this?

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Tue 26-Mar-13 18:10:39

I would find something else to do with my time if I was you.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 26-Mar-13 18:15:44

There should be nothing wrong with reasonable expenses stuff like clothing travel food costs or if there are times you are unable to work due to appointments pregnancy related illness or illnesses that are worse because of a pregnancy and labor as well as recovery after.

I don't think there should be an expectation that you should have to be extremely careful with these expenses getting the cheap of the cheap ect as long as your upfront and don't take the piss.

Geanie Tue 26-Mar-13 18:16:32

I am not at all looking at it as a way to get a quick 'payday'
It is hardly an easy way to make a quick £

I want to do another surrogacy no matter what, I had an amazing time on my last one and the joy of giving someone the gift of a child is amazing.

But I see a lot of women advertising themselves as surrogates what a ££ price attached, and since I feel I am doing it for entirely the right reasons I don't see why I shouldn't also have a financial benefit for the job that I am doing.

I wouldn't ask for anything like £15,000 though, that is a little too much.

flowery Tue 26-Mar-13 18:18:21

" I would just use the money to help pay my rent and bills during the pregnancy."

That bit is the problem. Genuine expenses like maternity wear and time off work fine, but doing it to pay the rent and bills means you are doing it for profit.

flowery Tue 26-Mar-13 18:18:44

X posts

jumpingjackhash Tue 26-Mar-13 18:23:37

Out of interest, what would you charge?

SatsukiKusukabe Tue 26-Mar-13 18:25:21

a 10 month 24 hour a day job where you make 15 grand isn't exactly a quick pay day. if the parents divorce one would pay child support to the parent who who use it towards rent and food too. if I had a pregnant woman, pg with my child, I'd certainly want to make sure she was healthy and not stressed at all. I think yanbu. and I think I'd much prefer a woman in the UK make a financial decision than some poor woman in India coerced

Locketjuice Tue 26-Mar-13 18:28:23

What's 'straight surrogate'

But I don't see why you shouldn't be paid.. At the end of the day you are doing a 'service' if you can call it that for someone, it just happens to be the most amazing thing ever smile

montage Tue 26-Mar-13 18:30:19

What is a "straight surrogate" OP?

leeloo1 Tue 26-Mar-13 18:31:16

Tbh I'd think 10-15k is reasonable. If you compare it to IVF/ICSI then you'd be paying similar amounts and (I'd guess?) this has a more guaranteed outcome for the parents.

I'm in awe of anyone who'd be willing to give such an amazing gift to someone, so hats off to you.

rocketupbum Tue 26-Mar-13 18:33:21

I am interested in how people feel about this. I am in the very early stages of pregnancy as a host surrogate. I have been offered an amount of money to cover my loss of earnings/clothing/ex classes etc. initially I was a bit taken aback by the amount offered and was keen to lower it.
However as my DH pointed out pregnancy/giving birth has risks and I don't know how long I will be off work (and am self employed). He is keen to keep the money and total up our losses and then maybe offer the excess back or give it to charity. I feel reasonably comfortable with this but don't want to make a profit as such.

Having said all that (!) I can see where you are coming from OP. You are giving a gift and some of the money offered is a sort of insurance policy too. I don't know of my post has helped at all- sorry!

Branleuse Tue 26-Mar-13 18:33:42

rent a womb?


CloudsAndTrees Tue 26-Mar-13 18:34:54

I don't think £15000 is too much to ask for. If you are pregnant you are unlikely to be able to get employment, so there is nothing wrong with wanting to be able to pay your bills and living expenses.


jumpingjackhash Tue 26-Mar-13 18:36:26

I agree it's a wonderful thing to do - slightly less wonderful and 'gift-like' though if you're charging for more than expenses such as out-of-pockets (mat clothing, any pg-related items).

I'd also like to know what a 'straight surrogate' is?

Re. this being an alternative to pricey IVF/ICSI, if you're going to carry a transplanted embryo for someone who struggles to carry themselves (so the baby would still genetically be 'theirs'), any payment to you would still be on top of the IVF/ICSI costs.

jumpingjackhash Tue 26-Mar-13 18:37:35

rocket, are you being a surrogate for someone you know well (sorry if too personal - just curious)?

NaturalBlondeYeahRight Tue 26-Mar-13 18:38:06

Agree with clouds, unlikely you would get a job whilst pregnant (terrible though that is). How else would you pay the bills?

whois Tue 26-Mar-13 18:38:10

I get the reasons why payment to surrogates isn't allowed in the UK (exploration etc etc) but I still kinda think surrogates totally deserve some payment.

<sits on the fence>

jumpingjackhash Tue 26-Mar-13 18:39:24

Clouds, I guess that's correct if you're treating the surrogacy as a replacement 'job'?

Geanie Tue 26-Mar-13 18:39:37

A straight surrogacy is when the surrogate uses her own eggs.
Compared to a gestational surrogate who just carries the embryo of the parents.

In gestational surrogacy the parents have to pay for the IVF as their embryo has to be implanted into the surrogate.
With straight surrogacy because the surrogate is using her own eggs the parents can either pay a small charge to have the fathers sperm implanted into the surrogate in a clinic (an IUI) or they can just do a simple insemination at hope turkey baster style, which will cost the parents nothing.

I don't know how much I would ask for, probably a set amount each month, I could discuss it with the parents and see what they are happy with.
But Ideally enough for me to cover my living expenses without having to continue working the 6 part time jobs that I am doing at the moment.

SneezingwakestheJesus Tue 26-Mar-13 18:41:00

But I see a lot of women advertising themselves as surrogates what a ££ price attached, and since I feel I am doing it for entirely the right reasons I don't see why I shouldn't also have a financial benefit for the job that I am doing.

Isn't asking for money and benefiting financially just the same as have a price tag attached? Doesn't that take it out of being for entirely the right reasons and plopping you into the category of women you don't agree with?

rocketupbum Tue 26-Mar-13 18:41:15

Thats ok jumpjackhash (which came out as jumping jackass on my predictive!). They are friends, lovely people who have had very back luck and deserve a break.
Also for those asking straight surrogacy is when you use your egg and host is when the egg is donated/transferred.

SummerInSicilia Tue 26-Mar-13 18:41:57

Our society needs to stop being so coy about this. You should be paid, you're filling a demanding role.

jumpingjackhash Tue 26-Mar-13 18:42:19

Thanks for explaining the difference between straight and gestational.

SneezingwakestheJesus Tue 26-Mar-13 18:44:00

Oooh I've changed my mind since your last post! If its using your own eggs then that's definitely still a massively huge gift to give even if you were being paid so I think some expenses would definitely be reasonable.

KoalaFace Tue 26-Mar-13 18:45:26

You want to do it for the right reasons and are not being coerced so I think being paid is fine as long as it is not extortionate for the potential parents.

jumpingjackhash Tue 26-Mar-13 18:46:34

Thanks rocket (your predictive might be right given the kind of day I've been having! grin). I can see how doing this for friends would lead you to feel weird about the money element.

jumpingjackhash Tue 26-Mar-13 18:48:25

But who decides what's 'not extortionate'? When does one potential surrogate claim the right to charge more than another (due to looks, intellect etc)? Do you do refunds if the baby isn't to the new parents' liking?

<disclaimer: the last question was a joke>

SergeantSnarky Tue 26-Mar-13 18:51:10

On my third pregnancy and tis a third nightmare with GD acid reflux hurt back sciatica insomnia and did i mention acid reflux?
Plus the actual risk and pain of giving birth and not your baby at the end of it.

15K sounds like a bargain to me.

KoalaFace Tue 26-Mar-13 18:53:07

Oh god I don't know! It's so difficult. But for surrogates to get nothing seems completely unfair and unrealistic. There may be more women willing to do it if they could afford the time of work, the possibility of not getting work due to pregnancy, etc.

jumpingjackhash Tue 26-Mar-13 18:55:44

I completely agree that a surrogate should have some recompense - it's just how that's determined is clearly a massively grey area!

DontmindifIdo Tue 26-Mar-13 18:58:33

I think there's an interesting element as you are self employed, so I assume time to go to appointments, if you have morning sickness and can't work, if you have hip problems or other health issues that means you can't work during the pregnancy/have to stop a month before the pregnancy/take a long time to recover afterwards, then you won't be entitled to sick pay so this is an expense of the surrogacy. Depending on what you earn now, that could easily amount to £6-7k - then if you have to have new clothes, travel costs to appointments, food supliments etc, you could get close to £10k without going beyond covering direct costs due to the pregnancy.

That you are prepared to hand over what is biologically your child is also unusual - be careful you don't feel you are 'selling' your baby. I can see that it would be emotionally easier if the eggs weren't yours and the baby wasn't in anyway your biological relation.

If you want to work out what's not extortionate, how about work out what say, 2 weeks pay to cover scans and midwive appointments, finishing work at 34 weeks, then having 6 weeks afterwards to recover would cost you in lost earnings. Add onto that other expenses for clothing, foods, travel to/from appointments, what would that come too?

VinoEsmeralda Tue 26-Mar-13 18:59:31

There is a shortage of surrogates- big demand why not pay? More people of child bearing age might become surrogates and women unable to carry their own baby full term are able to have a child, everyone is a winner IMO..

Geanie Tue 26-Mar-13 19:00:53

In america it is completely legal to pay a surrogate for their services. The whole process it handled by surrogacy lawyers and legally binding contracts are drawn up. Because of this the biological parents are always the legal parents of the baby, before and after birth, and the parents have a legal right to make decisions regarding their unborn child and the way in which the surrogate acts while pregnant with their child.

In the UK because there are not laws yet in place, other than you cant advertise and you cant be paid more than 'reasonable expenses' it is very difficult for surrogacy to be handled legally. because of the law any surrogacy contract can not be made legally binding and so can not be held to in court. Also because of the current laws even if the child is 100% biologically the parents the surrogate is legally the mother and has to give up her parental rights to the child before the biological mother can get a parental order.
So technically if the surrogate wanted to keep the baby legally she could, even if it was not biologically related to her. Which although extremely rare, is still very very wrong.

Xmasbaby11 Tue 26-Mar-13 19:03:43

Of course you should get reasonable expenses. Otherwise, only wealthy women could afford to do it. You shouldn't have to work long hours and need time to recover too.

Go for it OP. It is still a wonderful thing you are doing.

A friend of a friend has been a host twice (plus a heartbreaking mc surrogacy and four children of her own). She absolutely does it to spread the love.

That said, pregnancy does incur costs such as improved diet in many cases, travel costs for appointments, loss of earnings, etc. I didn't work full time in the third trimester of even my first trimester (used leave to work four days), and time for ivf appointments or AI/NI sessions would have to come out of annual leave as well, I imagine.

I don't think that £10k is a lot compared to possible loss of earnings particularly for a contractor, freelancer, or someone self-employed.

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 19:09:08

I don't think you are being unreasonable, as if you are currently unemployed presumably you couldn't job-hunt during pregnancy (or if you did you are unlikely to get a job at the moment), so I have no problem with "expenses" in theory.

But I think you need to think it through more. Not from a money point of view, but from the point of view of what will be expected of you. If money changes hands (expenses or not), it may well be viewed by the parents as them "paying you". Therefore will they feel they have a right to tell you what to do, what to eat, where to go, what not to do etc. Will there be a build-up of resentment between you and them if your life is different from the life they feel they are "paying" for?

And will your criteria for choosing a couple be different - will you choose on need and whether you like them and they would make good parents, or on the basis of "can they afford it"?

I think even expenses changes the goalposts. I'm certainly not saying it is wrong. Personally I think being a surrogate is worth much more than mere money (and during my infertile years I would have paid a small fortune if I had met someone willing to hand me a baby), but I do worry that (like adoption) once money comes into it, the whole motivation, from both sides, undergoes a radical change.

EasilyBored Tue 26-Mar-13 19:11:06

Of course all reasonable expenses should be paid, including time off work if needed.Anything more than that and you are not giving a gift (and I think it is a wonderful thing to do for someone), you are selling your body. Ok it's for 10 months, not one night, but it's not disimilar. I suppose it's how you feel about that that is important?

Morloth Tue 26-Mar-13 19:15:00

The law is there to prevent people from renting out their womb.

Geanie Tue 26-Mar-13 19:16:24

So if I said I wanted to do a second surrogacy,
I want to do a straight surrogacy (using my own eggs) I am willing to do a home insemination (which will save the parents thousands of pounds)
I can provide a reference from my previous parents.
I am happy to be very flexible, following any requests (such as dietary) that the parents may have and travel frequently to visit the parents.
and I would like to be paid £1000 a month for the duration of the surrogacy arrangement.

Does anyone this that sounds unreasonable?

AThingInYourLife Tue 26-Mar-13 19:18:55

"Because of this the biological parents are always the legal parents of the baby, before and after birth, and the parents have a legal right to make decisions regarding their unborn child and the way in which the surrogate acts while pregnant with their child."


Jesus, that's really fucked up.

expatinscotland Tue 26-Mar-13 19:20:23

Definitely don't see £15000 as too much if you are self-employed and sustain loss of earnings.

expatinscotland Tue 26-Mar-13 19:21:52

"Because of this the biological parents are always the legal parents of the baby, before and after birth, and the parents have a legal right to make decisions regarding their unborn child and the way in which the surrogate acts while pregnant with their child."

NO, they don't. There is just now a major case going on there in which a host surrogate found out the baby was disabled. They wanted to the surrogate to terminate. She would not and could not be forced to. The couple wound up giving the baby up for adoption.

AThingInYourLife Tue 26-Mar-13 19:24:56

Thanks, expat, I was confused

I have friends who used a surrogate in the US and I didn't think that was their arrangement at all.

I'm also pretty sure it varies state by state.

Geanie Tue 26-Mar-13 19:26:04

Its not really like that AThingInYourLife, I think i worded it wrong.
Everything is agreed upon and put into the contract before they get pregnant, so the surrogate agrees to everything first.

However, if there is a need the parents have the rights to make decisions regarding their unborn child, where as in the UK the surrogate had the legal decision making rights not the parents.

HildaOgden Tue 26-Mar-13 19:26:54

I think childless couples who want you to give them a baby will say it is a reasonable amount.

You will find a 'buyer' for your services,of that I have no doubt.You will probably even get some private messages from here.Are you going through an agency,or private arrangement?

Personally, I feel very uneasy about your last post OP. That is not compensation, that is a living wage. I don't think you shouldn't get anything at all, but I think that is an awful lot.

I would consider surrogacy although not with my own eggs. I would expect to be compensated for taxis to and from work if I needed it, maternity clothes and loss of earnings which I'm not sure would be an issue. Do you still get the same allowances when you are not keeping the baby?

Geanie Tue 26-Mar-13 19:29:42

Yes it does vary state to state, but from what I have learned from my surrogate friends in America whatever is agreed upon in the contract is legally binding and if the parents are the biological parents of the child they always have the parental rights, unlike here in the UK.

But then as Hilda has pointed out to me, I think it is a lot of money, but I have been lucky enough to have my own children with no problems.

I imagine people who have not been a fortunate as me would find it a bargain sad

thekidsrule Tue 26-Mar-13 19:30:18

op,yes you should be paid

what you do with the money is your buisness and yours alone

expatinscotland Tue 26-Mar-13 19:31:16

No, it's not legally binding. It can and has been contested. Many times.

The US system exploits working poor and poor women, IMO.

I agree expat.

Have you seen that new comedy? Can't remember what it's called, but it's about a young woman being a surrogate for a gay couple. She does it as a way to escape her cheating ex and earn some money. I just can't make it work in my mind.

whistleahappytune Tue 26-Mar-13 19:33:31

Oh for God's sake, of course you should be paid! You are doing a fantastic thing, giving the greatest gift there is, but also you are performing a valuable service.

Some people seem to think this is okay only if you do it for "the right reasons". What precisely are those reasons? Some sort of vague charitable impulse?

OP, I think a sum for the duration of the pregnancy, plus a sum for delivery - £1000/month seems very reasonable to me, if it will allow you to live without taking other employment. You will deserve it, and as you mention, you are already saving couples a lot of money. I paid an egg donor - it was the happiest cheque I ever wrote and felt a lot more dignified that my donor was properly recompensed, rather than motivated out of pity.

wintertimeisfun Tue 26-Mar-13 19:33:53

i think you should be paid tbh. i think that surrogates do a TERRIFIC thing, only downside is that some women who are not mentally able to give a child up easily but are desperate for funds may do it for the wrong reasons and then suffer real unhappiness after. In general i certainly think you should be paid, actually i applaud you smile

Actually I think £1000pcm sounds more mercenary - more like a salary IYSWIM. Pregnancy costs are clustered at the beginning (any tests or travel) and the couple of months either side of delivery. Averaging out at £1000 over the pregnancy sounds reasonable, but actually that would likely be £1000 in months one and two, about £100 a month in months three to seven, then more like £1500 in eight and eleven, and £2-3000 in months eight and nine.

Tryharder Tue 26-Mar-13 19:36:53

Men get paid to donate sperm, no questions asked, no eyebrows raised.

Women are expected to donate eggs and give up 10 months of their life to a surrogacy and all that entails out of charity and a desire to help others. There is a lot of pussyfooting around the issue of expenses.

Of course you should be paid, if you want to be.

Geanie Tue 26-Mar-13 19:38:44

I am self employed, so if I cant work, for whatever reason, I wont get paid.

During my surrogacy I would be looking to drop a couple of my current jobs though as they are not particularly pregnancy friendly. So I would either need to find alternative employment, which in my area is extremely difficult, or subsidise my earning with payments from the parents.

As I said, I am not looking to make a profit from surrogacy, I want to do it because I love being pregnant, and I love that i am able to help people who are not able to have a baby the traditional way.

If I was still employed in my old job I would happily do another surrogacy without asking for a penny, but I'm not in that situation any more.

Considering that you would be using your own egg I am very uncomfortable with any payment over and above reimbursement fo very specific costs and losses, maternity clothing, loss of earnings for example. It comes uncomfortably close to selling your child imo.

fedupofnamechanging Tue 26-Mar-13 19:46:57

I don't see what's wrong with you making a living wage. You are essentially putting your own life on hold for the duration of this process and I see no moral wrong doing in you making a profit out of that. As things stand, you are not asking for a huge profit - just living expenses to be met and if you were pregnant with my child I would not want you doing 6 part time jobs to get by, as that would put unnecessary stress on the pregnancy. I would be more than happy to support you and indirectly, my baby.

But then, I have no moral qualms about women 'renting out their wombs', so long as it is done freely. It's less exploitative than people being forced to put their dc up for adoption because they cannot afford to keep them, yet no one has any moral issue with adoption.

HildaOgden Tue 26-Mar-13 19:52:19

I think Northernlurker has managed to put into words the unease I feel at this (because ordinarily I would think 'yes,she should be paid,it's hardly a lottery win amount').It's because that child would be 'half' yours,getting paid to sell him or her feels.....wrong.

If it was a host/gestational surrogacy,I wouldn't have the same unease.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Tue 26-Mar-13 19:53:33

You've summed it up for me too, Northern.

Branleuse Tue 26-Mar-13 19:54:08

its basically selling babies.

thekidsrule Tue 26-Mar-13 19:58:04

op you have to answer to nobody

you do whats best for you and your situation

I think this is such a tricky area.

In some ways I think it's easier to see 'host' surrogacy as a service that requires payment but in 'straight' surrogacy, as you would biologically be the mother of the child, it clouds the issue for me and comes closer to selling your baby for material gain - I'm sorry if that sounds harsh.

I have no doubt, that understandably, many childless couples would be happy with the arrangement but I think it could encourage both financially vulnerable women and those solely out for financial gain to exploit the system. Also, in the worst case scenario, the child could at some point in the future realise that its biological mother deliberately conceived it in order to give it up for financial compensation - not a great realisation for a child.

OddBoots Tue 26-Mar-13 20:01:55

I'm too torn to give any useful answer to this but I'm reading it with interest as a 3x (host) surrogate, my paid expenses didn't meet the actual costs but the close relationship I have with all the children (and their parents) more than makes up for that.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Tue 26-Mar-13 20:02:46

Have you thought about trying to get a rewarding career, OP? Perhaps focus on yourself (rather than other people). Spend your time trying to better your position. A pregnancy will just see you standing still.

flowery Tue 26-Mar-13 20:09:35

Rent and bills is not expenses.

If a surrogate has a job or works self-employed and can pay rent and bills ordinarily, but is sacked because she is pregnant, or unable to take on self-employed work because of the pregnancy, then at that point money for rent and bills becomes expenses incurred because of the pregnancy, and would be a legitimate claim.

Sounds like the OP is in a situation where the work arrangements she has are not enough for her to live on, so she is seeing a surrogacy (that she would probably do at some point anyway) as a way to enable her to jack at least some of her work in and get her rent paid.

That's not genuine expenses and doesn't sit well with me.

OP I would advise you to sort your work situation out as a long term thing, which will need doing anyway. If your self employed stuff isn't working out, or paying enough, you need to address that first.

Once you are earning enough to keep yourself, then consider surrogacy, and ask for actual out of pocket expenses incurred rather than a monthly income as you are proposing.

ElliesWellies Tue 26-Mar-13 20:10:14

OP, YANBU. You are providing a service. You're not holding a gun to these people's heads. It is up to you to decide how much money you will need, and up to them to decide if they are happy paying it.

Geanie Tue 26-Mar-13 20:11:54

I do see that argument, however, I would not be doing the surrogacy purely for the financial benefit, if I was I certainly would not consider donating my own eggs.

I would be just as happy to do a gestational surrogacy, but I was more drawn to straight surrogacy because I had already done egg donation in the past, and I do not consider a biological link at all binding. Also once I started talking to potential parents and the agency cots it became very clear that there is a huge shortage of straight surrogates but a massive amount of people looking for them, so since I have no problem donating eggs I was happy to consider straight surrogacy.

I personally don't see a difference between a straight surrogacy and a gestational one, it is never my baby, it is always going to be someone elses baby, wether it is my egg or not.
I never even considered the view that it would be likened to selling a baby.
The money has little to do with the baby and more my 'job' as carrying the baby and going through the pregnancy for someone else.

If I was expecting a lump sum at the end of the pregnancy I could see how it would be considered a baby sale, but the money will be used to support me throughout the pregnancy.

HildaOgden Tue 26-Mar-13 20:21:02

I think you have to accept that there is a very real possibilty that when the resulting baby becomes an adult,they may well consider that you 'sold' them.I feel very torn on this one...I know you're not doing it for huge profit,I accept that.There somehow is a difference though.

It smacks of a business deal,with an embyro being the commodity.

Geanie Tue 26-Mar-13 20:25:58

As for the comments about my career.

I actually have two masters degrees and a doctorate, and up until last year I had a very good job. Unfortunately the place in which i worked received budget cuts and so they decided to make me redundant.

I am hoping to find another job in a similar position at a different facility, but nothing is available at the moment. Until then I am working several part time jobs around school hours in order to pay my bills.

Obviously I do not know how long it will take me to find another job in my career, but there are other options, and if i don't find anything eventually I could look into other positions which relate to my career but are not the same job IYKWIM.

At the moment my situation is fine, yes it is a struggle, but i am not it debt, I have no loans or credit, I don't claim anything from the government, and I am earning enough for us to get by.

I want to do another surrogacy because i loved my last one and there are so many people out there who are desperate to find a surrogate. I receive several new emails a week from parents looking for a surrogate.
But the only way I could realistically do a surrogacy is to ask for payment from the parents.

In relation to previous comments, Yes I am fully aware that rent/bills are not classes as reasonable surrogacy expenses, which is why I stared the thread about being paid rather than just trying to mark it off as expenses.

Op I think the fact that so many adopted children do eventually seek out their biological parents supports the fact that as human (no matter how much we love our adoptive parents) we do generally care about our biological parentage or at the very least we are curious. The fact that you feel no massive attachment to your biological material does not mean that the resulting child would not feel something for you. If money enters into the arrangement as well it could make it even harder for any potential child to come to terms with the circumstances of their birth, no matter how wanted they were by their adoptive parents.

HildaOgden Tue 26-Mar-13 20:28:52

Purely as a matter of interest (not stirring),do surrogates receive maternity benefit or does the adoptive (?) mother?

I think that surrogates should be paid, I don't think it is the same as "selling your baby". I would buy into that if it was simply a paid adoption, not a planned pregnancy and agreement from the outset.

Do people really believe that a woman should put her health and life at risk and give someone such an opportunity that they wouldn't otherwise have, go through the agony of labour and birth and all the possible problems afterwords for nothing? To work 6 jobs to be able to do it?!

Should IVF clinics also be non-profit and only charge actual costs then? After all, it's not right to charge for 'the gift of life'.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 20:37:46

If it's your egg, that is your child. I can understand someone placing a child for adoption, but not purposely breeding a child for the purpose. What you are describing is breeding and selling your own children and that is fucked up.

Yup. My judgy pants are comfy and I'm happy up here on my high horse. YABU.

elliejjtiny Tue 26-Mar-13 20:43:21

YANBU, I think 10-15k is reasonable. However I may be a bit biased as I'm currently pregnant with a cough/cold from hell and pulled stomach muscles from coughing/puking. I'm thinking I wish I could dose myself up on cough medicine, ibuprofen and sudafed and I'm reading this thread thinking I could never do this for someone else no matter what they were paying.

I actually would be more uneasy with someone simply placing a child for adoption than someone being a surrogate.

Someone who didn't plan it and just puts their child up for adoption wouldn't really be thinking that they are carrying it for someone else and doing it for a purpose. Most of the time having no idea who the adoptive parents will be.

A surrogate can make their own choices regarding parents from the outset and will be handing the child over to their biological Father, it's not just selling a child. They will also know the entire time and before they begin that it is not their child and not for them to decide to keep or not.

I think the latter would also be much easier to explain to a child (or adult) than just that they were put up for adoption.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 20:53:35

Neither are really ideal situations, and I know that adopted children can suffer issues related to having been "given away."

But that's making the best of a bad situation. It's different than deliberately creating a child for profit. That's wrong.

For someone to deliberately become pregnant (not just host an embryo) in order to make money is fucked up.

BimbaBirba Tue 26-Mar-13 20:54:08

geanie how can you say:
"it is never my baby"
You'd be his/her biological mother and the one carrying him/her and giving birth. The fact that you would then give him/her away to another set of parents doesn't mean that you're not the mother.
I'm sorry but I think there is a reason why it is against the law in the UK to receive payment for surrogacy. I also agree that even more so in cases of straight surrogacy it is even more important that only expenses are reimbursed. It all becomes a bit immoral iMO when you start talking about thousands of pounds.
Out of curiosity, why don't you let people use their own embryos? Why use your own eggs?

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Tue 26-Mar-13 20:59:48

I feel sorry for OP tbh. She thinks she is helping people. The need to please strangers ranks above any need to care for life she creates. Women like OP are easily taken advantage of and bought like cattle.

Do you know what I think is fucked up?

We live in a country where it is legal to sell your body to any amount of men to have sex with or do whatever they like with but not recieve payment for carrying a child for someone and going through pregnancy and birth, those people are just expected to do it for the fun of it. hmm

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Tue 26-Mar-13 21:02:16

Selling yourself is one thing. Selling someone else is another.....

Lambzig Tue 26-Mar-13 21:03:22

OP I think what you are planning on asking is more than reasonable given that you will lose work through carrying the baby. I do think surrogates should be paid. So should egg donors. Again, not ridiculous life changing amounts as can happen in the US, but reasonable compensation.

And to those saying its selling a child or rent a womb, would you say the same to a sperm donor? Or state your judgey opinion to the child born from donation/surrogacy? Have some compassion.

But as has been said on this thread even surrogacy using host embryos still doesn't allow any type of payment.

I think there should at least be some sort of payment for the pregnancy and birth part.

HildaOgden Tue 26-Mar-13 21:05:55

SchroSawMargeryDaw,perhaps it's exactly because it results in a birth that it is so tightly regulated.The birth of a totally innocent baby,who has no say in it whatsoever.

Consenting adults making deals/arrangments/ what,really?
A child...effectively being embyro stage?...that is definitely different.

5eggstremelychocaletymadeggs Tue 26-Mar-13 21:11:30

Yanbu op, I donated eggs last year and got £750 for that, it was to cover my expenses and the fact I had to go through medical procedures etc.when I signed up to donate my eggs there was no payment but the gov put through new legislation that covered egg donation and set down an amount that they deemed reasonable.

I would have done it anyway but it did help pay train fares, trasnsport to as from hospital app, childcare etc.

You are right about it not being your baby, yes biologically it will be but it will be raised by its mother and that won't be you. It will be her baby.

Good luck op you are doing an amazing thing xxx

BimbaBirba Tue 26-Mar-13 21:13:21

Loss of earnings comes under expenses. Bills and rent doesn't IMO.

lemuzzy Tue 26-Mar-13 21:13:22

Expat that's not strictly true. The contract in the case you are talking about was legally binding but as there was no definition of what 'serious disability' is as grounds for abortion in the contact, the surrogate was not in breach of the contract.

HildaOgden Tue 26-Mar-13 21:14:15

'I definitely want to be a surrogate again, however, since my last surrogacy I was made redundant and am now self employed doing whatever I can to earn and get by, and to be honest I am really struggling.'

'not looking to make a profit or buy fancy gadgets or go on holiday. I would just use the money to help pay my rent and bills during the pregnancy.'

OP,don't fool yourself.It isn't for alturistic reasons you are considering this second surrogacy.You are selling a baby.A baby that is biologically yours.

At least in that case it would probably all be done through solicitors.

I don't see it as selling the child, I see it as the carrier selling their own body, time and health.

DIYapprentice Tue 26-Mar-13 21:15:53

The need to please strangers ranks above any need to care for life she creates. Women like OP are easily taken advantage of and bought like cattle.

How DARE you say that about the OP????!!!!

OP - you are doing a marvellous thing. I couldn't ever go through a pregnancy on someone else's behalf, no matter how much they paid me. I barely wanted to go through it a second time for myself, after my first pregnancy.

I think £10,000 - £15,000 is more than ok to ask for. For more than 9 months you can't drink, you need to eat well, you are limited in your activities, you have to go to appointments constantly, and you have to go through birth.

In my eyes - anyone willing to be a surrogate is absolutely awesome.

lemuzzy Tue 26-Mar-13 21:18:08

Expat that's not strictly true. The contract in the case you are talking about was legally binding but as there was no definition of what 'serious disability' is as grounds for abortion in the contact, the surrogate was not in breach of the contract.

DorcasDelIcatessen Tue 26-Mar-13 21:18:31

*If it's your egg, that is your child. I can understand someone placing a child for adoption, but not purposely breeding a child for the purpose. What you are describing is breeding and selling your own children and that is fucked up.

Yup. My judgy pants are comfy and I'm happy up here on my high horse. YABU.*

Ugh. This made me shudder. I bet sperm donors don't have to deal with this highly insensitive and "Yup" emotive bullshit.

OP, I think seeing as though you did it "free" last time when apparently any other surrogates have expenses you are more than entitled to make sure this doesn't take it out of you financially this time. More than entitled. Good luck.

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 21:20:01

Bimba, many women who use a surrogate to have a child do so because they can't produce eggs, as well as being unable to sustain a pregnancy (think anyone who has recovered from cancer, has gone into early menopause, has problems with ovulation etc).

Katy, in my view your opinions are fucked up. There are many embryos created for selfish reasons in the world. A lot of children are born and not really wanted, loved or looked after. In my view, a couple wanting to create a child, and asking the op for help to do so, are doing a good thing. And it isn't actually likely that their children will be fucked up by it hmm. I find that generally people who have their judgy pants up as high as you, have not either been through infertility, or thought properly about surrogacy, egg donation, or even adoption. They are happy to make ridiculously arsy statements, condemning people without knowing most of the facts hmm

HildaOgden Tue 26-Mar-13 21:21:40

There seems to be 2 camps of thought here ,and we won't all agree.Some people see it as selling a baby,some people don't.

I think it's a fair assumption that the resulting child,as an adult,has a 50 per cent chance of falling into one of those camps.

I really,really hope they don't grow up feeling they were 'bought and sold'.

expatinscotland Tue 26-Mar-13 21:21:50

'The contract in the case you are talking about was legally binding but as there was no definition of what 'serious disability' is as grounds for abortion in the contact, the surrogate was not in breach of the contract. '

Exactly, there's a lot of wiggle room, and in the US, I don't think there is a state around who would force a woman to have an abortion. You can hardly get one if you want it in many states.

I agree with everything MaryZ has just said.

NaturalBaby Tue 26-Mar-13 21:22:01

I don't see how you are expecting reasonable answers from women who have very little idea about surrogacy.
I am very keen to become a gestational surrogate soon and would rather do it by the book, like every other surrogate in England. In other countries people are paid for donating blood, organs and babies...

I wouldn't be paid to become pregnant with my own child so would not expect to be paid to become pregnant with a child that was not biologically mine.

I am also self employed so this is all interesting reading.

ananikifo Tue 26-Mar-13 21:23:10


I'm normally really conservative about reproductive issues but I think you deserve to get a five-figure amount for this. Pregnancy is no small sacrifice and the cost to you is more than just some maternity clothes and taxi rides. If I were a parent looking for a surrogate, I would feel quite bad about you working six jobs while pregnant with my baby and then giving you just a few hundred pounds. I think it's completely reasonable that they contribute to your living expenses because they are the baby's living expenses too.

If the amounts you quoted are standard for surrogates I don't see why you should feel guilty about them. A lot of people here are obviously uncomfortable with the idea of straight surrogacy. There is a reason that the courts would consider these seamingly high amounts reasonable. Women are very good at undervaluing our contributions to society. Your career, health, and whole life will be affected by this.

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 21:28:04

Hilda, is a sperm donor selling a baby?

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 21:29:50

Oh, and I would also like to point out that most children aren't actually fucked up by adoption.

Quite a lot of adopted children are fucked up by their lives before adoption.

Many, many adopted children are happy with their families. It's just you only hear about the ones who aren't. I suspect the same would apply to children of sperm donors, surrogates, and other "unconventional" ways of coming into existence.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 21:32:52

Maryz I know the facts. I just don't think it's right to purposely conceive a child for the purposes of earning a living.

It's true that lots of children are conceived for selfish purposes, or unwanted and neglected. That doesn't make any difference.

The OP wants to earn enough money to pay her living expenses and she is wondering if conceiving a child and selling it to someone is a viable option. That it's not for "fancy gadgets and holidays" also makes no difference. I don't clean toilets because they enable me to buy fancy gadgets and exotic holidays. I do it to pay my rent and living expenses. I am selling my labour and there's nothing altruistic about it, no matter how much I care about my customers and have benevolent feelings about helping them.

To be honest, I'm not that comfortable with sperm and egg donation, either. But what the OP is describing is clearly in the realm of selling a baby.

If this were legal, and surrogates could demand whatever the free market would bear, then there would be no doubt that people would see this as "how much it costs to get a baby." The pain and anguish that people who desperately desire a baby doesn't change that. In fact, it has happened in certain times and places that people have literally bought babies. Where there's a demand, and a supply, there is a market. And that is wrong.

Someone upthread brought up a comparison to prostitution. I think that surrogacy such as what we see in India, where it is done for profit, is very like prostitution. I don't think that prostitution is right, either. People are not commodities.

Agree again.

I grew up with my paternal Grandmother, I was completely unwanted by my Mother. I think the only damage there was the damage caused by my Mother while I was with her, not fucked up at all that I wasn't wanted by her.

DorcasDelIcatessen Tue 26-Mar-13 21:33:53

Quite a lot of adopted children are fucked up by their lives before adoption.


I can vouch for this. I won't go into details on here as I'd hate for my biological parents or adoptive parents to be ripped apart (and frankly its not anyone's business) but the above is true.

linoleum Tue 26-Mar-13 21:34:40

It's such a grey area. On one hand, I feel amazed by the generosity of someone carrying someone else's child and do feel that reasonable pregnancy related expenses should be met. On the other hand, if you're turning it into a job and expecting the surrogacy fee to cover your other expenses (housing etc), it's not far off selling a baby.

DorcasDelIcatessen Tue 26-Mar-13 21:36:13

The OP wants to earn enough money to pay her living expenses and she is wondering if conceiving a child and selling it to someone is a viable option. Please point out where the OP said this. Jesus there are some twisty fuckers on here. shock

Yes, allowing someone to have the opportunity to have a family when they wouldn't before is like prostitution... hmm

No, it's not. It's just in this country it's okay to recieve payment for one of those things and not the other.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 21:36:31

As for comparisons with adoption: I think the way the UK forbids open adoption is wrong. But, I don't think that adoption "fucks up" children at all. I know plenty of perfectly contented adopted people and plenty of adopted people with a few "issues" about it but are primarily happy. And, even taking into account the unfortunate people who feel they have been harmed by the process, I think it's the best solution to a certain situation, considering the alternatives.

Lilka Tue 26-Mar-13 21:36:58

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for expenses to cover loss of earnings, any medical expenses and travel expenses you occur. I do start getting uncomfortable with the idea of very large sums of money changing hands. Ultimately everyone needs to be able to look the grown child in the eyes and be able to to show them in complete honesty that everything was above board with no grey areas, no hints of baby buying etc. The baby deserves to be at the forefront of everyone's minds when making decisions.

The case in the US was difficult, partly because they did not define serious disability, but also because you can't force someone to have an abortion. If they asked for an abortion and she refused, they could sue for breach of contract and get money from her (although not in this case because they did not define serious disability and she was not therefore in breach of contract), but you cannot legally force medical procedures on a non-consenting person, so she could never be compelled to actually have an abortion (or indeed NOT to have an abortion, they could not have prevented her getting an abortion if she had wanted one).

To be honest, all these cases only confirm my opinion that the UK laws which stipulate the surrogate is the mother, are entirely right. If you carry a baby inside you and given birth to it, you are unquestionably the mother of that baby. If you are a surrogate and transfer custody to the new mother and the father, then fine. But the birth of a baby is life changing and a surrogate is entirely entitled to change her mind following it. If she changed her mind and the baby was taken anyway, it would be kidnap. Of course it would be very sad if she changed her mind and devastating for the intended mother. And the father would be entirely entitled to ask for access to his child. But we must respect the birth mother as the mother.

OddBoots Tue 26-Mar-13 21:37:36

Those who talk about buying a baby know that it takes more than an egg to make a baby, right? Would it only be the intended mother buying the baby or do you think that the father is buying the baby his sperm created?

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 21:38:43

The UK doesn't forbid open adoption confused

And I agree with Lilka as usual.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 21:39:44

SchroSawMargeryDaw There are clinics in India where poor women gestate babies for rich families. The level of coercion they are under is not clear, but it makes me uncomfortable. Measuring the ethics of the situation by how happy the richer, more powerful party in the arrangement is makes no sense.

Lilka Tue 26-Mar-13 21:39:56

KatyTheCleaningLady The UK does not forbid open adoption. Indeed social services facilitate open adoption with letters in most adoptions, and visits in cases where it is in the childs best interests. The childs interests are the decider when it comes to open adoption in the UK. I have an open adoption with 2 of my three children (actually my (under 18) daughter and her mother are in direct unspervised contact with facebook and visits right now)

OddBoots That's why I don't see it as selling a baby and just the Mother's time and health, the child is still going to a biological parent.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 21:41:12

Maryz I may be wrong, then. I was under the impression that a pregnant woman cannot decide before giving birth that she does not want to raise the baby, herself, and then select who will be the adoptive parents.

That is the norm in the US, and even that can be fraught with difficulties as the pregnant women are often more vulnerable than those who are in a position to adopt.

Katy Although you mentioned the Indian clinics, you specified where it is done for profit.

Perhaps more women in this country would consider becoming surrogates if they didn't feel they were at risk financially for doing so.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 21:42:17

Oldboots I would say that the biological father would also be buying the baby.

How on earth could a biological parent buy their own baby? hmm

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 21:44:33

SchroSawMargeryDaw Well, I don't think those Indian women are "buying fancy gadgets and exotic holidays." I think they're getting living expenses that would be for a standard of living below what any of us would enjoy. They are doing it primarily for money, of course. But, if someone in this country talks about wanting "basic living expenses" then it's the same thing. Like I said, I clean in order to pay my "basic living expenses." I have no illusions that I do what I do for a profit.

twentythirteen Tue 26-Mar-13 21:45:10

I think this is a very interesting thread. You will have some loss of earnings, some expenses, the responsibility to live well/healthily, and the physical toll of getting your body back, and not least of all, providing someone with that longed for baby they are not able to create themselves. I don't see why this would have to be a gift. I think they should pay your living expenses, rent, food, transport, etc., maybe for a year (pregnancy plus some recovery time). Besides, as some of the discussion has highlighted, it's not as if you are getting pg and then advertising it as a baby for sale. This baby is wanted by specific people from the start. It's your body, your time, I think you should get paid... and it wouldn't bother me if you made a profit, again, you're not advertising a baby for sale, you are helping specific people to have their dream come true. I'm sitting here on the side of 3 mc's, no children, and thinking about this made me think that if I am unable to have children and decide to go down the surrogacy route then I imagine wanting to look after that woman very well for the year she developed my LO, that it would be my gift to her and not (only) the other way around.

Lilka Tue 26-Mar-13 21:45:21

Katy Open adoption means contact. Yes a pregnant woman cannot select adoptive parents for her baby (unless we are talking relatives because SS prefer relative placements and would support adoption with safe relatives) but that is not open adoption.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 21:46:25

SchroSawMargeryDaw By paying the other biological parent for complete control/custody. Rather like buying out an ex-spouse's share of a house.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 21:47:20

Lilka OK, I stand corrected. I knew that there could be open adoptions for older children or certain family situations, of course. I was only thinking of newborns and adoptions that are planned prior to the birth. I'm sorry for any confusion on that point.

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 21:47:53

So suppose a man had a fling with a woman and she got pregnant. She isn't financially well off, doesn't particularly want to have the baby, but decides to continue with the pregnancy because the father is willing to bring it up.

She asks for maintenance while she is pregnant - support if she is ill and can't work, expenses to do with the birth etc etc.

Then when the baby is born, she allows him to have custody, keeping in touch by letter and seeing the baby occasionally.

Is that ok? Or should she have an abortion rather than be accused of "selling" her baby?

Katy Those women in India are normally kept in horrible dirty living conditions and kept there for the entire time of the pregnancy and also give birth there and they do it for ridiculously low amounts of money as there aren't really laws to protect them.

That is different to what the situation could be here but I also have no problems with a woman gaining financially from doing this.

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 21:49:32

These days a woman who voluntarily relinquishes a baby for adoption can have a lot of input into where that baby is placed and the amount of contact.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 21:51:26

maryz In the hypothetical situation you describe, the pregnancy is accidental. The woman is not purposely conceiving a child to make a living. And, I would say that she should pay maintenance to the child if she is the non-custodial parent.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 21:52:58

Maryz I'm glad to hear that adoptions are more like that, now. The idea that you just have to hand over the baby to some agency that "knows best" and you must be erased from the picture makes my blood run cold. Of course, there are women in the US who choose to go that route: they don't want to know anything about it. That's their choice.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 26-Mar-13 21:53:59

Loss of earnings comes under expenses. Bills and rent doesn't IMO.

If someone was expecting my child I'm damn sure I would consider a roof over there head and heat water and light to be my responsibility.

HildaOgden Tue 26-Mar-13 21:56:59

Maryz,to answer your question re sperm donor,he is selling half of what it takes to make a baby,yes.In the OP's case,she is using her own egg,carrying it for a full 9 months,giving birth and handing him/her over,for profit.For the 15,000 pounds she would not have if she hadn't entered the agreement.

Here's a hypothetical has a one night stand with fertile woman.Gets her pregnant.His wife/girlfriend and himself offer the one night stand 15,000 pounds to give them full custody/parental rights over the child and to remove herself from the childs life. Would that be selling a baby?

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 22:01:36

SchroSawMargeryDaw I agree that the conditions in Indian clinics may be worse than anything we'd see here. (Actually, the one article I read painted a rather nice picture of the clinic.) But, it's the principle of considering human beings commodities that remains the same, no matter what the conditions. For that reason, I would argue that prostitution is wrong no matter if we're talking about a high-class call girl or someone enslaved in a third-world brothel. It's about the commodification of people.

I am actually very mildly uncomfortable with even the most altruistic surrogacies: such as someone doing it voluntarily for a friend and gestating an implanted embryo. I am uncomfortable because it challenges my ideas about the relationship between a baby and its mother. I feel the same way about egg and sperm donation. But, I am willing to shrug that off and consider it none of my business. However, when issues of financial compensation come into play, then I become very nervous, indeed.

I don't think women should sell their bodies. I don't think poor people should sell their bodies. I don't think there should be a market for babies. After all, if you can carry a child as a surrogate incubator for a profit, then what's the difference in selling other unborn babies? Why shouldn't any pregnant woman (assuming there is no biological father in the picture with an opinion on the matter) offer her baby to anyone willing to pay her basic living expenses?

HildaOgden Tue 26-Mar-13 22:02:21

I hadn't seen your hypothetical,before I posted my hypothetical (and I'm sure I'm spelling that wrong,to boot!!!)

I think my unease most definitely occurs with it being the surrogates own egg...if it were a host surrogate I wouldn't have these objections.And I can't shake the feeling that there is at least a fifty per cent chance any resulting might have that same unease towards the whole situation too.

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 22:02:52

In that case, if you think sperm donation is selling a baby, I presume you object to men being paid for donations?

But you see, I don't agree that it's for the 15,000 she would NOT have had.

Because had she not got pregnant, she would have had most if not all of the £15,000 - the cost of everything from lost of earnings, to food, to medical appointments, transport, clothes, getting other children minded, etc etc.

It all adds up. I suspect most people who have a decently paid job will lose probably about that much during the course of a pregnancy and birth, in costs and time off.

In your second hypothetical situation, doesn't it depend if they say "I'll give you 15,000 to hand it over" or whether she agrees to have it if they recompense her for money lost - but she is happy to hand it over.

It is only buying a baby if (a) there is no choice but to take the money and (b) there is no choice about handing it over.

Which is why I agree with Lilka about the birth mother being legally and morally the mother (the way it is in the UK), so right up until the time the baby is born she is free to change her mind.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 22:05:38

"It is only buying a baby if (a) there is no choice but to take the money and (b) there is no choice about handing it over."

OK, you've lost me, here. Although it's getting late and I'm a bit tired so I maybe didn't understand the whole post.

Are you saying it's only selling a baby if there's coercion?

OddBoots Tue 26-Mar-13 22:07:21

I found it interesting that the reason surrogacy contracts are not enforcible in law in the UK is that the courts regard them as being slavery contracts because of the level of control it would give one party over the body of another.

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 22:08:37

I think there is a massive difference between saying "I am selling a baby, pay me X pounds", signing a contract to that effect, and thus having to stick to the contract and hand over the baby, no matter what.

And going eyes-open into a surrogate pregnancy, working out how much you will be out of pocket financially for the 9/10 months or so that it takes, and asking to be recompensed, with the understanding that legally if you change your mind at any stage you can walk away.

I am not comfortable with the US system (or the Indian set-up, which should imo be much more tightly controlled if it is to be allowed). But then I'm not comfortable with the whole US adoption system either.

Mapal Tue 26-Mar-13 22:14:28

I suspect if men were the child bearers in our society surrogacy would be big business. They'd all be making a fortune.

On a more serious note though, I don't see any problem with a payment of 15k for this, seems more than reasonable to me for what the woman will do and potentially go through. Why should women give up so much for nothing? That is also exploitation in my opinion.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 22:18:08

"And going eyes-open into a surrogate pregnancy, working out how much you will be out of pocket financially for the 9/10 months or so that it takes, and asking to be recompensed, with the understanding that legally if you change your mind at any stage you can walk away."

OK! Now I understand you. And, I think you make a fair point. However... how would it go over if someone did change their mind? How would you (hypothetical, general "you") feel if you paid these expenses and were expecting a baby and then the mother changed her mind? If you were the biological father, I guess you would have the right to shared custody and - probably being the more financially powerful party - the obligation to pay maintenance. And your wife/partner would be left in the role of wicked stepmother. That would suck and I can't imaging that being good for any offspring.

Also, you're talking about being compensated for expenses, for being "out of pocket." That is definitely different than being housed and fed, which is essentially earning a living. Some people in discussion would be comfortable with that. For me, that's the absolute final straw and the situation has utterly crossed the line into selling babies.

HildaOgden Tue 26-Mar-13 22:19:59

Did it honestly cost you 1000 pounds a month extra in expenses to be pregnant...because that is what the OP has said she is planning to charge.?

The OP has said she is financially struggling,and that is at working 6 part-time jobs.Anybody who can read that,and say the OP is not doing this for profit,is,in my opinion,deluding themselves.

If the OP was not looking at this from a 'market value' view,then she would be doing it for she did before,when she didn't need the money.

KatyTheCleaningLady Tue 26-Mar-13 22:22:35

"On a more serious note though, I don't see any problem with a payment of 15k for this, seems more than reasonable to me for what the woman will do and potentially go through. Why should women give up so much for nothing? That is also exploitation in my opinion."

It would be exploitation if women were obligated to do it, yes. I would also agree that surrogacy for nothing would not be an attractive option for many women. I expect that if there were a free market on the service, more women would want to do it because they would stand to gain from it financially. That's only logical.

But, would you be comfortable with a system whereby women could earn a living from conceiving, gestating, birthing, and relinquishing babies to people who want to pay for this service because they want a baby?

nkf Tue 26-Mar-13 22:22:49

The reasonable expenses line is just a fig leaf. It's what you are being paid.

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 22:24:31

I think if the surrogate changes her mind the father (being the biological father) can apply for joint custody (whatever it's called) and it gets legally sorted out. Obviously messy - devastating for the potential parents, stressful (to say the least) for the surrogate.

In that case, the way I would look at it is that he would be supporting the mother of his child through the pregnancy, which happens a lot anyway, I would have thought, even if people split up at the beginning of a pregnancy. So I wouldn't be so keen on a legal "you have to pay the money back if you keep the baby" type of arrangement.

Like many things in life, there has to be an element of goodwill and trust in an arrangement like this. And it's a risk you take with infertility "treatment" - like money going out for ivf, for example. No infertility treatment has the guarantee of a baby to take home at the end of the "treatment".

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 22:27:00

Hilda I was working when I got pregnant. Because I was sick (HG, high blood pressure etc) I had to give up work at 9 weeks pregnant (temp working, paid piecework, no sick pay). So yes, it probably did cost me over 15,000 to be pregnant.

OddBoots Tue 26-Mar-13 22:28:24

I never looked into the statistics but it was often said by people I've found reliable that it is more likely that the intended parents would change their minds than the surrogate, often if the couple's relationship with each other broke down or if the child had a disability.

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 22:29:21

Katy - your last sentence "would you be comfortable with a system whereby women could earn a living from conceiving, gestating, birthing, and relinquishing babies to people who want to pay for this service because they want a baby?"

I'm not sure about that. I think there are a lot of women who actually like being pregnant. Maybe it is better that they could do this, benefit otherwise infertile couples, rather than have babies they don't really want just because they enjoy pregnancy confused.

But I suspect that's a whole other argument.

christinarossetti Tue 26-Mar-13 22:29:40

It could cost a lot to be pregnant as someone who is self-employed.

What if OP develops HD, SPD or another condition that makes working impossible?

I believe I'm right in saying that the surrogate mother for Elton John and David Furnish also supplied expressed breastmilk for an unspecified term after the birth (frozen, couriered). To what extent do we feel a woman in that situation should be compensated?

Gingerodgers Tue 26-Mar-13 22:34:58

Well I would definately pay that amount if I needed. surrogate. I wonder how many posters who disagree are struggling to conceive.........

HildaOgden Tue 26-Mar-13 22:35:34

Maryz,OP isn't charging that in the case of illness /loss of earnings,she is charging it as a basic.And she's using that to pay her rent (unchanged) and bills (barely changed by pregnancy).

OP has said it's money she will use on rent and bills...exactly as a salary is used...not that it will be used for any potential periods of being laid up with pregnancy related ailments.

Maryz Tue 26-Mar-13 22:38:30

She has also said she is now self-employed, so would turn down some jobs as they wouldn't be suitable if she was pregnant.

So she is going to be out of pocket.

And she has been a surrogate before, so knows what she is doing - if I was trying to use a surrogate, someone who had done it before and knew the ropes (and was sure how she would feel after the birth) would be worth her weight in gold to me. I would be happy to pay her rent and food bill (if I had the money) and having spent a fortune in the past on failed ivf, I would feel it money well spent.

2aminthemorning Tue 26-Mar-13 22:47:34

It's ever so slightly patronising for every person in the UK to assume that an Indian woman is incapable of appreciating the altruistic implications of surrogacy OR that her decision should be judged by a Westerner who knows what's best for her OR that every clinic in India is out to fleece its own women OR an Indian woman is incapable of weighing the difficulties of a pregnancy against the benefits of a very significant sum of money.

If you think commercial surrogacy is always wrong, the Indian factor doesn't come into play. If you think Indian women aren't in a position to be surrogates because they are too vulnerable to make their own minds up, I have a problem.

This interview presents a very fair picture of the pros and cons of the debate:

The guidelines and legislation around surrogacy in India needs regulation and all ethical people in India - many clinic heads amongst them - would agree. To get the full picture, you should know that many women are treated very well during the time as surrogate mothers - they eat well, have children live with them and are given prompt medical attention. During the pregnancy many women have (sometimes for the first time) the opportunity to rest in complete safety. At the end of the pregnancy, women are paid a very significant amount in a form that will benefit them directly without male interference (ethical clinics buy a house/set up a bank account in the woman's name/pay college fees directly).

Sometimes I think we can be a bit precious about morality in the UK. If you shudder, weep, wail and feel strongly that a women should not be exploited, why don't you do something to change her circumstances? It's audacious to feel comfortable, even good, about telling an Indian woman she is not allowed to do something that will feed her family for five years - or buy her children an education - or put a roof over her head - for her own good.

Geanie Tue 26-Mar-13 23:03:10

I am just about to go to bed so will reply fully tomorrow but i just wanted to answer a couple of specific points.

I never said that I am only interested in doing straight surrogacy. I would be fully open to a gestational surrogacy.
It is just more likely that I will find parents looking for a straight surrogate as there are so many people looking for them but so few surrogates that do straight surrogacy in this country.

I would never choose parents due to their financial circumstances, I will always look for parents that I feel a connection with over anything else.

I used £1000 per month just as an example, I will organise a specific amount with the parents when I make my surrogacy arrangement, I would be just as happy with £500 per month.

At least two of my jobs are not pregnancy friendly and I would definitely have to stop doing them if I were pregnant, and I am sure any parents would support that action, as it is after all their baby that I would be protecting.
So in a way I would be losing that income as a direct result of the surrogacy.

Also being pregnant is hard work, I do a lot of walking around for my jobs, I imagine I will find it hard to keep up with it all when I am pregnant.

cantspel Tue 26-Mar-13 23:46:28

I dont like the idea of paying a surrogate. Expenses that cover any actual loss is fine but not to pay a "wage" as such.
If you allow surrogacy to become a form of employment for women you will then get to the stage that only the wealthy will be able to afford to have a child this way. Market demand will push the price up as it does with any bought commodity which the baby will become.

Angelico Tue 26-Mar-13 23:48:12

Surrogacy is a huge gift to give to someone. You are totally entitled to reasonable expenses, given the risks you are taking embarking on a pregnancy. It's time our society got real about surrogacy. If we had an honest dialogue about this and agreed reasonable expenses more women in the UK would be willing to act as surrogates.

MidniteScribbler Tue 26-Mar-13 23:49:01

I would have no problem whatsoever paying a fair amount to a surrogate. If the woman is going to be carrying my child for me, I would see it as part of my responsibility to ensure that she is sheltered, well fed and secure during the pregnancy and her recovery and certainly not out of pocket if she needed to stop work or reduce her hours. I found pregnancy absolutely horrible, and couldn't imagine going through that for someone else. I would however expect the agreement to be legally contracted and above board and all parties were protected. I think if there were a maximum cap on what women could charge (outside of their actual medical expenses, travel to appointments, leave from work, etc) then that might solve some of the more moral arguments if the fee is part of the 'expenses' rather than as a way for women to make money.

My DS was donor conceived. I paid a fee for the sperm, plus costs for medical treatment. Every time I hold him hear him laugh, or he smiles at me, I certainly consider that money well spent.

carabos Wed 27-Mar-13 08:12:00

We can't assume that any future child will know it was born to a surrogate.
If the child is told, it may well not be told the details - e.g. that money changed hands.
The OP is intending to do something that will be life changing in a positive way for an infertile couple. Why shouldn't she receive a life changing amount of money in return?

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 27-Mar-13 08:34:50

I was having a think about this as I drifted off to sleep last night.

I'm currently about 5/6 weeks pregnant I'm in a position where I don't need to worry about cash,things like if I start to get sick or knackered ( usual for me as I've previously had issues with HG and SPD) i can manage that with rest as I don't have to force myself to go to work if I'm unwell and can afford private medical treatment. If I'm feeling bloated and miserable I can go and buy myself some cheerful maternity outfits,I've never had to turn down a normal social event or professional meeting because I don't have the correct clothing.

I have continuous access to healthy good quality food,I don't have the stress of worrying about housing or transport if I need additional help with housework or anything I can buy it in.

In an ideal world should someone else be having a baby for me then I would feel obliged to at the very least reduce the impact of them not being in the same position as me,if doing so meant providing a income so they could obtain some of these things themselves stuff like taking responsibility for bills and a roof over their head and it would be easier for me to make sure this would happen by saying "what are your monthly expenses" and paying that each month for at least 14 months to cover the pregnancy and recovery time and extended if breast milk was expressed and provided.

Sunnysummer Wed 27-Mar-13 08:49:32

YANBU - carrying a child can be wonderful but also has risks associated, the fertility treatments at the beginning aren't a walk in the park, and there are a lot of time and other commitments that come with pregnancy.

In that position, i'd probably prefer to pay a surrogate as it would feel a lot fairer - plus i'd be less concerned about motivations and whether there might be issues with guardian/parentship after delivery. That said, I would probably also let me feel like I could be a little more demanding about lifestyle/health factors, which the OP/surrogate might understandably be a lot less keen on!

I used to be confused by surrogacy in a world where so many children are needing care, but having seen some wonderful friends struggle with multiple IVF cycles, a massive roster of foster kids who cycled in and out of care, and failed adoption attempts (not from their choice) I'm a lot more understanding of the surrogate path, and really admire people who can help struggling couples. Best of luck!

Mapal Wed 27-Mar-13 09:00:04

Katy - "But, would you be comfortable with a system whereby women could earn a living from conceiving, gestating, birthing, and relinquishing babies to people who want to pay for this service because they want a baby?"

To be honest I don't have a negative gut reaction to this, no. It's not something I've put a lot of thought into and it's clearly a HUGE issue so I don't want to say, yes, I'm OK with this. But my gut reaction doesn't throw up massively negative feelings. Not sure what that means.

samandi Wed 27-Mar-13 09:03:44

God, no. I think surrogates should definitely be properly reimbursed. I don't understand why they aren't. Why on earth should it be a "gift"? Pregnancy and childbirth are hard work.

Medal Wed 27-Mar-13 09:36:35

Reading this with interest.

I'm a mum of two children born through host (gestational) surrogacy. The same wonderful surrogate helped us both times. We paid her expenses, which were in the region of what is recommended, and is meant to cover travel, time off work, maternity clothing / basically anything that is incurred as a result of trying to conceive and pregnancy. We also wanted the money to cover things that would make her life easier while she was pregnant, such as takeaways, and help cleaning the house. After the birth of the baby we wanted her to go away on holiday with her family.

The expenses are checked thoroughly by a court reporter as part of the parental order process, where the mum's name (in this case mine) is put on the child's birth certificate, as the current law allows the surrogate's name to be put on initially.

It is therefore difficult to pay too much to a surrogate - there is a chance that the court won't allow the parental order if there are any suspicions of over the odds payment. Not worth the risk!

I personally don't think the expenses paid go anywhere near what a surrogate goes through. As anyone who is struggling to conceive will understand, surrogacy is amazing - I have a very close friend and two precious children as a result of it.

Re. lifestyle requests/diet requests, some intended parents do request certain things, such as organic food - this would obviously would need to be included in the expenses.

Expenses, requests, all issues relating to the baby and the pregnancy are agreed upfront before starting treatment.

We will be telling our children how they were conceived and born. If anyone wants to ask anything please PM me smile

KellyElly Wed 27-Mar-13 10:03:50

I don't see anything wrong even if you were doing it for financial benefit. The people are strangers to you, it's not like you are doing it for a family member or close friend. You are providing a service which will take over nine months of your life. You should get paid.

Medal that's interesting about the things that make pgy easier such as a cleaner and takeaways. I'd add regular pedicures after about 30w!

FairyJen Wed 27-Mar-13 10:42:34

Personally I don't see the issue. People who want a child pay thousands on ivf sometimes with no happy outcome. If a woman is able to provide a gift of a baby then why should they not be paid for it? We pay for everything else!

For what it's worth I would be a surrogate in a heart beat but I would expect a level of expense paid to me.

FairyJen Wed 27-Mar-13 10:49:28

Looking at the other side if it were acceptable to pay for "renting a womb" here would likely be a lot less heart ache with those unable to conceive and may actually be a cheaper option for them.

I was once signed up with an agency for surrogacy - left as fell pregnant. If anyone is interested feel free to Pm me. smile

DontmindifIdo Wed 27-Mar-13 10:54:41

Medal - would it be included if you paid for some things directly rather than gave them to the surrogate? So if you hired and paid the cleaner (for instance) or if you bought clothes and handed them to the surrogate, would they be included in the total expenses you spent?

FWIW - I know a few people who've had DCs via private IVF, none have spent less than £10k.

Medal Wed 27-Mar-13 11:08:23

Don'tmind the surrogate compiles a list of everything coming under expenses in advance, so if cleaner /maternity clothes are listed then they need to be paid as part of the expenses. If things are paid for by the intended parents directly and given there is no sensible way of monitoring this - does this make any sense!

Host surrogacy includes the costs of private IVF as well, I wasn't even entitled to a free ivf cycle from my PCT.

Medal Wed 27-Mar-13 11:11:39

Horry our surrogate expressed her breastmilk for us the first couple of months with our first child, but we didn't pay separately for this. I think some surrogates in the US especially would charge for this.

HDEE Wed 27-Mar-13 11:18:48

I have had four surrogate children and have never once been asked to justify my expenses to a court.

I don't think paying a surrogate exploits them, or makes poor women vulnerable. Most people I talk to say there isn't a price-tag in the world that would make them capable of growing a baby for another woman.

Mapal Wed 27-Mar-13 11:25:49

I agree with HDEE. Only a certain type of person could do this I think, I know I couldn't even if the 'going rate' was £1million. But if you can do it, then why shouldn't you be compensated? Plenty of IVF clinics are making money out of making babies, why is it this vital (and woman only role) has to be done out of the goodness of a woman's heart. Just like bringing up children is, unvalued.

Is this a feminist issue?! wink

iclaudius Wed 27-Mar-13 11:26:50

I'd pay a surrogate
I'd want to pay her
15k not enough

Medal Wed 27-Mar-13 11:31:21

HDEE, that might be unusual you weren't asked to justify expenses, we were the first time but not the second so prob depends on who you get for a court reporter. Well done on being a surrogate four times, thank goodness for people like you flowers

KindleMum Wed 27-Mar-13 11:40:09

I would pay a surrogate if I used one and I don't think the sums mentioned are unreasonable. Most people I know who've done IVF have spent £15k on it and not conceived. I think some of them would have used a surrogate if it was easier to do and paying for it would probably make it easier.

For me, I've had 2 pregnancies, conceived with ease both times, and my children would have to be starving before I'd be a surrogate, no matter what the pay, I hated pregnancy. Fair play to those who can do it for others.

chris481 Wed 27-Mar-13 12:03:14

A quick response, I haven't read the thread.

I'm aware that official policy (and hence the law) in the UK does not allow egg donors or surrogates to do these for profit. However in many other countries it would not be illegal.

I have no problem with it being done for profit, and if you want to fudge the definition of expenses that's fine with me.

Of course my opinion and that of everyone else here is irrelevant. All that matters is what is right for you and what you can legally get away with.

In at least one Asian country I can think of where payment is allowed, if I remember correctly an egg donor was £1000, so I don't think £15,000 is a lot for a surrogate. I expect the figures are several times that in the USA.

MummytoMog Wed 27-Mar-13 12:12:01

As an egg donor, I'm getting paid expenses. I will have to take time off work, possibly pay for childcare during egg collection (as I will have to be taken home by DH afterwards) and there's a bit of travel too, so I think it's fair. I also think it's fair to be paid to be a surrogate. Being pregnant is a fecking mare (I speak as someone who had 'easy' pregnancies) and I would find it very difficult to go through that just for the satisfaction of helping another couple. I would donate eggs without the expenses, but that's far less of a commitment.

forevergreek Wed 27-Mar-13 13:02:27

I would agree.

As a professional loss of earnings from say 36 weeks until 6 weeks post birth (approx 10 weeks), would be quiet a high expense in itself. Add 2 weeks on for loss of earnings from appointments etc. That's 12 weeks. If op earns £500 a week that's £6000 alone, £1000 a week would be £12000 earning loss due to appointments and the equivalent of maternity leave.

Add a couple of thousand for maternity clothes/ supplements/ extra transport use if usually walk etc and you are at the £15k figure.

If we ever needed surrengency I would have no issue paying 15-20k for ' expenses'. I would much rather the person carrying my child to be was able to afford taxis at 38 weeks or afford good nutritious food.

DontmindifIdo Wed 27-Mar-13 13:26:53

Actually, good point, if you were employed not self employed are you even entitled to time off on maternity leave to recover? I stopped at 36 weeks with DS, with this baby I'm stopping work at 34 weeks, ifI have a c section that's 6 weeks at least recovery time, possibly longer. What are you entitled too if the family who are receiving the baby don't pay for this?

OddBoots Wed 27-Mar-13 13:38:43

Any woman giving birth is entitled to maternity leave regardless of the situation, it's been the intended mothers who have had a bigger battle to get time off when their baby is born.

whistleahappytune Wed 27-Mar-13 13:41:58

Odd it's very different when you're self-employed. There is no maternity leave. Period.

OddBoots Wed 27-Mar-13 13:43:34

Not even Maternity Allowance?

whistleahappytune Wed 27-Mar-13 20:05:14

Er... no. When you are self-employed, basically you are working for yourself. That means no paid holidays, no sick days and no maternity allowance. Unless you pay for it... yourself.

flowery Wed 27-Mar-13 20:33:18

You can absolutely get Maternity Allowance if you're self employed.

christinarossetti Wed 27-Mar-13 22:23:37

You are entitled to mat allowance if you're self-employed. It's £100 odd a week for 39 weeks.

Hardly enough to live on without another full time wage coming in.

whistleahappytune Thu 28-Mar-13 10:33:15

Well, yes you can get the government statutory maternity payment (though I'm not sure it's for 39 weeks) which is a pittance. But what you don't get, as you do if you are employed is your former professional salary guaranteed for a period of time.

flowery Thu 28-Mar-13 10:36:12

No, you don't get SMP when self-employed, unless you are employed by your own limited company.

And you don't get your former salary guaranteed for a period of time if you are employed anyway, unless your employer offers enhanced maternity pay.

You get Maternity Allowance if you are self employed, and the only difference between that and SMP is the first 6 weeks - instead of 90% of salary you get the basic rate of about £135 per week, which is the same as SMP once the 6 weeks are up.

NikkiLaLa Thu 28-Mar-13 10:53:13

Katy it's clear from your post that you have never gone through the heartache of infertility because if you had you would see what wonderful gifts surrogacy and egg/sperm donation are. Surrogates are not "selling" a baby they are giving someone something so precious, that they could not through no fault of their own give themselves. We have fertility problems and have been trying for #2 for 4.5 years, if someone offered to help me today for £15K I would take their help.

Op not unreasonable at all you are doing an amazing thing x

FairyJen Thu 28-Mar-13 11:09:17

nikki whereabouts do you live?

Binkybix Thu 28-Mar-13 11:42:50


I wonder if the division between those who judge it as selling a baby, and those who don't is how strongly people feel about the biological connection being the overriding thing that defines parenthood?

Personally, I think of the biological link as being quite strong so think I would struggle to donate eggs. That's not to say I would condemn people who do it because I can understand that's not how they feel.

I had always thought that the 'expenses' thing was a bit of a fudge to allow some payment without explicitly calling it a payment tbh, and don't have a problem with that.

OP - am in awe of you being able to do this for someone else.

HDEE Thu 28-Mar-13 13:21:45

I don't have any biological pull towards my eggs whatsoever, which is why I found both egg donation and surrogacy so easy.

In my head, my children are those created by me and my husband. The children I create for other people with my eggs, aren't mine, because they aren't my husband's, if that makes sense.

FairyJen Thu 28-Mar-13 13:30:31

I'm with hdee here. I love my children because they are the creation I me and dp. My attachment is through raising them iyswim not through having eggs.

Obviously with my own pregnancy I was attached but as a surrogate I see it very clearly that I'm storing baby for someone else. Hope thatakes sense!

Maryz Thu 28-Mar-13 13:35:04

Yes, I think some people feel the biological link is much more important than the "nurturing" link.

When I was going through ivf we had the conversation about donating embryos to offset costs. In those days, we could only donate the whole embryo, not the egg. I decided I couldn't bring myself to donate an embryo, as somewhere there would be a child running around that could be dh's and mine - either a full brother or sister to a child we had, or even worse a child we could have had, but didn't if our ivf didn't work.

But at the same time we decided that we could donate an egg OR donate sperm, just not together as an embryo if that makes sense.

My eggs wouldn't be a baby, they would just be an egg. They would need the father's sperm to make them a potential baby, which would therefore be a baby that I would/could never have had.

Binkybix Thu 28-Mar-13 13:35:42

Totally makes sense, and now that I am pregnant for the first time I think I can empathise a bit more with that feeling than I used to.

Just to be clear, am not saying I think one way of thinking is right and one wrong, just pondering on whether that influences how one feels about the whole issue of surrogacy.

5eggstremelychocaletymadeggs Thu 28-Mar-13 13:36:09

I dont think.i could be a surrogate but i have donated eggs, my recipient had twins smile they are not my children.and never I dont feel a connection as a mother to the eggs i gave. My babies are the five dp and i have created together.

EverythingsBeachy Sun 31-Mar-13 20:08:16

Op, YABU. Especially as you are self employed. If you were in permanent employment you would qualify for fully for maternity leave, even if you always intended to give the baby up. So you would loose out that way iyswim.
, that you wouldn't get that paid time to recover from childbirth

EverythingsBeachy Sun 31-Mar-13 20:16:03

YANBU YANBU!!! Bloody autocorrect. You are definitely not being unreasonable! Not YABU, doh!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now