The feminism argument against surrogacy?

as the surrogate is not in any way the child’s mum

You can say it as many times as you like, doesn’t make it true. We aren’t in Gilead just yet.

Oh are we at the stage now of comparing woman making a decision to carry someone else’s baby to woman being kidnapped, their children taken off them, locked in a room and held down and raped in order to birth their rapists baby?

Ok that’s when the crazy hits too much to contemplate civilised discussion.

I am not this baby’s mother. In any way.

Keep telling yourself that it it makes you feel better.

It will never make it true however.

Going back to the R4 programme, I found it really uncomfortable. There was a sort of need-to-be-needed on behalf of the woman... maybe it's just the way her words were voiced.... and how the male couple decided whether the baby she was birthing had a name, funeral arrangements etc.

By context to my earlier opinion, I am currently 6 months pregnant as a gestational surrogate.

I am not this baby’s mother. In any way.

There is no separation of the child from ‘its mother’ as the surrogate is not in any way the child’s mum.

This woman carries the child for 9 months, grows it out of her own flesh and blood, and then pushes it out (or has it surgically cut out) of her body, undergoing great physical stress in the process.

But she is not in any way the child's mum.

Ladies and gentlemen, Welcome to Gilead. Blessed be the fruit.

The intentional creation of a child to be separated from its mother.

This misses the point. The surrogate (in the case of gestational surrogacy) is carrying a child for its mother - the IM. There is no separation of the child from ‘its mother’ as the surrogate is not in any way the child’s mum.

I can tell you research has show that the size of the foal at birth, and through to full maturity, is influenced by the size of the host mare, in addition to size of its the genetic parents.

That's fascinating, thanks for this info.

The very idea that a woman can be reduced to being some sort of human oven that 'bakes' a baby until it's ready to be served to its 'real' parents is profoundly sinister.

In the UK currently only altruistic surrogacy is legal. I struggle to find a sound argument against this.

The intentional creation of a child to be separated from its mother.
Using a woman’s body for the above.

There’s another human involved in the case of adoption and abortion too, who should make the decision on that? The woman’s who’s body it is? Or ‘feminists’ on her behalf?

You're not even trying to hide your agenda anymore, are you? Not that some of us were ever fooled to begin with.

^
That is a huge number of children entering the woefully underfunded care system. If people wish to raise a child why not adopt

Do you feel the same way about IVF?^

Pretty much yes.

The surrogate isn’t biologically related to the child though, so is it the same as removing mother and child?

So women that use donor eggs aren’t really the child’s mother?

There’s another human involved in the case of adoption and abortion too, who should make the decision on that? The woman’s who’s body it is? Or ‘feminists’ on her behalf?

The fact that there is a choice to make at all in the case of abortion is almost entirely down to 'feminists' who tend to be against forced birthing. Women should only become pregnant of their own free will, that is, not because they are compelled to by a man or financial circumstances.

I'm not actually against altruistic surrogacy but as usual on these things, we give an inch, they take a mile.

I knew my surrogate was ok

She’s not ‘your’ anything. She is the mother of the child. And if she wasn’t ok? What if she died or suffered long lasting injury or damage from pregnancy or birth? How on earth could you possibly repay someone for their life or their health? just so you could have ‘your own’ baby.

There’s another human involved in the case of adoption and abortion too, who should make the decision on that? The woman’s who’s body it is? Or ‘feminists’ on her behalf?

It shows a lack of critical thinking to not see the difference between surrogacy, abortion and adoption.

Surrogacy intentionally creates a child, usually paid for, that is to be separated from its mother.

Neither abortion or adoption is intentional. It’s making the best choice in an undesirable situation.

Babies born 30 years ago were routinely taken away from mothers, popped into cribs, left to cry in faraway wards, bottle fed by nurses.

I struggle to see how my baby had a worse outcome. My amazing surrogate, who gave birth onto me, allowed me skin to skin with the baby, I breastfed her straight away. The baby was mine genetically. The surrogacy was altruistic. I knew my surrogate was ok. I talked to her every day.

The effects of epigenetics may be discernable- I suppose it's feasible that in the moment of moving from womb to outside world, my baby felt a terrible attachment rupture as I smelled and felt different from the woman who carried her.

i can only say she otherwise would never had a life at all. she is loved and securely attached to me. I, and my surrogate, judged the risk to be worth it.

The surrogate isn’t biologically related to the child though, so is it the same as removing mother and child?

Ok, I am going to come at this left field. I compete horses and for competition mares, it is increasingly common to do embryo transfer, so you can breed from a successful mare while she continues to compete - you put her fertilised eggs into another mare. Equine surrogacy, if you will.

I can tell you research has show that the size of the foal at birth, and through to full maturity, is influenced by the size of the host mare, in addition to size of its the genetic parents. So the experience in utero has a permanent influence of the foals growth. I can only conclude that the in utero experience for mammals is significant and the biological parents cannot treat surrogate mothers as a walking incubator - she will also influence the future of their child, so she may not be 'biologically related' but her biological influence is significant.

But - applying John Stuart Mill’s harm principle - if the surrogate has taken a full and informed decision, and the IPs are happy, why is it anyone else’s business?

I agree with AgileLass here. You are forgetting that there is a child at the centre of this. Any potential harm to the child is not considered.

Peach you mentioned your children upthread. How old are they? If they are older, what do they think? Do they/will they have a relationship with their sibling?

Oh dear God, a child is not a possession. Why can't people see this? I struggle to understand how we can have the UN convention on the rights of the child and yet most of the UN countries support surrogacy - where is the child's right there?

How do we know these people are loving and stable parents? I won't go into names on this site but google some of the famous people who have used surrogates and see if you really believe they are potential good parents.

Theres a difference between willingly choosing to do something of your own volition and being forced by circumstances to make a choice you would never make.

I never said that was a good thing, why make things up? I said the opposite.

There’s another human involved in the case of adoption and abortion too, who should make the decision on that? The woman’s who’s body it is? Or ‘feminists’ on her behalf?

Yes there is - a much loved and wanted child.

But - applying John Stuart Mill’s harm principle - if the surrogate has taken a full and informed decision, and the IPs are happy, why is it anyone else’s business?

Because there’s another human being involved.

In the UK currently only altruistic surrogacy is legal. I struggle to find a sound argument against this.

Absolutely there should be, and is, a strong duty of care required from IPs (and fertility clinics) to surrogates - a duty to make sure all parties are fully aware of all legal consequences of their decision, all potential health implications, as well as how they are likely to feel during and after the pregnancy. This in clinics is governed by the clinic’s ethics committee, and usually takes the form of a requirement for counselling and independent legal advice, as well as a consultation with a consultant without the IPs present.

But - applying John Stuart Mill’s harm principle - if the surrogate has taken a full and informed decision, and the IPs are happy, why is it anyone else’s business?