MN editorial on how wonderful surrogacy is

anothernotherone · 2019-07-03T21:09:37+00:00

This is on the MN homepage: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/pregnancy/surrogacy]] Isn't this a massively controversial issue related to the exploitation of the female body as an incubator? Are MN picking sides on a massively controversial issue, or has whoever's written and selected this rosey whitewash coverage of surrogacy not engaged their brain fully?

truthisarevolutionaryact · 03/07/2019 22:16

Hmm - I think it's perfectly reasonable to have an article about this - I've only scanned it but much of it seems informative. While I personally disapprove of some aspects of surrogacy I don't have a problem with close family being surrogates (with the right legal framework).
Mumsnet exists to make life easier for women and parents and as some women are involved in surrogacy I don't believe in censoring their access to information.

RubberTreePlant · 03/07/2019 22:19

Oh dear. That is a bit one-sided, considering how controversial surrogacy is.

sakura184 · 03/07/2019 22:20

We had a thread on here about it last week. It was unanimous that surrogacy should be banned

JessicaWakefieldSV · 03/07/2019 22:22

I’m not impressed

IsThatYourOverbite · 03/07/2019 22:25

Ads for sex worker jobs next?

Original poster

anothernotherone · 03/07/2019 22:30

truthisarevolutionaryact it reads like an infomercial though - it's very one sided indeed and says that surrogacy is a wonderful thing.

There are issues with family members being pressured and emotionally blackmailed into being surrogates, as well as the more obvious blatant exploitation of economic surrogacy. The article doesn't come close to being balanced.

OP posts:

Original poster

anothernotherone · 03/07/2019 22:36

I've got a daughter and two sons and had life threatening birth complications during one of my births. I'd hate to see a situation where DD was pressured to be a surrogate for one of brothers (with her egg and his partner's sperm if he was in a same sex relationship, for example). Pregnancy can be dangerous but families can feel duty bound to help one another out, and the very real dangers and lasting impact of pregnancy are still largely taboo.

OP posts:

LadyGardens · 03/07/2019 22:42

My best friend used a surrogate as she could produce eggs but not carry a pregnancy. The surrogate wanted a year at home with her own kids but could not afford it. The surrogacy paid for her year at home. She was happy and the parents were ecstatic to be able to have a child.

Yes there are risks but why is her using her body to earn a year’s wage worse than another person using their body to earn through a risky job on construction or in the armed forces? Many jobs carry physical risks.

JessicaWakefieldSV · 03/07/2019 22:50

To intentionally create a child that is to be separated from its mother, is immoral in my opinion. It is a truly selfish thing to do. For the majority of surrogacy, it’s about poor women supplying their body and taking great personal health risks, to satisfy the desires of the rich. I am completely against it.

DpWm · 03/07/2019 22:53

Click bait?

RubberTreePlant · 03/07/2019 22:54

Well said @JessicaWakefieldSV

TheInebriati · 03/07/2019 22:55

'There are problems' is an understatement. What if the fetus is disabled? What if either party changes their mind? If you want to shoehorn in the Armed Forces as an analogy, then I'll raise you with selling a kidney.
You can't sell a kidney, its unethical. The risks to you are too high.

Womens bodies and children are not commodities to be traded, bought or sold.

IsThatYourOverbite · 03/07/2019 22:57

To intentionally create a child that is to be separated from its mother, is immoral in my opinion.

Yup, to opt for denying a newborn the fourth trimester is awful.

Trading human bodies is awful.

Bluerussian · 03/07/2019 22:59

I agree with a lot of what JessicaWakefieldSV said but do parents really have to be rich to have a surrogate? Presumably, both would be working full time throughout the pregnancy and could afford to pay someone a percentage of their income per month.

sakura184 · 03/07/2019 23:12

It's banned in Thailand after the western commissioning parents decided they wouldn't take the baby as it has Down's syndrome

DonorConceivedMe · 03/07/2019 23:56

In the majority of cases the baby will be the product of an egg donor, and gestated in a different woman. If the baby is handed over to another couple the baby has two or three mothers (egg donor/gestator/“intended parent” if female), and none, at the same time.

I’m a donor conceived adult (sperm donor) and the fact that I don’t know my biological father is a great sadness to me.

MenstruatorExtraordinaire · 03/07/2019 23:59

To intentionally create a child that is to be separated from its mother, is immoral in my opinion. It is a truly selfish thing to do. For the majority of surrogacy, it’s about poor women supplying their body and taking great personal health risks, to satisfy the desires of the rich. I am completely against it.

This is where I am with surrogacy

Completely against it

OccasionalKite · 04/07/2019 00:06

I am totally with JessicaWakefieldSV on this

To intentionally create a child that is to be separated from its mother, is immoral in my opinion. It is a truly selfish thing to do. For the majority of surrogacy, it’s about poor women supplying their body and taking great personal health risks, to satisfy the desires of the rich. I am completely against it.

SimplySteveRedux · 04/07/2019 00:12

DD has a very rare condition affecting her reproductive system. She has been told if she wishes to have a child it needs to be within the next couple of years. DDs mum has offered to carry the baby as a surrogate, without this option DD would have no possibility of having a child.

You can't sell a kidney, its unethical. The risks to you are too high.

Yet you can altruistically donate a kidney as a living donor.

OccasionalKite · 04/07/2019 00:56

SimplySteveRedux

My sincere sympathy for the situation in which you and your family finds itself.

But for me, surrogate pregnancy, however close, or emotionally or financially compensated, is still, other women, ..supplying their body and taking great personal health risks, to satisfy the desires....

Pregnancy is complicated and potentially dangerous, even deadly, even in this day and age.

SimplySteveRedux · 04/07/2019 01:30

Yes, DPs own pregnancy with DD was fraught with some rather serious issues, I must admit the thought of DP having the same issues again worries me. DP is viewing the whole thing as the greatest gift she could ever provide.

It's definitely a minefield, and given the familial situation I'm rather torn.

OccasionalKite · 04/07/2019 01:39

SimplySteveRedux,
Any chance of your DP writing her own opinion here?

SimplySteveRedux · 04/07/2019 02:25

Not really as she's registered blind.

DecomposingComposers · 04/07/2019 02:35

Yup, to opt for denying a newborn the fourth trimester is awful.

Do you think that adoption should be banned to then? I can't see the difference between adoption and surrogacy as regards the 4th trimester.

2Rebecca · 04/07/2019 06:18

The only person I could have been a surrogate for was my sister. If I had been her surrogate then I would always have a relationship with the child as its aunt. I would expect the child to be told the truth about his/her conception. Commercial/ surrogacy for strangers for "expenses" should be banned. The world is overpopulated anyway. Having a child when you cant naturally conceive should not be seen as a right especially when you need a strangers body or gametes to get what you want.