Guardian: the rise of “social” surrogacy

That's a trend I've been noticing in the Graun of late, where comments - in the increasingly rare cases where articles are open for them - are way out of step with the editorial viewpoint.

This has been going on for a few years with articles on social issues. I think it led up to them no longer opening any articles on feminist or women's issues - the people making the comments noticed that the picks were always biased, but also that the deletions were really wild. Finally they had a big open discussion by the editor about what could be done to make the comment sections better, and it was universally, stop moderating in such a biased way. Ironically there were scads of deletions from the discussion. Right after that, they stopped opening them, though I also noticed that the writers who were most derided stopped appearing.

All of those scenarios have taken place? Really? They’ve all been tested legally and there were no moral or ethical deliberations ever? If you’re saying those scenarios in my post have taken place, you’re saying somewhere a woman has been forced to have an abortion against her will or forced to have a baby against her will. I find that incredibly disturbing and equally disturbing that all that is needed to reconcile that is “more time and discussion”.

Here are some more:

What if the pregnant woman is group B strep positive? What if she doesn’t want antibiotics? What if she does but the adoptive parents don’t because they want everything natural? What if she’s given antibiotics and has an allergic reaction? What if she has a recurrence of previously unknown genital herpes? What if the baby has herpes encephalitis postnatally as a result? Is that her fault?

What if she develops antibodies to the fetus’s red blood cells or platelets? What if that results in invasive in utero procedures? What if she needs immunoglobulin as a result and has a reaction?

What if she has a severe postpartum haemorrhage? What if she needs a blood transfusion or two?

Basically, if harm results to the pregnant woman as a result of the pregnancy whose responsibility is that? Can the finances ever truly reconcile all eventualities? Can/should a pregnant woman be forced to undertake medical treatment if it’s in the best interests of a third party? What if what is in her best interests is not what is in the best interests of that third party?

Who pays for hospital parking? Who pays for petrol to get to appointments? Who attends appointments? What if there is another medical issue arises requiring confidentiality? Should a doctor disclose this information in front of adoptive parents present in an appointment? If adoptive parents are at appointments what pressure is there? Would the pregnant woman be able to openly disclose concerns? What if a doctor or midwife suspected there was coercion? Who would they report that to? What’s the burden of proof for coercion? How would the legal system address this quickly with an advancing pregnancy?

*it won't be easy

All those scenarios have taken place. So, yes. Our won't be easy, it will take time. But, yes

What is that supposed to mean. None of your posts even attempt to address the points made by Barracker - namely babies should not be a made to order commodity to satisfy a selfish, narcissistic whim.

All those scenarios have taken place. So, yes. Our won't be easy, it will take time. But, yes.

Yes, I'm saving that post too.

NotBad If its OK with you I'm going to print out your post for when I need it. Very valid questions, without emotions or imagination involved.

Newuseroftheweek

So whose rights are most important? Consider these scenarios and explain how time and consideration will sort it out:

At 12 week prenatal testing it’s discovered the fetus has a severe abnormality. The surrogate wants to abort, should she be allowed to? What if the adoptive parents are religious and don’t want her to? What if the adoptive parents want to abort but the surrogate is religious and doesn’t want to? What if the pregnancy will threaten her life but the adoptive parents don’t want to abort? What if the adoptive parents decide that if she continues with a pregnancy resulting in a child with a severe abnormality they won’t have anything to do with it?

What if the pregnant woman has a major complication like a pulmonary embolism? What if she can’t return to full functioning afterwards? What if she can never work again as a result? What if she can’t look after her own family?

What if there is a conflict between parties about timing and mode of delivery? Who gets to decide? What if there’s a severe hypoxic ischaemic injury to the baby as a result of this decision? Is it anyone’s fault? Should a woman be forced to undertake a Caesarean section?

What if after a severe hypoxic ischaemic injury the adoptive parents decide they don’t want to look after a child with severe spastic quadraplegic cerebral palsy? Who does the baby belong to?

What if the pregnant woman developed gestational diabetes and didn’t look after herself? Ditto high blood pressure?

What if there’s an intrauterine fetal death? What if it’s discovered the pregnant woman smoked and drank? What if she ate something considered high risk? What if she undertook an activity deemed high risk? Should blame be apportioned? Could someone sue someone in this scenario?

What if, in the postnatal period, the birth mother develops severe postnatal depression or psychosis? Who looks after her? For how long? What if it stays with her for years?

These are just some initial thoughts. How will time, consultation, legislation etc reconcile all of these scenarios?

BUT I have the imagination to know that not everyone feels that way, and they can run that race and feel happy to give the child away. I feel they should get to have that choice. Imagination is the same as my emotions getting in the way of discussion is it it not?

RaptorWhiskers I've had a c-section and a natural birth, my body is not ruined. It's grand. I'm sure other women will have a different experience but a blanket statement like that is not true.

Notbadconsidering, she meant me I'm sure!

Oncewasblueandyellowtwo I do understand what you mean. I'm probably being a bit more strident here that I really feel, I know there are emotions here, but I'm trying to show that the emotions are driving the debate too much. Let's start the discussion, not shut it down as it's 'wrong' or repugnant to your moral compass. Many things, you know, like women leaving the kitchen, started the same way!

I've carried a child. I know what its like. I know I could never give it away, a long long wanted child. A miracle who has transformed my life. BUT I have the imagination to know that not everyone feels that way, and they can run that race and feel happy to give the child away. I feel they should get to have that choice.

I'm not saying a baby ruins your body. I too love what my body did, even if it tried to kill me first! But, my body shape is not that important to me. Being more or less rounded or misshapen makes no difference to me, but, again, I have the empathy to see why it would matter to people, and would much more profoundly influence their physical and mental ability to provide for themselves and their child.

Pregnancy ruins your body. I’m not surprised that rich women avoid it if they have the means to do so, particularly celebrities for whom their body is their career.

Newuseroftheweek I'm probably one of those good at breeding women but not so smart to be an engineer. Even I understand the question that you don't want to answer from notbad No I don't want your I.D but I don't feel you are challanging my views, I just don't thinks yours make sense...

Who? Me? I agree no system apart from no surrogacy. I am not “pro life no choice” at all. How do you reconcile surrogacy with pro life/anti choice arguments?

I'm totally pro choice, like actually giving a choice. I appalled by where the US is going on women's rights generally, as well as on abortion. I'm appalled by the right wing swing in Europe. I'm a guardian and washington post subscriber, and I push myself to read right wing sites to try to understand what I'm just not understanding.

I'm a cancer survivor, an IVF mum, a lapsed Catholic, I'm excellent at candy crush... Do you want some ID? Is that enough for you? Just because I'm challenging your views?

Is that acceptable?

Then why keep asking the question like it's some kind of trump card? When your view is basically 'its complex'.

My view is that it's like any new change, it needs time to work out, and clever and thoughtful consideration. Adoption laws vary and evolve over time. IVF rules have varied and evolved over time. If we said at the start 'its too hard to summarise in one line, so let's give up' then lots of technological advances would be restrained.

Not sure why but for some reason I'm getting a, pro life no choice, feeling from your posts. Could be completely wrong of course.

no system can reconcile that. except not having surrogacy in the first place?

Although I'm starting to think you have other motives here op..

Like what? I'm sitting at home on a sunny Sunday in Sydney. My child is at cricket with my husband. I'm just, for reasons I'm not sure of(!), engaging with some randoms on the net whose view I disagree with.

And also my body is not damaged by having kids! If anything it's better, I understand it so much more and I love it so much more.

My answer is there are multiple scenarios from conception to the postnatal period where the rights of three parties could come into significant conflict resulting in harm one way or another, and no system can reconcile that.

I’m asking your opinion on that? When rights collide in a surrogacy agreement, how do you think it should be reconciled? I’ve given my view, what’s yours?

And as I said above, Because it is not a commodity. It can't be given and then taken away. The hormones that fill your body when pregnant, the emotions, the colostrium, the butterflies and the kicks, the belly growing. That is not something to be bought. It's not at all like being good at computers or a good teacher or anything else. Although I'm starting to think you have other motives here op...

But if your living is your look That is very different from saying its an incredibly painful decision.

Notbadconsidering, it's not my job to answer that question. You clearly have a view, just say it. Don't hide behind a question. Who do you think should be?