Surrogacy

They were on my stomach when born until the cord stopped pulsating and then taken away for all the midwifery things. Then they went to mum and dad for skin to skin. I didn't smell them for a while. I was getting stitched up (literally, not metaphorically!) and they did some weird pain-killing injection on me too. So I was away from them for a long time.

When I did finally get a snug, they smelled differently to me, I even commented on it. But I believe it was the milk.

We're hoping to get our shit together and get away to Cornwall together this summer.

Minecraft - wow that does sound as good as it gets for surrogacy and I'm in awe of the amazing thing you've done for your friends. I think the openness about their origins with the children is also important, and they will see that although unconventional their birth is rooted in love, respect and care. What will the babies of commercial surrogacy feel? Or will they be lied to?

I do think the problem is that most surrogacy, especially commercial surrogacy, is not like this. And I think legislation should protect the vulnerable - the babies treated as items to buy and the poorer women who would be tempted by surrogacy but treated as disposable.

Thankyou for pointing towards the Burger King Baby Minecraft and yes what a mess and a tragedy for the child involved.

Can I ask you a strange question regarding the two children you carried for your friend. Did they smell similar to your biological babies or was there an obvious difference at birth?

The weird question comes from my belief that smell is the primary way that babies identify their mothers and visa versa.

If you google the Burger King Baby you'll see how the male couple treated their surrogate. The judge is thoroughly scathing of them and how flippantly they dealt with her and her feelings.

She was of a lower social and economic status to them and they treated that woman with such disdain I cried when I read some of the facts in the judgement.

That didn't end well for them...those blokes were just, "I want, I want...".

@Ineedacupofteadesperately hello.

In both cases we stayed together all of us for the first day, in the first case for 2 days. Me there with my husband just being around whilst they tended to their baby. The second one just a day (early morning baby) and they were signed out late that night.

The IM has a hormonal issue so inducing lactation wasn't an option. She did get two specialists' opinions on this, the issue she has is why she can't carry so we were never hopeful.

I'm a seasoned old pro when it comes to BF and hand expressed all day (two as a half days with the first) and they fed baby via syringe. Then onto formula.

As for the balance, we are all of us educated to the same degree and all high earners.

We are in the children's lives as much as we can be bearing in mind we're about 4.5 hrs away from each other; I'm a partner at a v busy law firm and my husband is the VP of intl sales at his American company and a busy bastard. We have three children of our own and a Labrador. So we see them as much as we can, I dare say they're as busy as we are! We're the children's godparents and this matters to us.

We love them and they love us. The kids are learning about their entrances into this world and I kept a diary throughout the pregnancies.

Their parents and families read to the babies whilst inside me via belly-buds; all the books we grew up with! It was lovely, esp since grandad has since died and now they have his voice reading Flat Stanley forever.

I didn't look into the effect of babies being taken from their gestational carrier to their parents. We had a plan for a little cocooned babymoon together for at least a day and that worked out for us, thanks to the hospital! But that wasn't to ease the baby over to them, it was actually more for me.

I wouldn't have changed a thing.

Minecraft - can I ask did you do anything to ease the transition for the babies having been carried in your body for 9 months? Because it does seem the links made in the womb are important. What about breastfeeding (and before this causes a de-rail, yes I know lots of babies are formula fed from birth and fine, but she said AMA so I am because I'm curious - I know some adoptive mums breastfeed)? Are you in these adults and childrens lives still? It sounds like you are - I think this is important too - I hate the idea that a woman can be used and then discarded which seems to be what happens in commercial surrogacy, it so devalues the role of the mother during pregnancy.

I do think altruistic surrogacy can probably work out well for all when the adults involved have healthy, respectful and strong long-standing relationships but it is the thin end of the wedge and I don't think human beings should be considered as possessions, which is very much how the baby is seen in commercial surrogacy.

I'm involved in the surrogacy community to a lesser degree than I was, but still on the fringes.

It frightens me to see just how quickly poorly educated and financially struggling women will 'match' with IPs (intended parents).

There's also a real prize now in securing the cutest gay couple.

Just google Burger King Baby. I was in those groups at the time and we all knew it was going to fall apart.

But finally, the reason I was in the groups was because I was researching...I was a gestational carrier for my friends (twice). Helping her to be a mother is one of my proudest moments.

I'm not a medic nor am I particularly versed in the infant/child brain. But having had three of my own, I know a happy child when I see one. And they are happy.

I'm also a bit of a radfem who appears to have made an appearance on a TERF list (even though I am not a TERF and I consider that moniker a slur). So I'm critical.

As me anything 😆

From The Prophet

"And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, Speak to us of Children.
And he said:
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

 You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
 For they have their own thoughts.
 You may house their bodies but not their souls,
 For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
 You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
 For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
 You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
 The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
 Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness;
 For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable."

~Kahlil Gibran

The above poem helped me leave selfishness at the door of desire for parenthood.

and thankfully the law doesn't allow people to have and then just 'give' their offspring to other people

Yes, I was going to say!

I would have had a child and given him or her to her to raise

...and thankfully the law doesn't allow people to have and then just 'give' their offspring to other people. Because people, even tiny babies, are not presents, and the law prevents us from making gifts of people to other people.
As it bloody should.

Ah and there you have it ... new petition by Twodads.Uk asking for IVF for men so for surrogacy...

*@StopThePlanet

Your perspective on fertility shows you are not very versed in the subject.*

I'm haven't trained in fertility specifically, but if you care to tell me where I've gone wrong I can analyse the information you present using the skills I developed during my biochemistry PhD.

I offered to act as a surrogate for someone very dear to me when she was at a point in her life when she thought she would never have children. Thankfully she is now about to give birth. But if she hadn’t conceived and I wasn’t allowed to act as a surrogate I would have had a child and given him or her to her to raise even though that would have been much harder for everyone. I should be allowed to carry another woman’s child if I want to. Altruistic surrogacy is no more a slippery slope to commodified surrogacy than abortion is to euthanising unwanted infants.

Weren't slaves given their masters' names? It looks to be the same mentality.

*at all

@Cattenberg

This is not every Reproductive Endocrinology clinic in the US, it is some clinics that maintain this practice; some reference the surrogate more than others (depends on individual state requirements). And yes I am referring to medical documents. The chart will be in the payer's name, the patient (surrogate) is listed as an extension by surrogacy of the payer. The Rx ordered by the clinic is in the payer's name (you can't just pick it up at a local pharmacy, it is ordered from pharmacies partnered with the clinics) and arrives via mail with payer listed as recipient. The clinic appointments are scheduled with payer name, procedures are performed at said clinics (surrogate/patient is listed so if there is an issue emergency medical care can be attained in the case the patient is unresponsive) - payer receives discharge orders. Again, this not all RE clinics in all states but the fact that it happens at at is insanity.

It really freaked me out to be told outright via phone that if we needed a surrogate they would write everything in my name as the payer (I didn't ask about surrogacy mind you). I started reading about the practice of treating surrogates like cattle after that call.

StopThePlanet - are those medical notes? That’s very, very strange.

InionElle, I don’t agree with the way wet nurses used to be treated. I’m uncomfortable with wet nursing being a commercial service.

Cattenberg

In line with the article and your post, it is common practice in the US for the fertility hormones and procedures to be written in the payer's name - not the surrogate's which was one of my first discoveries as I was mentally turning to walk away from considering surrogacy. I mean, how fucked up is it that Rx for the surrogate and procedure orders for the surrogate aren't even written in her name? So disturbing and telling...

@Jessy85
There is an underlying smugness to your posts. Your perspective on fertility shows you are not very versed in the subject. Your perspective is very negative regarding women with fertility struggles. You ignored my question, gave my comments and insight zero thought and went on to rant more about how women struggling with infertility are faulty. I tried to help you consider how narrow your statements are - hoping you would see the judgement seething from your posts which are nasty, lacking knowledge, and immature. As you traverse your path, whatever your personal struggles may be, I hope that you receive thoughtfulness and kindness - unlike the diatribe you spout.

Just as a thought experiment, how do you all feel about wet nurses? In the past it was a very common arrangement for lower income women (and in the slavery states of the US, female slaves) to be employed to feed the babies of richer families. Their employment usually stipulated a specific diet and lifestyle for the wet nurse. There were occasional social panics among the upper classes about wet nurses behaving badly, drinking or being licentious so their behaviour was policed in quite a misogynist way. Just reading that article on US surrogacy contracts made me think about how wet nurses were treated in the past. Again, it’s a situation where you’re renting a woman’s body for a biological purpose for a time and controlling how she lives during that time. Obviously the health / life risks for breastfeeding are low compared to pregnancy and childbirth but there are still some e.g. mastitis, lack of milk for your own baby etc.

It’s a moot point because ‘wet nurses’ could just pump milk nowadays and we have formula but I am struck by the similarities between the way those surrogacy contracts treat the gestational mothers and how wet nurses were viewed.

I’ve posted this article about commercial surrogacy in the USA on another thread, but I think it’s worth posting again.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20390/

According to this, some surrogacy contracts state that the surrogate mother must agree to terminate the pregnancy or have a selective reduction if the intended parents choose. They don’t have to give a reason.

I’ve seen another contract (not in the article), state that the intended parents will decide together with the doctor how many embryos will be “transferred to the uterus”. The surrogate mother was often referred to as “the uterus”.

If a surrogate mother breaches her contract, she may be liable for various fees and damages including medical and legal fees. I’m guessing that not many commercial surrogates have tens of thousands of dollars in savings, so in practice they must lose a lot of bodily autonomy.

Fair enough lused and I don't want to derail.

I do think it's worth considering though. I mean I don't know much about her personally but I do know that society in general are very quick to believe they know the 'real' reasons women do things, even if they have said something else, and this bleeds across everything, and relates into the idea that women don't know their own minds, that their (our) word is not worth so much etc.

It's a separate topic though.

Sorry for derail.

Kim K needed fertility treatment for at least some of the children she had herself.

I am pointing out though the misogyny in flagging a famous woman who used a surrogate and
*1. Saying it was to keep her figure and

1. Ignoring that she is part of a couple and it's a joint decison*

Being against surrogacy doesn't give a free pass to make misogynist comments about people who have used surrogates

It isn't the misogyny in those comments which struck me but the pathetic attempts to make excuses for the behaviour of the women concerned.