Gestational Carriersnet - doesn't quite have the same ring to it(42 Posts)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
These people. Fucking nuts
I'll stick with mother thanks.
I would have welcomed a gestational carrier during the last week of my pregnancy when I was constantly breathless and tired. They could have carried me around everywhere on their shoulders in one of those sedan chairs.
I believe this is applied in the case of surrogacy and adoption. The biological mother is listed on the original document. Then a court order is used to modify it. I think each state is different, but that is the general idea.
Yes, I was just looking this up. Not a term I'd come across before.
I think it's Illinois. In this particular case, it seems that "gestational carrier" means "surrogate mother", to differentiate them from the woman who will be taking the baby home.
Nothing to do with PC terms, just an indication of how surrogacy has become big business in the US.
I'll add that, having looked through the tweeter's timeline, I'm pretty sure she knew damm well what the term actually meant, but was just using it as a stick to beat the "commie PC liberals" with.
Personally, I wouldn't follow her - there are plenty of intelligent, well-informed UK women to follow!
I laughed out loud as I thought it was the new name for MN
I wondered how soon surrogate mothers would be dehumanised.
In this particular case, it seems that "gestational carrier" means "surrogate mother"
I think we all know that. I know what it is supposed to mean and I object to it.
Commercial surrogacy is the exploitation of women and calling a woman who carried a baby in her womb, created every cell in its body with her own body, and then birthed that baby a 'carrier' like she is just a sort of bag that has nothing to do with the baby is dehumanising and misogynistic.
Nothing to do with PC terms? It's everything to do with PC terms, and I completely agree with MagicMix.
That's how I feel about it, MagicMix. I have great sympathy with the few cases where a woman does an incredibly altruistic thing for a close relative or friend who can't have a baby of her own. But when it starts to get more like ordering a baby from a catalogue, no personal connection between the woman and the baby's adoptive parents, I do worry. What happens to the baby if it has a serious medical condition? Do the adoptive parents walk away?
I've had my arse handed to me before, for using the term gestational carrier on MN. I've thought about it since then and I do still think that the person whose DNA made the baby, is the mother. If you are carrying a baby which isn't biologically yours and that you intend to hand over at birth, you are a gestational carrier and not a mother.
That's not to say that what she has done isn't amazing or should be treated as if she has done something which is no big deal.
There's a lot wrong with commercial surrogacy, but I don't think this term is the problem - it's just a means of differentiating between the person whose DNA made the baby, the one who is taking the baby home and the person who grew the baby but has no genetic link to it or emotional bond.
It frightens me how many women must be being used like this in order for it to be necessary to select it on a form.
Surrogacy is wrong on every level. Buying babies is wrong. Buying a woman's body to create a baby is wrong.
If you are carrying a baby which isn't biologically yours and that you intend to hand over at birth, you are a gestational carrier
What? The DNA - two little cells weren't yours (which is only 50% less yours than a baby fertilized the conventional way).
By the time that baby is born, every molecule in that baby was created by you. It shared your blood supply - your breathing, your heart, lungs and kidneys kept that baby alive. You weren't just carrying it, or incubating it like a chicken egg - you were providing everything that that baby is made of.
Gestational carrier isn't an accurate description at all, neither is the idea that the baby isn't biologically that woman's - if they provided everything to grow it, sounds pretty bloody biological to me.
Genetically is a better word in this case in my opinion.
Gestational carrier is an awful term, designed to commodify women and their bodies and reduce the role of women in reproduction to the same as men, gamete supply. The woman who grew and birthed the child is the biological mother, if a different egg is used they are the genetic mother. Pretending a woman is not the mother of the baby she grew with her body, created a symbiotic relationship with, is absurd. The push to reduce women to 'carriers' is so that the exploitation and risk potentially involved with surrogacy can be ignored. After all, they are just 'carriers', not mothers, not even women.
* I've had my arse handed to me before, for using the term gestational carrier on MN. I've thought about it since then and I do still think that the person whose DNA made the baby, is the mother.*
Why not use the terms 'genetic mother' and 'gestational mother', then, to make the distinction without being dehumanising?
A newborn baby isn't purely the result of its genes, there are developmental factors as well - even 'identical' twins can have differences. The baby is, in part, 'biologically' the gestational mother's.
I would happily use genetic or gestational mother instead, despite believing that a surrogate isn't really the mother unless using her own eggs. I wouldn't deliberately cause offensive to a woman who had done this amazing thing for another person and who found the term dehumanising. But I do think that 'carrier' might not have originated as a term to reduce womens role or be dehumanising, more that we talk about carrying babies and it evolved from there.
But I can see how, in these times where it seems celebrities are choosing not to carry their own babies and surrogacy has become commercialised more than it being an act of altruism, that the term could minimise the essential role of the woman physically having the baby. There is a lot of exploitation out there and that is the real issue for me.
" I've thought about it since then and I do still think that the person whose DNA made the baby, is the mother. If you are carrying a baby which isn't biologically yours and that you intend to hand over at birth, you are a gestational carrier and not a mother."
Is it the handing over the baby or the DNA which makes this differential for you?
I'm interested becasue a woman who has a baby through donor egg is a mother and a woman who has a baby using her own eggs that she then gives up is also a mother, or isn't she?
Gestational carrier is a fucking awful term, agreed. It utterly invisibilises the facts / risks / everything about what these women are doing.
Is the baby still called a baby or is it a gestational product?
It's always women who get their words taken / changed / distanced.
"I've thought about it since then and I do still think that the person whose DNA made the baby, is the mother"
Ah - reread.
If its about DNA where does that leave adoptive mum s and mums through donor eggs
Yes, I do agree that 'genetically' is probably a better term than 'biologically' - I have been using them as interchangeable terms.
'Mother' is a capacious word, there's no reason at all to exclude any of the women involved in creating and nurturing a child. Where necessary for clarity (in particular for legal reasons) it's not that hard to come up with modifiers. Genetic/gestational ; biological or birth/adoptive/foster.
Wet adoption, the adoptive mother has chosen to legally, emotionally and financially to become a child's parent. They do still have a genetic/biological/birth mother.
Motherhood via donor eggs is a tricky one for me. That child still has a genetic mother who isn't the one who gave birth. But I would not tell a woman who had donor eggs that she wasn't her child's mother, since the child exists because of her as much as the genetic parent and she is the one loving and raising that child.
But DNA is important. It influences our lives in ways which may be more important than anything else (predisposition to certain health conditions etc).
With surrogacy, it's not uncommon to have a gestational mother (the surrogate), a genetic mother(an egg donor) and then the - what shall we say? - parental mother, the one who will nurture the child. Note however that in quite a lot of surrocacy cases the latter is not present - gay dads.
I can't think of a single compelling reason not to use the word 'mother', with appropriate qualifiers as required, for all of the women involved.
The DNA being the be all and end all is a very masculine view I think, as that is their only input, and of course throughout history this has been um a tad of an issue as far as they are concerned.
For women it is twofold, the DNA thing is one and the carrying birthing is another.
Our language seems to struggle with this, probably as it's very male centric.
I'm not sure quite how I feel about a child having no actual mother. On the one hand I think 2 dad's can raise a child just as well as a woman and the most important thing is that the child has a loving home with parents who want them. OTOH, I am uncomfortable about children not knowing where they come from, with a donor egg and another woman carrying the baby, there is no woman who actually feels that she is that child's mother. And I think that may have implications for the child. Imo everyone is entitled to their genetic information, to know who their mother and father are. Some gay men are denying their children this knowledge, even about which of them is the genetic father.
If we need a term for a surrogate mother what’s wrong with ‘surrogate mother’?
* For women it is twofold, the DNA thing is one and the carrying birthing is another.*
Threefold, I'd have said; the post-birth 'mothering' too.
* If we need a term for a surrogate mother what’s wrong with ‘surrogate mother’?*
Not a lot; 'gestational' might be a bit clearer. 'Surrogate' (with its usual meaning of 'a substitute, especially a person deputizing for another in a specific role or office.') could refer to someone parenting the child post-birth.
I wouldn't want to tell a woman raising a child that she's a surrogate mother. In all meaningful ways to the child, the person who is there everyday is mum.
It's just that when kids get older, they need to know where they came from and genetic history becomes important.
* I wouldn't want to tell a woman raising a child that she's a surrogate mother. In all meaningful ways to the child, the person who is there everyday* is* mum.*
It's just that when kids get older, they need to know where they came from and genetic history becomes important
Yes, of course.
A child can have one or several mothers, all completely deserving of that title in their particular vital role.
Whereas 'father' might quite feasibly become optional...
Not keen on that either tbh. Nature requires male and female for a reason - I'm not massively keen on cutting either out of the process.
Neither am I, in reality... just something
Er.. sorry, forgot what I was going to say there.
The issue here is the language (or lack of it) and the fairly complicated context with women's reproductive rights being constantly under attack by people who see us as vessels, and the constant devaluation of pregnancy.labour , bf, childbirth, child rearing.
So all of this is probably an issue due to the patriarchal context of societies all over the world.
If our reproductive labour was not seen as a threat to men, or a service to be utilised, or a thing to be minimised, all of that sort of stuff, we would be able to describe and deal with these newish situations a lot more easily.
There is a drive to minimise what women are doing when they grow and birth babies and then hand them over, in most of the animal world removing a baby from its mother is recognised as being awful, unnatural, a no-no. Humans know this too. That giving birth to a baby and then handing it over is a pretty fuckign massive deal. In order to sanitise and deflect from this, words need to be found that obfuscate teh situation. Made me think of "friendly fire" and "collateral damage" then, also both from our USA friends.
The other point here about dna being be all and end all
When you're pregnant the baby shares your blood, what you eat. It hears your voice and is attuned to the cadence of your heartbeat which to its undeveloped mind will be a constant. The woman's moods, what she does has an effect. Stress we know about. What about endorphins from exercise, joy?
I mean to say
The language and view is very male, dna is all, misogyny says the woman who is pregnant is a vessel. Disconnected from what grows inside her. Unless of course she is Bad and smokes or something. But other than BAD there is no consideration of the interconnection, the exchange and sharing, what it might mean.
I've only just started thinking about this but it feels important in this conversation. Where a woman who grows and births a baby is being pushed as nothing to do with it.
misogyny says the woman who is pregnant is a vessel. Disconnected from what grows inside her.
Yes, it's absurd. Anyone who thinks a baby is born without having already formed a deep bond with the mother is in denial (even in cases where the woman herself does not immediately feel bonded). Newborn babies know their mothers and do not actually have any sense of themselves as separate to their mothers. A newborn baby actually doesn't care about DNA (though I definitely agree that it is important for children to know their genetic origins as they get older) and if you could ask them 'Who is your mother?' we all know what the answer would be.
This is kind of a big deal for me bit of a revelation
The whole conversation and words around this are incomplete for females. For how it works with the baby and the woman growing it and so on.
Instinctively we know that a woman who grows and births a baby is not entirely unconnected to it, but the language is not there. I don't know about research into this stuff. The parts that make the press are all about bad women doing it wrong ie stress alcohol smoking etc
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.