IVF, surrogacy, sperm donation, feminism

I think egg donation for discounted fertility treatment is ethically dubious because many women donating will desperately want and not otherwise be able to afford the fertility treatment.

Altruistic egg donation is different, but presents some health risks to the donor, and with both egg and sperm donations risks that even when told the truth from a young age the DC may have negative emotions and experiences resulting from being the child of a donor, especially if anonymous.

I have a friend who had IVF with an egg donor known to her (altruistic donation). She carried and gave birth to, breastfed the baby and is enjoying motherhood very much. She and her H tried the route to parenthood because they wanted their best chance of a baby with no SN or additional needs.

Adoption is very, very much more challenging for parents. Many DC will have been through trauma, or had biological mothers using alcohol or substances while pregnant. Friends, for example, adopted a baby who, itgradually became clear, has severe fetal alcohol syndrome and very high needs.

I can understand why your wealthy friends wish to have their best chance of a healthy baby, and indeed why they think compensation to a young, educated US woman is OK. Agree with you that it’s unethical, but not to the extent that I’d raise this with the friends.

Very wise response from guardian

op sorry if I upset you. Obviously we don't know the type of friendship or your strength of feeling about this. Try not to take random internet people's comments to heart

op I think it is okay to say you feel uncomfortable with the ethics of your friends' choices. And when people say what they are doing is perfectly legal it isn't true. It is not legal in the UK, so they are going to a country with less ethical surrogacy laws than the UK, to take advantage of their unethical laws and create a designer baby from a brochure of women presented like prostitutes - human female organs for rent/sale, and a baby for sale.
Although your friends' pain and frustration are understandable, you can say that their choice makes you feel uncomfortable and they are free to disagree. At least it will be out in the open. If you don't say anything, if they do create the baby and bring her or him home, it is unlikely that you'll be able to stay friends with all that pain on your chest.

OP - your choices and convictions are yours. And the fact that on this specific board you find likeminded people - doesn’t change the fact that not everyone would agree with you.
So - your friends’s choices are their own. And like they shouldn’t judge you for taking away your H’s chance of having a biological offspring -
So you shouldn’t judge them for wanting what they want.
It’s not illegal. In western countries it’s regulated. So - there are many arguments one can put for and against.

In addition to my female friends who used various ways of having their child, I do also know a male gay couple who when that way - via US.
They are great parents to their twins.

Putting out unrealistic suggestions of finding altruistic donors and surrogates in the UK is, frankly, disingenuous.
And suggesting that they shouldn’t aspire to have biological children of their own - given the rate of scientific development - is just wrong on so many levels.

I agree that you should probably try to stay out of your friend's business in whatever he and his partner decide to do. Providing what they are doing is legal, it's not up to you to go into lengthy ethical discussions with him. It will be tricky for your friendship but they have to make their own choices themselves.

I have a child conceived through anonymous egg donation.

I can see the arguments for and against. Obviously, I decided I could live with the ethics of it, although it was something I thought long and hard about (DH, not so much).

I will just make the practical point that some may find the UK's laws about right, but they put those of us who can only have a child with egg donation in a difficult position, as they are so much at variance with those in other EU countries. It may not be ethical to travel to another EU country for treatment, but it's not illegal and treatments are much more likely to succeed with younger donors (which you're not going to get in egg-sharing schemes, which are fairly ethically dubious themselves, for reasons already pointed out).

How many people in this situation are likely to say 'oh, I don't want this enough to consider treatment abroad' if they can afford it? I think it's hard to say what you'd do, really, unless you're facing the situation.

Anyway, I wanted to wish you lots of luck, OP, whatever you decide to do, but I think I'd stay out of your friend's business if I were you.

I might be confused - are you talking about your gay friend? Do you need to discuss it with them? It could be very awkward....

The problem is you can't be truly altruistic in the UK in the sense that it be done entirely free. Expenses must be paid otherwise CAFCASS & the courts view it as exploitation.

Guess we can't win 😂

I think the ethics of the UK law around surrogacy and sperm/egg donation is pretty close to what I find acceptable too.

Good counter argument Isabella fair points - my argument was based on true altruism too so I guess we agree.

Actually, mine was an ethical point, though I was using existing laws to (perhaps badly) make it. It isn't feasible to have an ethics discussion about individual rights within a society without considering examples of what is/isn't currently legal.

What I was trying to say is that I don't always have a problem with telling other people what to do with their bodies. I find the "I don't like telling others what to do" argument nonsense because pretty much everyone accepts that it is necessary to at least some extent if we want to live as a community. The difficulty is in balancing the rights and freedoms of the individual against those of others, or of society as a whole.

Surrogacy isn't a medical intervention which is done to the person who has a medical problem, so it isn't analogous to infertility treatments performed on the prospective parents themselves. For the same reason, it isn't analogous to life-saving treatments. (Though it is worth noting that actually we don't have an absolute right to those either.)

Surrogacy is performing hazardous treatment on someone for whom it is totally unnecessary. Fully altruistic surrogacy I don't find ethically problematic as I see it similar to live organ donation. Add in the idea of paying for it, however, and I have a massive ethical problem with it.

But @IsabellaDMC your point is again about legality and mine wasn't - it was about ethics.

I also ethically have no problem with someone consuming heroin (I've known several who have - to numb trauma. I wish they didn't have to but I don't find it unethical)

I also question the thinking that we have no rights to be parents. Whilst I can see the logic (do I agree? I don't know, how can I? I paid for my baby) then if we follow the nature argument through (nature says you cant have a baby so you won't have one, there are enough humans in the world already) then shouldn't we also stop life saving treatments (nature says you're suppose to die - there are enough humans in the world already) infertility is a medical condition.

OP - feel free to pop over to the adoption board if you want to explore that with others who have been through the system (on all sides - there are birth mothers, adoptees and social workers on there, as well as adoptive parents)

The emotional & physical impact on the mother of birth is huge and doesn't matter whether she is the generic mother or not

Have you spoken to any women who have been surrogates, out of interest? I know many surrogates, running into the hundreds...I know of two who have struggled to give up their surrogate baby. Just curious whether this is an opinion you have formed based on speaking to actual surrogates or not?

Quarks some surrogates do breastfeed. Some IM's induce lactation with help from GPs so that they can take on the breastfeeding. The baby isn't just whipped away after birth & that's the end of it (perhaps in the US that's the norm)

I, personally, feel the uk has a reasonable set of legislation around surrogacy and egg/sperm donation.

To be honest, my ethics are more spiked by the children in the adoptive system because their mother was persuaded abortion is a sin or because their parents are abusive.

But what about mums who conceive naturally & don't breastfeed? Or children who are taken away at birth by the authorities?

There is a big difference between the unfortunate situation of a baby being separated because the mother is a chaotic drug addict, or a baby not getting the right antibodies and bonding because a mother finds it difficult to breastfeed. These are unfortunate situations we try to avoid.

In the case of 'designer babies' and other surrogacy - this harm and deprivation for the baby is actually planned and deliberate. It is entirely different.

On and as for the rich college student examples. They remind me of the happy college student working as escorts examples.

Unlikely to be representative and also causing themselves lots of emotional and physical damage in any case.

Totally against surrogacy in all forms.

It has only been possible in the very recent past for a woman to give birth to a child using another woman’s egg.

The emotional and physical impact on the mother of birth is huge and it doesn’t matter whether she is the genetic mother or not. We are not emotionally adapted to giving away a child we have given birth to just because of the intellectual knowledge that the egg was someone else’s.

There is a gradual separation of mother and child that occurs after the birth. Often not appreciated on the wedding threads where the currently childless bride and groom don’t realise why the ban on newborns at the wedding requiring a weekend stay feels like a ban on the mum attending too.

Sorry the above sounds trivial but I think the strength of the bond between a mother and her new baby is often downplayed.

Over 90% of mothers breast feed at birth and it tapers off generally because support is so poor in the U.K. The reality is that most mothers really want to.

Whereas with a surrogacy, I understand the baby is removed from the mother and has no further contact in most arrangements. So it’s not comparable to a mother who tries but has problems and doesn’t end up breastfeeding.

I don’t think the authorities should ever remove a new born baby from a mother.

Breastfeeding isn’t just about nutrition it’s about comfort and bonding with the mother who grew the baby inside her and the milk created is perfect & specific for the baby they have birthed.

But what about mums who conceive naturally & don't breastfeed? Or children who are taken away at birth by the authorities?

I'm generally intrigued in all of this - my only negative reactions I ever received as a surrogate was because i carried for a gay couple.

mustbemad17
I think altruistic surrogacy is unethical to the baby. A baby deserves to be with its mother at least for the first 6 months of their lives. Breastfeeding is so important on multiple levels to the development of a baby.