MN editorial on how wonderful surrogacy is

There are different ways of being a mother, genetic, biological, breastfeeding, legal and social. It makes life easier for the child if these roles can be consolidated into as few people as possible.

Your mother is the woman who gave birth to you. Anybody else is adoptive mother, surrogate mother etc.

yes the commissioning parent is the surrogate not the woman who gave birth. I won't have people destroying language. We've lost woman and now they want us to give up the word mother. No way

Apologies for typos I’m typing one handed in between wrangling my toddler!

I disagree, the people who CREATED a baby are the two genetic parents, the ones who gave the egg and the sperm. They will always be the ones who created the baby.

I don’t underatand how you can say the mother who ‘carries’ the baby also did not create it. The egg and the sperm are the fundamental building blocks for the baby undeniably, but the woman whose womb and placenta and very breathe nourishes and grows the baby is certainly not just ‘carrying it’

If the genetic parents have no one to play , why is it so important for children conceived from donor sperm to have access to who the sperm donor was??

And with IVF, the embryo is conceived out of the womb. Many people consider that this is a person already rather than a few cells. Especially imo when the embryo has reached blastocyst (when it has very high chances to develop into a fully developed baby

ComeandDance - adoptive mothers are mothers but they're not biological mothers. Every single adoptive parent I know is very careful in explaining that to their children from the outset because lying to your children about their biological origins has been found to be very damaging.

Explaining to a child that you are looking after them because their mother wasn't able to is one thing. Explaining that you paid your child's mother to give you a child is quite another

There are different ways of being a mother, genetic, biological, breastfeeding, legal and social. It makes life easier for the child if these roles can be consolidated into as few people as possible.

@Barracker I disagree, the people who CREATED a baby are the two genetic parents, the ones who gave the egg and the sperm. They will always be the ones who created the baby.

The the woman does CARRY the baby, giving him/her the right envrionement for them to develop. But a woman who is carrying a foetus from a donor egg has no more created the baby than the father who has a child from a donor sperm.
'carry'
What bullshit!
The sperm and egg donor create a sperm and an egg. That's it.

Which they are entitled to right up until the moment that - microscopic- embryo is inside another woman.

Your dopey euphemisms 'carrying' a baby which 'develops' (photosynthesis, presumably) are there for you to deceive yourself about reality.

You might just as well argue that every cake you bake is the property of Mary Berry because despite providing the ingredients, labour and oven, you used her recipe so she owns your cake.

Grow up.

You can't reclaim your blood donation once it's in my body because it's now mine.

If egg and sperm donors don't want their genetic material to fall under the parental rights of someone else don't put it in another woman's body and expect her to create a human being and hand it over to you

Female humans aren't inert bags of tomato compost you plant a seed in and then harvest.
Or carrier bags that hold your shopping.

The stupid fairytales people tell themselves to justify the indefensible USING of other people like farming stock. Ugh.

ComeandDance

If you are saying adoptive mothers are mothers then genetics has nothing to do with parenthood and so it doesn't matter who the sperm and egg belonged to. But I don't agree with this at all. The mother is the woman who carried and birthed the baby regardless of who the egg or sperm belonged to. In the case of adoptive parents this right (ie motherhood) is passed to others because it is best for the child (or should be) not because its the best thing for the adoptive parents. Surrogacy isn't about the best think for the child - its all about what parents want.

The woman who grows and gives birth to the baby is the biological mother unless we are pretending that pregnancy and childbirth is not the fundamental biological process through which reproduction occurs and instead claiming that pregnant women just carry foetuses around in a backpack for a bit.

Comparing the role of pregnant women to that of men is however a good way of minimising the seriousness (sometimes life and death) of pregnancy and childbirth and will undoubtedly make it easier for those who would like to be able to rent the bodies of desperate women and can now claim it's no big deal and just like donating sperm.

@OrchidInTheSun, actually if you read my post tp the end you will see im calling 'adoptive mothers' mothers. becayse thats what they are.
mothers who conceived through egg donor didnt conceive the baby (thats why they couldnt have a child in the first place!). So no they are not mothers as in the ones who conceived them. I think they are coser to adoptive mothers.

But still a mother. (unless you are saying that adoptive mothers arent mothers? i doubt it)

Which is why I think MN's sudden decision to include a pro-surrogacy piece is a bit questionable

Yeah it is and I’m a bit surprised.

Has anyone studied the effects on the child of being born to a surrogate? What are the long term effects on the children? Is it known to be detrimental to them?

It's not a surrogacy study, but in "Childhood Disrupted" by Donna Jackson Nazakawa, research shows that a stressful pregnancy affects the foetus and can lead to higher chances of depression, anxiety, autoimmune disease, amongst others. The research shows if the HPA axis (fight, flight, freeze) response is firing often in the mother, bathing her in inflammatory chemicals like cortisol and oestrogen, it can have a direct impact on key developmental pathways in the foetus.

a woman who is carrying a foetus from a donor egg has no more created the baby than the father who has a child from a donor sperm

You need to revisit your studies of the mechanics of human gestation. Do you think that child is grown from fresh air and rainbows?

On that basis ComeandDance, you're saying that women who have used donor eggs to conceive are not mothers. They're just incubators.

But that isn't how the human body works. Our bodies make the placenta. We feed the foetus, everything we eat affects it, as does everything we do.

And commercial surrogacy is not legal in the U.K. at the moment. But there is a massive push to allow it. And a public consultation taking place.

Which is why I think MN's sudden decision to include a pro-surrogacy piece is a bit questionable

Has anyone studied the effects on the child of being born to a surrogate? What are the long term effects on the children? Is it known to be detrimental to them?

Why don't you ask the child referred to above born with Down's syndrome and cruelly rejected causing a country to change it's laws?

I also think that a lot of the posts on here are based on the american system

No. Most here are saying they’re opposed to any form of surrogacy.

@Barracker I disagree, the people who CREATED a baby are the two genetic parents, the ones who gave the egg and the sperm. They will always be the ones who created the baby.

The the woman does CARRY the baby, giving him/her the right envrionement for them to develop. But a woman who is carrying a foetus from a donor egg has no more created the baby than the father who has a child from a donor sperm.

@ComeAndDance

I agree completely with your post.

The choice to proceed with a pregnancy

Again, not the same thing. How hard is this to grasp? The inception, is planned and undertaken with the intention to separate mother and child. There is no other situation like it.

@DecomposingComposers I agree.
People wouldnt bat an eye lid at a woman who decides to carry on with the pregnancy to then give it for adoption rather than chose to abort. What's the difference for the child?

I also think that a lot of the posts on here are based on the american system where women can be paid to carry a child. Its a totally different thing imo. Just as I am against someone selling body parts, such as a kidney, for money, I am also against women selling their uterus for a child. If this is happening, then it should be done as a gift. Just like a woman could CHOOSE to give one of her kidney to someone she doesnt know, despite the risks associated with it.

I have to say Im not so sure about the whole story that the mother is the one who carried the baby. Sure the baby will know that parent very well. (they wont know the smell though but they will know her voice).
I know someone who was adopted shortly after birth. His main thing when he met his birth parents was to discover that he had the same interests than his birth father. That actually his temperament was also very similar. So clearly genetics had a big part in it.
Same when they say that children whose grand parents were in concetration camps still bear those hardship in their brain etc... Genetics again are at play.

Basically what I am saying is that its extremely complicated. When you look at the effect on the child (rather than the effect on the woman carrying the baby), then its not just the woman carrying the baby who has such an impact. Its who the 'genetic' parents are too.

Last word regarding women who have IVF with donor egg.
of course these women are called mothers! the same way that an doptive mother is called a mother. I wouldt dare calling them anything else. Its nothing to do with carrying the child or not (otherwise how do you deal woth fathers?). It's to do with the fact they are the one who will care for the baby as their mum.

If it's a baby born as a result of an altruistic surrogate, loved and cared for I think that is less harmful than a child being dragged up in a terrible family situation

The child will probably be a lot better off than a child born into a war-torn country or a child born in a 19th century workhouse.

Adoption and surrogacy are different Imho, especially in the UK. A massive majority of adoption is through the none consent of the birth parents and newborns are rarely adopted unless it's done via foster to adopt.

Surrogacy bothers me massively but, most of the coverage I have seen is in the UK. Usually family members or friends offering to be a surrogate and being okay with it. I was also under the impression that commercial surrogacy was banned in the UK?

@DonorConceivedMe as mum to a donor conceived child I'd be interested in your story.

ONLY surrogacy deliberately sets out to separate mother and child

The choice to proceed with a pregnancy with the intention of giving the child up for adoption also sets out to separate mother and child.