Surrogacy

I agree we should ban surrogacy, i see the grey area of altruism, but even that is open to coercion.
I really hate the trend now of using one woman’s egg, and another’s uterus, I assume to avoid the woman giving birth changing her mind and wanting to keep her baby. It is particularly horrible as underlying it is the knowledge that the mother/baby bond matters.
Buying a woman’s body to grow a baby is no different from buying a kidney.

Annasgirl I watched a debate about that recently on Oireachtais TV, I found it horrifying. Ireland has become so drunk on wokeness it's as cultlike and devoid of critical thinking as the bad old days of Catholic dominance. It all seems to come as a package- promoting prostitution as a valid choice, centring men in feminism and lobbying for commercial surrogacy. It's so counter-intuitive given our history, I despair.

Oh right - in that case, no, it makes no difference to the child I'd have thought. I find the way that Lance Black and Tom Daley decided to not know which of them is the bio dad is completely about them rather than their child. It's deeply unfair on him

How is it 'no different' mouse?

Talking about the case where it was a donor egg, donor sperm and a surrogate - a PP said that being an egg donor was far more involved than being a sperm donor. My comment was relating to the child conceived as a result - it doesn't make a difference?

Sorry ^ Great Britain, not UK. Northern Ireland seems to be excluded. Not sure why that would be?

The Law Commission in the UK have started looking at surrogacy issues to make recommendations on law reform here. Apparently public consultation will be a big part of that, which is good: www.lawcom.gov.uk/surrogacy-laws-set-for-reform-as-law-commissions-get-government-backing/

Perhaps MNHQ could invite them to do a webchat?

How is it 'no different' mouse? Giving birth to a child for cash is not the same as having a child with donor gametes

I used to be in favour of surrogacy for altruistic reasons, but having thought about it as more and more cases come to light. My position is now this:

I have come to the conclusion after considering the arguments for and against surrogacy that surrogacy should be banned. Because it affects the child's rights - the right to not be taken away from it's gestational mother, or to be treated as a saleable commodity. As far as I can see surrogacy is only ever in the selfish interests of the adults paying, never in the best interests of the child

I think the Kardashian’s can probably take credit for me finally reaching #peaksurrogacy

We seem to be living in a hideous amalgamation of 1984/animal farm/brave new world/handmaid’s tale.

TheCraicDealer

I do know. My friend had IVF and I gave her the injections.

The effect on the child of either a donor egg or sperm is no different though surely?

If you know anything about the lead up to and process of egg collection you'll know it's a completely different matter to sperm donation.

I remember seeing him comment underneath a post "a child doesn't need a mother", and being struck by the cognitive dissonance- they obviously do need a mother, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to source and engage a surrogate and egg donor.

Yes they do need a mother. Equally they need a father too. So that must make sperm donors at least as controversial as egg donors surely?

The other factor in the Nebraska case was the the child was conceived using the 61yo surrogate's DD's eggs, fertilised with her DS's partner's sperm. So there's another woman taking on the risks and discomforts of an invasive medical procedure (egg harvesting) so that two men can have the luxury of sharing DNA with the child in question.

A guy I know locally and his partner had a baby boy through surrogacy last year. He's now gone back to uni to do law and is quite involved in pro- surrogacy campaigns. I remember seeing him comment underneath a post "a child doesn't need a mother", and being struck by the cognitive dissonance- they obviously do need a mother, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to source and engage a surrogate and egg donor. He clearly saw the women that helped them and nurtured their child as no more to him and his partner as a walking womb or ovaries.

JessicaWakefieldSVH

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't agree with commercial surrogacy. I have concerns about altruistic surrogacy, apart from in very specific circumstances.

I am completely against egg and sperm donation.

I have the same concerns about altruistic organ donation as I do about surrogacy. I see very similar risks to health and risk of being pressured into doing both.

I would for example be a gestational surrogate should either of my children need it in the same way as I would be an altruistic organ donor to them. I would accept the risks without question for both scenarios but I wouldn't do it for anyone else.

Betty yes, it is deja vu. Unfortunately there's undoubtedly a concerted effort going on at the moment in quite a lot of different countries round the world to change the law regarding commercial surrogacy, so it's something we have to keep talking about, otherwise changes will go in under the radar (see the comment about Ahern and New Zealand upthread, for instance).

I'm torn about altruistic surrogacy - I can see it's the thin end of the wedge, I can see there are risks where there's a coercive relationship within the family (the sister of a gay man or transwoman coming under pressure to "help", for instance). But at the same time my gut instinct is that provided the woman has been counselled properly about the possible risks (including death, lifelong incontinence, risk to future pregnancies of her own, etc.) and has been assessed to make sure she's not being coerced, then the liberal side of me says "it's her private business if she chooses to help a friend or relative."

There is no such argument for commercial surrogacy, however. It's no different from allowing people to sell a kidney, or one cornea. It's inherently exploitative.

This thread feels a bit deja vu now.

Here are a few other recent threads on the topic:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3496126-Mermaids-power-couple-Hannah-Jake-Graf-say-surrogacy-laws-must-be-changed-to-force-women-to-hand-over-babies

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3293640-The-mother-of-Tom-Daleys-child

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3454463-So-upset-by-commercial-surrogacy

You’re also ignoring the fact that surrogacy often involves poor women with limited choices.

then a surrogate could also have the same "benefit" surely?

It is not the same. The benefit is saving a life. The benefit of surrogacy is entirely selfishly motivated by something that is not life threatening, but mere entitlement.

I agree completely CaptSkippy

I think another issue that is related to this is that people feel they have a "right" to a child. I have been raised with the idea that you don't get everything in life what you want, but for some reason this goes out the window where becoming parents are concerned.

The benefit is only for the recipient though.

If the "benefit" to the donor is in the feeling that they've helped someone else then a surrogate could also have the same "benefit" surely?

Not all children born from ‘surrogacy’ grow up knowing their birth mother.

The benefit is saving a life.

These are not comparable scenarios.

Accepting some limited health risk to save another's life with organ donation is weighted very differently from risking a life to provide a baby for another person.

What is the risk to the donor Vs the lifesaving benefit to the recipient.

Well being a live donor doesn't have some "limited risk" does it? Unless you consider death a "limited risk"? You run the usual risks of surgery - haemorrhage, infection, complications of anaesthetic - any of which could be life threatening plus the risk of complications later in life of having had an organ removed.

That seems quite risky to the donor for zero benefit.

And you can’t arrange a backdoor organ transplant via Facebook

www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/how-you-can-help/get-involved/key-messages-and-information/living-organ-donation-faq/

See my point that you've quoted "NOT lifesaving".

Accepting some limited health risk to save another's life with organ donation is weighted very differently from risking a life to provide a baby for another person.

What is the risk to the donor Vs the lifesaving benefit to the recipient.

That's the measure.

We should not be condoning the risk to a woman's life - and pregnancy is a significant risk - when noone is in danger for their own life.