Surrogacy

My super long previous post was to demonstrate that wanting at the deepest core of your being to have the opportunity of parenthood should not trump individual rights.

Surrogacy is not an option for us. We can't reconcile the idea of a loved one in altruistic spirit giving us the gift of life with possibility of: long-term health issues for the surrogate and any bonding issues it could mean for the child. Those who have offered us this gift would certainly be involved in the child's life (like an aunt) but we don't find that to be sufficient or fair to a surrogate or a child.

Our desire to be parents ends at the threshold of hurting other people.

The episode on the law leaves no doubt which direction certain activists are hoping the UK will take. And that is one of the reasons I am taking an interest in the wider costs.
My position is I oppose surrogacy in all circumstances, het,gay, trans, best friends and sisters. For various reasons including exploitation of women and bartering/buying of babies.
But the UK is looking to make it easier and more common place.
If this is to happen then I think the state needs to look closely at the costs it can be expected to bear. For instance I could see the UK becoming a popular destination for US parents as they could make substantial savings on health costs. Whilst reassuring themselves it is all well regulated and ethical and not at all like exploiting an impoverished woman from Vietnam or Nepal.

For anyone interested in finding out more I recommend listening to Dustin Lance Black's series which you can pick up on BBC iPlayer radio.

But I would say the state and insurers should take a close look at potential ongoing costs

I can't imagine the insurance companies being that happy about picking up the long-term pregnancy-related health costs of someone having babies for money. Mind you, maybe they'll just de-fund all pregnancy related costs. DH has the option of health insurance through work and I noted, when looking through it, that they just say 'no' to funding any and all pregnancy related costs, if I'd have taken up the spouse option.

But the NHS should be looking at this, because they can't afford more post-natal health costs than they already fund. Hopefully this will play in favour of banning surrogacy in this country at least.

Are the ongoing medical costs of the surrogate of pregnancy related issues as a result of commercial surrogacy met by the buyers? I bet not. They should be.

I think there are quite a few additional costs that are swept under the carpet. Obviously in somewhere like the USA with the medical insurance system they have I should think costs of pregnancy related issues need very closely looking at. Apparently army/forces wives are popular surrogates and of course they get good health insurance from their employer. But I would say the state and insurers should take a close look at potential ongoing costs.

In the UK we have things like maternity leave that is paid for by the surrogate's employer (on another thread someone mentioned meeting a teacher who was on maternity leave and treating her family to a holiday post surrogacy). And of course we can assume the NHS bears all the health costs after the initial IVF/implantation. Which I realise would happen if the commissioning parents had a baby but if we are talking about 60 year old surrogates and all the additional risks it all becomes more expensive. On Dustin Black's radio series he talked to a woman who had had 13 pregnancies, I think 2 or 3 were her own children but she was a one woman baby factory. Everyone knows risks increase for a woman of high parity. The NHS will be picking that up.

Whenever I hear "free choice" I look to the other side of the transaction.
Yes women have free choice over what they do with their bodies. That side of the transaction isn't or shouldn't be the one being policed. If any woman wishes to inseminate herself, she can and should.
If she wishes to give her child up for adoption, she can. If she wants to terminate, she can.
Free choice there, no problem.
But.
There is a buyer, AND a facilitator. It's those people you have to look at. This is now nothing to do with bodily autonomy, not for them. This is the opposite. It's about rights over someone else's body and whether we can or should grant that, in any circumstance, ever.
I think, never.
The commissioning of another human to be made for you? No.
The right to control someone else's body? No.
The right to claim a newborn from its mother? No.
These are the rights I object to.

It's the exact same principle as the Nordic model with prostitution.
Any woman is free to have consensual sex with any man she chooses. Noone is limiting that choice for her.
But there is a transaction taking place and a buyer, and it's is that side of the equation which the law can and should restrict.
You can have consensual sex with a woman, but you cannot buy rights to her body.
There are certain human rights that are so sacrosanct that we cannot forfeit them to others.
We cannot sell ourselves to others, into any kind of ownership.
None of us can buy other people or claim rights over their bodies.
The person attempting to forfeit their rights shouldn't be punished.
But the person attempting to claim rights over another person should be.

I think commercial surrogacy very much is only done by people who see the surrogates as 'lesser than' and not as fully human and deserving as rights as them (because they're poorer). There's no other explanation.

Remember the recent article about faecal incontinence after pregnancy and forceps birth - it was hundreds of thousands of women who can't go out because they could have an 'accident' at any time. And very limited surgical options. Awful. Affects your whole life.

Are the ongoing medical costs of the surrogate of pregnancy related issues as a result of commercial surrogacy met by the buyers? I bet not. They should be.

Even if it's acceptable for a woman to be a surrogate as an altruistic act, it is not acceptable to impose surrogacy on a baby and completely deny that baby basic human rights.

It is putting the wants of adults above the needs of a child.

And I do question if doing this to a baby can ever be seen as 'altruistic' rather you're deciding to inflict potential (almost certain in my view) harm on a child in order to help an adult. Is that altruistic? Not really. Not altruistic to the child.

Does a child born of surrogacy have a right to know that they're a baby born in this way? Are they told?

Altruistic surrogacy is the thin end of the wedge. Altruistic between strangers? Odd. I'd give a kidney to a member of my family in a heartbeat but I'd never do it randomly just to be nice. Only this week I had dealings with a person who had lost one kidney for not uncommon reasons and now has cancer in the other.

I think to carry a baby for nine months is an extraordinary thing to ask a close friend or relative to do for you. And what if your close friend or relative suffered some serious health issue as a result? Even something like mild incontinence which is obviously not mild at all when you're wetting your pants - every time you met and made her laugh and she joked "Ooh you owe me a packet of Tena Lady" how would you feel? Let alone people who already have reason to understand the very serious health disasters that can happen as outlined by Barracker up thread. It's an incredibly selfish thing to do.

I think coming at this from the perspective of 'a woman's free choice' isn't very helpful. It can be said that prostitution is a woman's free choice, and it is of course possible to find some women who happily prostitute themselves, but for the majority, like with commercial surrogacy, it is a decision made when other options have run out. Surrogacy as a contractual obligation once a commercial agreement is entered into threatens to criminalise vulnerable women. And anyone saying that it is not predominantly vulnerable and desperate women who become surrogates is being disingenuous, as are those who say the same of prostitution.

Altruistic surrogacy is less disturbing but you’re still intentionally creating a child that will be seperated from its mother. For all the reasons mentioned before this puts the desires of the intended parents ahead of the rights and health of a child.

Commercial surrogacy is unsettling to me on an ethical basis. It is becoming so normalised now though. Just that list of celebrities alone is unbelievable, mostly older women whose fertility issues are largely due to age, it has to be said (although also some heart breaking stories in there of illness and cancer survivors).

To me, surrogacy is like abortion: not ideal, shouldn’t be a default option but at times necessary for various reasons and if women freely choose it, it’s entirely their business what they do with their own bodies.

It’s the free choosing that’s the problem though. Kind of like how I support a woman’s right to choose but am disturbed by forced abortion under the one child rule in China or forced abortion of female embryos in sexist cultures. Is a low-income woman from Nepal with poor access to information really making a free choice? I think surrogacy based on altruism for a friend or relative is less disturbing.

Just to pick up on a point made on p 1 or 2; Sweden may have banned surrogacy in Sweden, but that hasn't stopped close to 200 Swedish couples in the last year 'bringing home' babies born to surrogate mothers abroad. Hypocritical AF. So disappointing. Luckily, writers and activists like Kajsa Ekis Ekman won't be taking their eye off the ball, despite calls to allow altruistic surrogacy.

I think surrogacy can be altruistic. A very close friend of mine approached me a couple of years ago to ask if I might one day consider being a surrogate for them. They made it very clear they knew it was the biggest thing they could ask of anyone. Had they not adopted in the end, I might have been prepared to do it.

There was no question of my being bought.

For this reason I am uncomfortable with the idea of a blanket ban on all surrogacy. I wasn't wrong to consider doing this for a friend.

Surrogacy where you pay a stranger? Completely different and should be illegal globally.

"Just adopt" they say

I have many friends that are adopted male and female. I don't think I'm equipped to raise an adopted child. Knowing that as soon as they are able to understand that I am not their birth mother they will likely feel betrayed by me and the world. I'm strong and I can do a lot of things but I don't think my heart is strong enough for that challenge.

"Just use a surrogate" others say

The surrogate option has always made me uneasy. It was a hard decision to come to even though the idea of surrogacy just felt wrong. I've had two friends offer - they have already had children and are aware of the dangers more than I. But I just have never been able to consider accepting their offers.

Conversations with my mother and friends about mother/baby connection in relation to adoption and surrogacy have only yielded heavily veiled pity. I seek insight and am given platitudes.

They lie to me because their hearts ache for me.

Tens of thousands of dollars and two rounds of IVF (no donors) under our belt with one round left to go before we call it quits.

We are happy, we are strong, we are hopeful, we share an enduring love of 24 years. We really would like to have the opportunity to give a child our love, to share with them the wonders we see in the world and all of the beauty we see around us.

DH has a beautiful heart and would be an amazing father. But we are not entitled to parenthood, we do not have a right to parenthood, and we have no desire to purchase a child via surrogacy or otherwise.

This is all so very hard but it's also part of being human. If we aren't granted the opportunity of parenthood we will continue to love each other and enjoy our lives together. Que será, será...

I think it is possible to have an enormously strong desire to have children, and to try and think of what is best for the child. I had IVF. We had three viable embryos, and due to my age the clinic were legally allowed at the time to implant all three, which they offered to do. I thought "can I look after triplets properly?" and decided the answer was "no." I said "we will wait till Monday (day 5) and implant the most promising blastocyst."

He is upstairs now. He's an only child - that's the price I paid. But it was absolutely the right decision. Having one baby was hard (I had PND). My mental health (as it turned out) would not have been up to the task of looking after three children properly, the way they deserved and needed to be looked after.

Annasgirl, can I ask what the programme was? Would like to listen on playback.

The reason ethics exist is precisely because desire powerfully subsumes one's sense of right and wrong.

^ so well put

The reason ethics exist is precisely because desire powerfully subsumes one's sense of right and wrong.

People will justify heinous acts because of personal and overwhelming desire. Which we are all capable of succumbing to.

Thank goodness for other people to continue to think about what is right and fair for all people, instead of letting personal desire and selfishness harm others. We all should be grateful for the laws we put in place to prevent exploitation, because we're all capable of unethical behaviour in our desperation.

The desire to have children can be so powerful.

It can. But nobody is entitled to them. Children have rights too. There are plenty of children that need a loving home through adoption.

Jesus Barracker

It was very depressing.