MN editorial on how wonderful surrogacy is

I've read some accounts of supposed 'altruistic' surrogacy occurring in the UK that tbh I'm struggling to see how they differentiate from commercial surrogacy. Seeking out women online, paying several thousand in 'expenses' (not the extortionate amounts paid in the US but not to be sniffed at if you are in debt, sanctioned by the job centre or in poverty).

This is the judgement of a perfectly legal, apparently altruistic surrogacy agreement in the UK. It's long but worth a read although it's quite upsetting as it clearly involves the exploitation of a vulnerable woman.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/34.html

SimplySteveRedux

While I’m always sorry if anyone suffers pain or distress, that’s not the topic here right now and it’s also not a good reason to allow surrogacy. I had one child and then couldn’t have any more. I also found it upsetting and hard. That still does not mean I’m entitled to use another women’s body and submit her to the risks of pregnancy, or to disregard the effects on the child of creating it in order to separate it from its mother.

Your DD can adopt, yes it’s a hard process but it’s an option that is available and there are many children who need and deserve good parents.

Well of course it's an emotional issue. This site and my life is full of women living with infertility. I don't know a single one who has thought that getting another women to bear a child for her is a solution to that terrible pain.

You are not entitled to biological children, regardless of your personal health situation.

No, of course not, but children are an extremely emotive issue - it's not possible to discuss this in a vacuum. DD crumpled when she received the dx she could not bear children.

MN has helped me more critically appraise surrogacy. I think I still support the choice of the individual woman to be an altruistic surrogate rather than have the law tell her what she can and can’t do with her body.

If its information it should reflect both sides of the debate rather than just how wonderful it is for everyone.

We can confirm that this content page is not an advertisement - its purpose is solely to provide factual information to anyone seeking guidance on surrogacy.

It reads like a sneaky guide on how to exploit loopholes to extend the spirit of the existing law.

I’m going to say it again.

Having children is not a right. You are not entitled to biological children, regardless of your personal health situation. Trying to emotionally manipulate the situation and the intentions of others, is unacceptable. I find it incredibly insulting to those who suffer ill health.

@OralBElectricToothbrush it may be hard to believe but I have a daughter who had cancer in childhood and had chemo which can lead to infertility. If she does have to face that awful struggle I have no qualms at all in opposing her using surrogacy, for the reasons outlined by @anothernotherone.

(If you think I’m trolling I can easily prove to MN that I do have a daughter who had cancer.)

Wow, Blue, what a callous attitude. 'Sorry, you had cancer and now you'll never have your own biological child, but of course, you can take your infertility better because you've known about it longer and just make the best of it.' Fucking hell. Cannot imagine feeling that cavalier about my daughter, for example.

Altruistic (unpaid apart from expenses) surrogacy is legal in the uk. Commercial (paid) is illegal. The demand is far higher than altruistic can provide so most people seeking surrogacy have to go overseas. As a result it's generally only the well off who can afford surrogacy.

I think if commercial surrogacy was made legal in the uk then overseas surrogacy from some countries would still be cheaper.

The main reason for making it legal would be to regulate it and reduce the demand for overseas surrogacy and make things less stressful.

I doubt the govt would ban overseas surrogacy - after all, imagine the press they'd get denying entry when the parents (uk citizens) arrive home with a child that's 50 or 100% genetically theirs.

Given the large surplus of children waiting for adoption, the govt should be concentrating on reducing that before legalising commercial surrogacy.

OralBElectricToothbrush, I get your point but there are many people unable to have children for one reason or another, in some cases IVF is not an option even if they wanted it. It's sad but there are other things they can do if they cannot have kids; lots of people live fulfilling and useful lives without children and are happy. I would think a girl who has known since childhood that she cannot bear a child would be better prepared than someone who didn't know until being investigated for infertility.

A significant percentage of female children who have to undergo cancer treatment pre-puberty are rendered unable to carry a pregnancy. So by your own standards if they survive they get the double whammy of also being unable to have their own biological child and well, fuck 'em, suck it up, buttercup, because I don't like altruistic surrogacy. Okay .

It’s presented as an information piece.

I am pretty much 100% anti-surrogacy, but in an editorial I expect to hear someone's opinion. Not the same sort of overview I would expect in a more journalistic piece.

What a weird thing to say sakura. If what you say is true there would be no surrogacy because the person who carries the baby would keep the baby. Spectacularly missing the point there.

As for the genetic parents not mattering -- also complete rubbish from the point of view of the person created by donor egg or sperm. It is a really horrible feeling not to know where half your genetic identity comes from, where you get certain features or traits from, and it can be literally life-threatening. The law changed on donor anonymity in Australia after a donor-conceived woman died of cancer in her 20s. She could have been saved if she had received crucial health info from her "sperm donor" ie father.
Narelle's law

I've just read the "infomercial" referenced in the OP. Wow. Just wow. Absolutely zero information about possible downsides for the surrogate mother, or the child -- or the parents whose kid may struggle with having come in to the world this way but who are totally unprepared for it.

Was this sponsored by Surrogacy UK? Or some other lobby group? I'm genuinely shocked that this propaganda is being presented as factual info. In fact, perhaps @MNHQ could clarify who actually wrote it?

I think an article truly seeking to provide 'factual information' might want to mention the rights of the child - and the fact that many donor conceived children have issues - as any prospective commissioning parent should at the very least consider how their child might feel when they grow up.

We can confirm that this content page is not an advertisement - its purpose is solely to provide factual information to anyone seeking guidance on surrogacy.

Well it reads like an advertisment, for one thing you fail to mention the many, many countries in which surrogacy is illegal and the reasons for this. In France, from what I've read one of the main objections is that surrogacy denies the human right to dignity in that it places the rights of the commissioning adults above the rights of the child.

The fact is in any surrogacy situation the adults CAN'T know the impact on the child. They are intentionally creating a situation which could be enormously damaging to the child because of their desire to be a parent. This seems blatantly wrong to me, and seems to raise red flags for their ability to be good parents. If they're putting their own desires before a child's needs at the start - and a child needs their gestational mother at birth, that's just biology and years of evolution - what hope is there once the child gets older and develops a mind of their own and perhaps isn't happy about how they were created through surrogacy. How they feel they were bought and sold?

The discussion is very adult centric in this country (and in the MN article). What about the rights of the child? There is evidence that sperm donor conceived children have a problem with the way they were brought into the world and also some evidence that children of surrogacy (those brave enough to speak out and risk alienation from all parents) do too (there was a great video in a previous thread on the consultation) . slate.com/human-interest/2010/06/new-study-shows-sperm-donor-kids-suffer.html

Great posts Jessica also Lass and really appreciate your views Donor.

I love the way one woman put it on another surrogacy thread.

The genetic parents ( donor egg/sperm) simply provide the knitting pattern. It is the woman who is pregnant and gives birth who knits the baby using the resources of her own body. She is the mother

Blimey, those who think that the genetic parents aren't really the parents do not know what they're talking about.

I've got two half-siblings who were also donor-conceived (that I know of -- there are almost certainly many more). One recently had a colonoscopy which revealed polyps, showing him to be at higher risk of developing bowel cancer. He was advised to tell his siblings to get tested as well. Having had metres of tubing up my backside to decide whether I had cancer or not, I can tell you that genes most definitely do matter.

Disclaimer: I am NC with my social father and almost NC with my mother for reasons not directly connected with being donor conceived -- so I am very jaded on the subject. I do realise that some people may have a happy "adoptive" family in these circumstances. But even if they do, they still need to be aware of the genetic issues.

I am absolutely against surrogacy, for all the reasons given above by pps who are also against it.
Women and babies should not be bought and sold. Surrogacy is essentially prostitution of pregnancy and childbirth.
I used to think that close family members should be an exception, but I now see that this is also open to coercion and exploitation.