MN editorial on how wonderful surrogacy is

The surrogacy paid for her year at home

yes there are risks but why is her using her body to earn a year’s wage

Is your friend in the UK? If she is, the UK does not allow commercial surrogacy- which is exactly what happened here.

My best friend used a surrogate as she could produce eggs but not carry a pregnancy. The surrogate wanted a year at home with her own kids but could not afford it. The surrogacy paid for her year at home

How would your friend have felt if the surrogate had been left disabled by the pregnancy? Or even killed, leaving those children she wanted to be at home with motherless? I get the feeling this anecdote is supposed to be a positive spin on surrogacy but it's just really grim IMO. It's literally buying the body of a woman who needs money.

@anothernotherone it happened in Oregon in the USA.

I’m not sure that the fourth trimester is denied. My friend did all sorts of skin to skin and baby mooning. She couldn’t breast feed but bottle feeding not an act of deprivation.

You can't sell a kidney, its unethical. The risks to you are too high.

Yet you can altruistically donate a kidney as a living donor.

Equating an organ and a potential human life?... Really?
I noticed that on the opt out list that one of the 'not for donation at present' list was also womb and feotus.... This 'at present' really worries me!

To intentionally create a child that is to be separated from its mother, is immoral in my opinion

This is my opinion too, we know that this can cause lasting trauma to the child.

Do you think that adoption should be banned to then?

All kinds unhappy situations arise but that is not equivalent to the planning that goes into surrogacy.

The only person I could have been a surrogate for was my sister. If I had been her surrogate then I would always have a relationship with the child as its aunt. I would expect the child to be told the truth about his/her conception. Commercial/ surrogacy for strangers for "expenses" should be banned. The world is overpopulated anyway. Having a child when you cant naturally conceive should not be seen as a right especially when you need a strangers body or gametes to get what you want.

Yup, to opt for denying a newborn the fourth trimester is awful.

Do you think that adoption should be banned to then? I can't see the difference between adoption and surrogacy as regards the 4th trimester.

Not really as she's registered blind.

SimplySteveRedux,
Any chance of your DP writing her own opinion here?

Yes, DPs own pregnancy with DD was fraught with some rather serious issues, I must admit the thought of DP having the same issues again worries me. DP is viewing the whole thing as the greatest gift she could ever provide.

It's definitely a minefield, and given the familial situation I'm rather torn.

SimplySteveRedux

My sincere sympathy for the situation in which you and your family finds itself.

But for me, surrogate pregnancy, however close, or emotionally or financially compensated, is still, other women, ..supplying their body and taking great personal health risks, to satisfy the desires....

Pregnancy is complicated and potentially dangerous, even deadly, even in this day and age.

DD has a very rare condition affecting her reproductive system. She has been told if she wishes to have a child it needs to be within the next couple of years. DDs mum has offered to carry the baby as a surrogate, without this option DD would have no possibility of having a child.

You can't sell a kidney, its unethical. The risks to you are too high.

Yet you can altruistically donate a kidney as a living donor.

I am totally with JessicaWakefieldSV on this

To intentionally create a child that is to be separated from its mother, is immoral in my opinion. It is a truly selfish thing to do. For the majority of surrogacy, it’s about poor women supplying their body and taking great personal health risks, to satisfy the desires of the rich. I am completely against it.

To intentionally create a child that is to be separated from its mother, is immoral in my opinion. It is a truly selfish thing to do. For the majority of surrogacy, it’s about poor women supplying their body and taking great personal health risks, to satisfy the desires of the rich. I am completely against it.

This is where I am with surrogacy

Completely against it

In the majority of cases the baby will be the product of an egg donor, and gestated in a different woman. If the baby is handed over to another couple the baby has two or three mothers (egg donor/gestator/“intended parent” if female), and none, at the same time.

I’m a donor conceived adult (sperm donor) and the fact that I don’t know my biological father is a great sadness to me.

It's banned in Thailand after the western commissioning parents decided they wouldn't take the baby as it has Down's syndrome

I agree with a lot of what JessicaWakefieldSV said but do parents really have to be rich to have a surrogate? Presumably, both would be working full time throughout the pregnancy and could afford to pay someone a percentage of their income per month.

To intentionally create a child that is to be separated from its mother, is immoral in my opinion.

Yup, to opt for denying a newborn the fourth trimester is awful.

Trading human bodies is awful.

'There are problems' is an understatement. What if the fetus is disabled? What if either party changes their mind? If you want to shoehorn in the Armed Forces as an analogy, then I'll raise you with selling a kidney.
You can't sell a kidney, its unethical. The risks to you are too high.

Womens bodies and children are not commodities to be traded, bought or sold.

Well said @JessicaWakefieldSV

Click bait?