surrogacy, Julie Bindel is right, it is human rights abuse

Other than the fact I know lots of other surrogates and intended parents and see pictures of the babies every day?

Yes, that is called anecdotal evidence.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by evidence?

Academic studies, statistics produced by one of the bodies you mentioned. That sort of thing.

Why would loss of earnings etc be seen as personal gain?

I'm not saying it is, I am just trying to get a handle on how 'not-for-profit' surrogacy works.

As much as you hear little about surrogacy there have been cases where the surrogate ends up out of pocket, so for some to claim its usual for surrogates to receive 18k in expenses is ridiculous, Expenses must be reasonable and justifiable.

Again you make these claims with no evidence to back it up other than somebody told you?

Other than the fact I know lots of other surrogates and intended parents and see pictures of the babies every day? I genuinely don't understand what you mean by evidence?

I cannot comment on the fees charged in the USA, it's an entirely different process and obviously things that are free such as the nhs are obviously not over there so there. high fees can be broken down and explained by extra costs they have and legal fees etc

Why would loss of earnings etc be seen as personal gain? A surrogate should not be out of pocket whilst carrying a baby for someone else. If the during the pregnancy the surrogate needs bed rest and has to finish work earlier than planned should the surrogate be out of pocket when it is not her baby she is carrying? As much as you hear little about surrogacy there have been cases where the surrogate ends up out of pocket, so for some to claim its usual for surrogates to receive 18k in expenses is ridiculous, Expenses must be reasonable and justifiable.

The US system uses "expenses" as a fig leaf to cover what amounts to payment.

It's not quite going to the third world, but poverty in the US leaves you in a very precarious situation, so it's not a lot different.

If the "surrogacy community" want to ape that, then I think we need to consider that they have similar biases to those of the "sex worker" lobby that also want their business legalised and regulated so they can make money out of it.

I don't want to do a FOI request, I was just wondering if you had any basis for your claims other than anecdotal evidence. Obviously you don't.

I would argue that receiving money to be sexually exploited by a man is entirely different than a woman choosing without personal gain to carry another woman's baby

What counts as 'gain' in this situation? Loss of earnings? Expenses? I am genuinely curious. From what I can gather there is some sort of 'standard charge' in the US.

I'm sure there are ways of finding out how many are born without problems in the uk, I'm no expert but you could try a freedom of information requests to either cafcass or the courts?
Do up you not think if it were frought with problems it would be all over the media?

I would argue that receiving money to be sexually exploited by a man is entirely different than a woman choosing without personal gain to carry another woman's baby.

" you just aren't aware of it unless you are in the surrogacy community."

Sounds legit.

"How can you compare a woman selling herself for sex to a woman carrying another woman's child? In what way is is at all similar??"

How is it different? Are you saying you think prostitutes are immoral/dirty/bad? I am genuinely confused.

Yes, the stories that are perpetually dragged up are often from years ago, as illustrated above!

What evidence do you need other than reading the few horror stories that have happened over the last decade or the thousands that have been born without problems. Good surrogacy stories are never reported, every day children are being born through surrogacy, you just aren't aware of it unless you are in the surrogacy community.

Why do I find your comparison offensive? Because you are as good as saying I'm like a prostitute!?
How can you compare a woman selling herself for sex to a woman carrying another woman's child? In what way is is at all similar??

I keep hearing about "no problems" and "over whelming majority" etc etc. Is there any evidence to actually back this up?

Scallops I find your comparison of surrogacy to prostitution extremely offensive

Why?

It's better - that article is from 2011... 5 years ago, over a thousand born without problems since then. As surrogates we were asked recently about the law etc and most would prefer a legal system in place to mimic the pre birth orders like they have in the USA.

Scallops I find your comparison of surrogacy to prostitution extremely offensive

The article is quite poor really and it reads as though she has very little experience of surrogacy in the uk. It's always disheartening to see stories like this as it shows surrogacy in a bad light.

Thankfully stories like this are exceptionally rare compared to the hundreds of surrogate children born every year here in the uk, but of course no one know about that unless you are in the surrogacy community.

"genuinely wouldn't want anyone who has had to use a surrogate, either abroad or in the UK to get upset by the views expressed here."

Nobody has to use a surrogate. That is a very privileged view.

I think there are massive discussions to be had around why surrogacy is seen to be necessary and the pressure to have a family and the feelings of inadequacy and grief for women who can't have children themselves. And certainly the patriachy's role in that. But this is an important discussion too.

I think it was Mathilda upthread who made the point that surrogacy is a demand-led market. As is prostitution. Yet in both cases the arguments are switched round to make it seem as if it is supply driven and driven by those who have choices. It isn't. (Great post btw Mathilda) And that sentence quoted above sums up the demand-led nature of what happens in surrogacy.

There evidently are surrogates who want to keep their baby.
jezebel.com/5791134/couple-told-to-pay-child-support-after-surrogate-decides-to-keep-baby

Lostinmiddlemarch, I would step away from this thread.

The people who have opposing views to you, will never be convinced otherwise, and I genuinely wouldn't want anyone who has had to use a surrogate, either abroad or in the UK to get upset by the views expressed here.

This is an incredibly contentious issue, and I understand why. But the women posting on this thread, who have been through the surrogacy process don't deserve to be vitriolized for it.

Have some compassion, please!

Fair enough. In the overwhelming majority of cases, at least in Britain, these fears don't come to pass.

Oh, well, that's ok then. As long as it's only happening to already poor and exploited women, then it's fine?

Blimey

lostinmiddlemarch

You didn't seem to answer the question you quoted. You just listed more problems that would mostly remain problems regardless. If anything it's a fairly good argument against surrogacy of all types.

And to the poster who Said it cannot be compared to carrying your own baby- why not? I had no pnd, no tears and my milk didn't even come in- clever Mother Nature. No different to carrying my own children whatsoever.

I would like to point out that the majority of IPs and surrogates in the uk are against surrogacy abroad(with the exception of America) the whole thing is highly exploitative and frought with problems.

The whole idea is " sold" to IPs as a cheaper/easier/quicker option than uk surrogacy when in fact by the time the baby is conceived and born the costs often end up as much or more than they would in the uk. This is partly due to Ivf problems with clinics abroad- it's come to light some clinics have been doing seemingly unnecessary procedures to add costs. Partly down to legal problems they encounter when trying to bring the baby back to the uk.

The whole thing is very much a transaction and most will IPs will never have a relationship with or sometimes ever meet the woman carrying their baby.

uk surrogacy cannot really be compared in any way, it is entirely different.

Fair enough. In the overwhelming majority of cases, at least in Britain, these fears don't come to pass.

the baby will have a disability and this may change the situation (it doesn't, but these are the fears people have)

It does, and it has. An example was mentioned earlier in the thread.

If most surrogacies, as you say, work - then what exactly is the problem that needs to be solved by changing a woman's legal relationship with the baby she is carrying?

There's potential for a baby to be in limbo, at the moment, and for unscrupulous parties on either side to exploit the other if they feel like it. Intended parents feel anxious that their genetic child won't be given to them. Surrogates feel possibly more anxious that something will change in the IPs lives and the baby will no longer be wanted, or that the baby will have a disability and this may change the situation (it doesn't, but these are the fears people have). There are also situations when a IPs break up before the PO comes through, which is complicated, or when the surrogate's marriage ends and her partner is no longer willing to sign anything or be part of anything. It's unclear what the law actually is and what it's supposed to be doing. So the law is not, if you like, functioning well as things stand.

Surrogacy in the UK is not a terribly rare occurrence and even if it were, it involves a child's life and should be provided for in legislation.

bath and green: Altruistic surrogates are the only kind giving birth in Britain, at least.

Given that the women in question who are giving birth want this clarification, you sound rather ridiculous bath.

I would sound ridiculous if altruistic surrogates were the only women who gave birth.

Given that they are a vanishingly small percentage of births, I'm not sure why their views on the legalities of motherhood should be privileged.

If most surrogacies, as you say, work - then what exactly is the problem that needs to be solved by changing a woman's legal relationship with the baby she is carrying?

Exactly who are you trying to save?

Pregnant women and women who have recently given birth.

In the case of a married woman getting pregnant from an affair, the husband would be on the birth certificate by default, but I assume this could be left blank if she confessed and the couple decided between them to do so?

Given that the women in question who are giving birth want this clarification, you sound rather ridiculous bath.

I would sound ridiculous if altruistic surrogates were the only women who gave birth.

Given that they are a vanishingly small percentage of births, I'm not sure why their views on the legalities of motherhood should be privileged.

If most surrogacies, as you say, work - then what exactly is the problem that needs to be solved by changing a woman's legal relationship with the baby she is carrying?

Exactly who are you trying to save?

Pregnant women and women who have recently given birth.