MN editorial on how wonderful surrogacy is

Thread I have started to discuss the proposals for new laws to regulate surrogacy in the UK.

Building families through surrogacy: A new Law - Consultation www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3649812-building-families-through-surrogacy-a-new-law-consultation

Sakura, that's really sad. Adoption does tend to get a very rose tinted narrative.

All I'll say is that adult adoptees are absolutely seething at the adoption industry, they think the language used in adoption is a gross violation of their human rights. They also say their voices are silenced and their blogs and so on are shut down.
We shall see how babies born of surrogates analyze what happened to them

ComeandDance - are you purposely missing the point of Barracker's post? It is quite clear that she was talking about people who purposely deny a child access to their mother.

Here's the rest of her post for the hard of understanding:

• Every baby animal has a need to be with the mother in whom they grew, knowing her heartbeat, her voice, the sway of her body. We'd empathise if her mother had died. We'd feel grief for her. We'd understand she would be suffering a loss that would impact her life.

Yet we seem to be manufacturing these babies and engineering their losses purposefully.*

Surrogacy is engineering a baby's loss of their biological mother. There are no circumstances in which that can be morally justifiable. None.

And yes, thanks Barracker for putting it so very clearly.

And of course, sadly, often there are circumstances where babies are separated too early from their mothers. This is sad, and often adoptive parents can step in and help but it's not planned, it's not the explicit intention to deny the babies that important experience.

Understanding the difference between unintended and intended really isn't hard.

What Lass said, I'm against surrogacy whoever is doing it. My opposition to it is applied equally to any and all humans who wish to engage in buying babies and renting wombs.

The fourth trimester is something that is shaped by millions of years of evolution. ALL mammal species (including humans) need their mothers to begin with, for varying lengths of time depending on species. You see problems in many mammals taken from their mothers too young. It's biology, it's evolution, it just is.

@sakura184 there are some children who need adopting but, usually due to their relationship with their birth mother, would be better off with one or two dads. Not babies though, but few children in the UK are adopted as babies.

I'm against gay men adopting and hiring surrogates. It's not anti gay because I'm also against lesbians hiring surrogates ( though not adopting)

Women are oppressed by our sex. It's gross that 2 people of the oppressor class would get babies out of the oppressed group because they're financially more stable due to their privilege. Plus I also think babies need a mother, preferably their birth mother but at a push an adoptive mother.

I don't know if lesbian couples use surrogates rather than 1 of them carrying the implanted embryo. However if this is a thing that is , as far as I'm concerned as unacceptable as a heterosexual couple or male homosexual couple (or indeed single person of any persuasion ) using a surrogate.

And of course there is a difference between a lesbian who has grown and given birth to her baby and a gay man who has rented a woman to do that. Why do lesbians always get dragged into arguments about men's rights? Lesbians are still women, and mothers.

You do realise that by saying that, you are basically saying that no gay men can actually adequately parent a child, regardless of whether the child is adopted, born via a surrogate or whatnot?

That's not what was said at all. What was said is that babies need and want their mothers. That's biology. Are we supposed to pretend the best interests of children aren't what they objectively are, so as not to be unfair to gay men? In every other sphere of health care, social policy and legal proceedings it's recognised that babies belong with their mothers (assuming no safeguarding issues). Why are we suddenly supposed to pretend that doesn't matter when it comes to surrogacy, and that removing a baby from the mother who has just given birth is a positive thing? Why are you prioritising the rights of gay men over the well-being of children?

Because yes, that baby probably does feel the absence of her mother, no matter how brilliant the care of the men who parent her.
You do realise that by saying that, you are basically saying that no gay men can actually adequately parent a child, regardless of whether the child is adopted, born via a surrogate or whatnot? (But somehow a couple of lesbian can because they have their mum, whether said child has a dad doesn’t natter does it?)

This, imo, is profoundly against gay people and unacceptable.

I assume that when laws came to allow gay couple to have their own dcs and adopt you were against it too then?

Same here Barracker. Made me well up, reading Jazzy’s post. Babies do need their mothers. Fathers are great later on, but babies belong to women. How will that baby feel when she is an adult and has her own baby ? Heartbroken I imagine, however loving her fathers are.

We'd empathise if her mother had died. We'd feel grief for her.
We'd understand she would be suffering a loss that would impact her life. Yet we seem to be manufacturing these babies and engineering their losses purposefully.

Perfectly put Barracker, your posts are always spot on and always centre women and children. It's so refreshing.

I do think the intentional nature of surrogacy engineering losses, is a very important point. In law murder and manslaughter are different for a reason. The intent is important.

If somebody prangs my car, I do get a bit upset but if they're apologetic, it's an accident I think 'oh well, these things happen'. If someone did it deliberately I would be much more upset and angry and would find it much harder to let go of the hurt. Intent matters.

I find that most people also understand that if a child needs to be adopted, they will also miss their birth mum (and dad). Single male and gay adopters are acutely aware of this and the ones I know give their children space to grieve.

JazzyGG that post sort of got me in the solar plexus.
Because yes, that baby probably does feel the absence of her mother, no matter how brilliant the care of the men who parent her.

Every baby animal has a need to be with the mother in whom they grew, knowing her heartbeat, her voice, the sway of her body.
We'd empathise if her mother had died. We'd feel grief for her.
We'd understand she would be suffering a loss that would impact her life.

Yet we seem to be manufacturing these babies and engineering their losses purposefully.

I was out with some gay friends and their daughter (born via surrogate) started crying. A little 5 year old next to us went "ah that baby wants her mummy" - awkward silence!

I don't agree with surrogacy but definitely seems to be on the rise amongst the pink pound, and noticeably staying within UK.

The people I know who have used surrogates claim it's all very altruistic but from what I know the women seem to have several kids already, married and not particularly well off. I can't tell if it's a money thing or almost addicted to being pregnant. From my own experience how anyone could go through pregnancy to give a baby away is beyond me.

Yes. I totally agree. It does need an outright ban. Are Mumsnet keeping this piece up ?

And I think those forces seeking to exploit women and make money out of selling babies are so great and will exploit any laws allowing 'altruistic' surrogacy (as already occurs in this country) that it is better to ban outright, as many countries have already done.

I do think IN THEORY that altruistic surrogacy can work - where the birth mother is close or related to commissioning parents and they have a close ongoing relationship, 4th trimester can happen with a gradual hand over to the commissioning mother, and all parents remain in the child's life. However, I think it's clear most surrogacy which is so-called altruistic in this country involves 'expenses' already strays far from the model which centres the child and preserves their dignity. And the MN puff piece and the current consultation are clearly driven by those who want to monetise surrogacy and don't even consider the impact on the child - huge red flag.

She predominately uses a tablet, but she does have a computer, yes. She often uses text-to-speech. DP offered to be a surrogate for DD with no pressure or coercion implied or otherwise. As I've posted I'm torn as to how this whole thing makes me feel between DDs infertility and DPs horrendous pregnancy with DD. That's before the impact on the child. This is a very useful thread for me, and I'm going to get DP, and DD, to read it.

Not really as she's registered blind.
OK, has anybody else noticed this huge red flag?
SimplySteveRedux, has she got a computer set up with specialist screen-reading software? If not, then she's basically relying on what people around her are telling her about the potentially serious medical cons of surrogacy. Unless she can freely do her own research - or at least seek advice from an unbiased, independent expert source - she cannot give informed consent to this procedure!

I agree a surrogate is likely to be given proper health care, because the person or people commissioning the transaction will be paying for it.
Even so, there is still a risk of death. My mother came close to death with me ( eclampsia). A friend’s family member died in the UK after post partum psychosis. The medical care may well stop once the baby has been handed over.
Women do still die, or suffer life changing complications giving birth, even with very good medical care. One close friend has needed a hysterectomy after birth complications, another has had incontinence bad enough to need surgery, a third has been left with a severe prolapse that surgery has not resolved. I lost a lot of blood after a c section that took me a year to recover from. Something that can lead to other major health issues as it can damage the pituitary gland.
Of course people do risky things for fun. However we are careful to protect people in their workplaces, and where the work is inherently dangerous but vital (the Police , the Lifeboat teams etc), everything possible is done to ensure that working as a team minimises the risk to the individual .
It simply isn’t possible to remove risk with surrogacy, and that is just looking at it as a “job like any other”.
Looking at it from a more human perspective, it is an incredibly selfish thing to do, to rent out a woman’s fertility and body, to buy her baby.
Babies are people, not commodities.
Here and in the US, in any articles I’ve read, or tv programmes, I have only seen working class women acting as surrogates, that is very telling I think. Highly educated and comfortably off women do not do this. ( possible rare exceptions for siblings ).

Yes, I think the child has a right to know who all their parents are.

If we were going to make laws about altruistic surrogacy for strangers maybe anonymity would be ideal.
Not for the child! Unless you're proposing they don't meet before the birth but co-parent after?