Famous men and surrogacy

Not sure how being against surrogacy = homophobia.

I'm sure many men make excellent parents regardless of their sexuality. Gay men have various options if they want to undertake a parenting role. Their sexuality doesn't give them a free pass to take babies away from their mothers.

That's not what I said, it's what you've made it mean. Read again.

It’s not homophobic to be against commercial - or indeed any - surrogacy.

Hi all ... I've just read the comments above and it seems that there's a lack of acknowledgement that men in general can also be parents. Some might even think that there's a slightly anti-male flavour in the thread. Unresolved anger perhaps? Additionally, the dismissal of gay-males as parents is homophobic.
Perhaps even more importantly, I'm curious to know if those of you who have voiced such anti-Surrogacy views, have ever actually met a surrogate, or met parents whose child has been born through surrogacy, or indeed an actual person who was born through surrogacy?
Of course, each of us is entitled to our opinions on any matter. However, righteous indignation that lacks any meaningful experience of an issue, simply comes across as prejudice and discrimination against people whose lifestyles we don't understand. Thus, such opinion is ignorant and offensive.

I'd be a terrible Catholic - all that stuff about sacred bonds between husband and wife!

I used to think altruistic surrogacy was okay (even offered to do it for a friend once). This was back in the days when I had very little clue about babies, their development, and their needs. Suffice to say the psychological impact on the potential baby hadn't really occurred to me.

Nowadays I'm more inclined to give altruistic surrogacy the side-eye, because it might be a kindness to the woman can't carry her own child, but there's nothing altruistic about creating a baby with the sole intention of taking it away from its mother at birth. It's not a kindness to the potential child.

I could be a good Catholic. Lol.

@Lolasaurous

One of the reasons there is so much discussion about this on Mumsnet is the law Commission Consultation on new surrogacy laws in the uk. Proposals which seek to remove the protections which the law currently provides.
A key tenet is drawing up contracts which will make the commissioning parents the legal parents at birth, sweeping away the current law which ensures the surrogate mother and her partner are the legal parents at birth.

This also reduces protections to the baby as a post birth application for transfer of parental rights involves closer scrutiny of the commissioning parents with the best interests of the child at the centre.

This directly contravenes recommendations from the United Nations which seek to protect women and babies.

There are just four days left to respond to the consultation. I urge you to do so. Surrogacy in the UK at present is well regulated and closely monitored but new laws will open up the commercial market. They recommend lifting the current ban on advertising for instance.

There is good explanation here as well as a draft reply you can download and send. (It is very time consuming and complex replying thoughtfully to all 118 questions).

nordicmodelnow.org/2019/08/30/how-to-respond-to-the-uk-surrogacy-consultation-in-10-easy-minutes/

Obviously I think a woman should have and has the ability to make an informed decision. Obviously I'm against exploitation. And I believe the baby should not be removed from her at birth, should be with her as long as possible, ideally she should continue to be involved in the childs life, definitely for the first year. If it's two men, maybe longer, maybe that sounds homophobic but I don't think two men should be able to just use a woman to create a family, and the child needs their/a mother. I'm not saying gay men make bad parents, and I do think they should be able to adopt. Not sure about surrogacy though. And yes, totally against the creation of a market for buying and selling babies/renting wombs. And against the commodification of babies and women. But a woman with full knowledge, carrying a child for another who can't, simply out of altruistic reasons.. people here think that should be illegal?

According to my religion I'm supposed to be completely against surrogacy. I guess you are all better Catholics than me, I'm reading some of the same things here, actually some of you are much harsher than the CC, haha.

"The Catholic Catechism states that a child is a gift not a right, and that surrogacy is "gravely immoral" because a third party comes between the "one flesh" principle that unites husband and wife. In 1987, the Donum Vitae congregation issued a statement on surrogacy, echoing the views of the Catechism and adding that it violates the dignity of the child. A further statement in 2008 through the Dignitas Personae congregation reinforced the teaching that conception should only be a product of conjugal love."
classroom.synonym.com/religious-views-on-surrogacy-12087756.html

"...All technologies which are designed to aid the mechanisms God has given us for procreation are perfectly acceptable, according to the Church. Women and men can take drugs or have surgeries to improve their fertility or their sexual capabilities, for instance.

However, the Church wants to push back against our culture’s understanding that children can be created with technology and distributed via a market. Children are to come as a gift from God via a sexual relationship — instead of being procured as a product or thing. Any reproductive procedure that involves something other than aiding sex and pregnancy within the context of a married couple permanently committed to being the parents of this child together is something the Church insists misses the mark. This includes everything from creating a child in a laboratory to the use of another person as a surrogate to carry the child through pregnancy. The fact that some of us will not be able to be biological parents is a painful one, but the Church claims this is one of the hard truths that we must endure if we believe that children are gifts with their own inherent dignity — rather than things we have the right to purchase on the open market."

bustedhalo.com/questionbox/does-the-catholic-church-support-the-use-of-a-surrogate-mother-to-have-a-child

"WATERLOO, Wisconsin, May 30, 2017 – Surrogacy is a "moral evil" that commidifies human beings and subverts the natural relationship between husband and wife, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin, explained to the faithful earlier this month.

Morlino, known for his vocations-attracting orthodoxy, said this in a talk at Holy Family parish on May 18.

Morlino has a doctorate in moral theology and is on the Board of Directors of the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

Pink & Blue Surrogacy and Fertility recently moved to Waterloo. The company, which a local media report explains "works with straight and same-sex couples and single people," charges $15,000 to coordinate a surrogate pregnancy.

"The entire process can range from $75,000-$125,000 from start to finish," Pink & Blue's website says. An "Abortion/Selective Reduction Fee" ranges from $500 to $3,500.

Although surrogacy may seem like "an act of charity" because it provides couples with children, it's not, Morlino said.

The creation of a new human being within marriage is a "safe space" for God, Morlino said. Surrogacy disrupts the "sacred circle" of marriage by inserting a third party into what should be between husband and wife. Similarly, in-vitro fertilization and artificial insemination aren't morally permissible, he said.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' 'right to become a father and a mother only through each other'" (CCC 2376).

"A child is not something owed to one," the Catechism continues (CCC 2378).
"2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."

Morlino encouraged his flock to pray the rosary publicly and privately for the "conversion of hearts in Waterloo," the Madison Catholic Herald reported."
www

I don't know how I feel about surrogacy. I do have concerns. But to the people who responded to me by saying you're not allowed to sell your kidneys and other organs, correct. You can give them through donation though. You're not allowed to sell babies in the UK either. Surrogacy has to be altruistic (with reasonable expenses paid, not sure if there is an amount), and any contract is not enforceable by law. I hear there may be changes. I haven't looked at what those may be yet. Also, a baby is not one of your organs, so I find that a weird comparison.

www.gov.uk/legal-rights-when-using-surrogates-and-donors

"Overview
Surrogacy is legal in the UK, but if you make a surrogacy agreement it cannot be enforced by the law.

The legal parents at birth
If you use a surrogate, they will be the child’s legal parent at birth.

If the surrogate is married or in a civil partnership, their spouse or civil partner will be the child’s second parent at birth, unless they did not give their permission.

Legal parenthood can be transferred by parental order or adoption after the child is born.

If there is disagreement about who the child’s legal parents should be, the courts will make a decision based on the best interests of the child.

Surrogacy agreements
The intended parents and surrogate can record how they want the arrangement to work in a surrogacy agreement.

Surrogacy agreements are not enforceable by UK law, even if you have a signed document with your surrogate and have paid their expenses.

You cannot pay a surrogate in the UK, except for their reasonable expenses."

here

Can you copy the thread over timshel? I will jump on and present an alternative view. Double donation, I don't know, it's just manufacturing isn't it? Yuk.

There's a thread going right now featuring a female OP who has poor ovarian reserve so is going for conceiving by double donation and nothing but 'go for it' and 'thanks to all those who donate' and such comments.

It's just interesting how MN considers the two.

Thanks, FannyCann.
My 20yo son was laughing at me. He kept trying to show me something on YouTube he thought I'd find interesting and I was all "I can't, I'm busy Feministing. Show me when I've completed another 3 chapters of this."

He was all, "They're making it hard because PATRIARCHY! You can do it, Mum, you take a fruitless stand against the inevitable capitalist and patriarchal juggernaut."

He mocks me but he knows I'm right, the bugger.

I think there was another thread as well but this is one. I've been dipping in occasionally to learn more about the process. I'm no expert obv but it does seem that current thinking is to keep hormone doses low and retrieve a lower number of eggs and avoid problems with hyper stimulation.

5 eggs from retrieval :(
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/infertility/3694453-5-eggs-from-retrieval

Thank you for that, FannyCann. I'll update my position accordingly: egg donation doesn't necessarily involve removing a newborn from its mother. Surrogacy always does.

Paid egg donation I'd put up there with prostitution and commercial surrogacy. Doesn't matter if some few are happy enough with whatever arrangements they make; enabling the practice is always going to result in poor women being exploited and suffering horrendous consequences.

timshelthechoice

but they're hailed as heroes and so 'selfless' for 'giving life'

I don't know where egg "donors" are hailed as heroes except perhaps in the advertising material presented to fecund young women. Surely not on fwr/Mumsnet?
Apart from issues relating to the genetic implications I think most people have concerns related to the health of the "donor". Which, incidentally is a very different issue than when women go through the egg retrieval process for their own purposes for ivf.

Firstly there is the matter of choice, doing it for oneself.

More importantly, for a woman undergoing IVF if she produced 10 eggs that would be more than enough for several rounds of implantation (assuming they were all good quality) as they shouldn't have more than two embryos implanted at a time.

For commercial egg collection the more the merrier. Donors report having 50 eggs retrieved!
Clearly they are given increased doses of hormones to produce this extreme reaction with all the obvious risks attached.

Interestingly I have seen some threads on Mumsnet infertility board, women worried that only two or three eggs were retrieved but the consensus seems to be that a smaller number is more likely to give better quality, and as one doctor said, you only need one good one.

I'll see if I can find the link.

Another interesting link.

[[https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/28/egg-donors-risks]]/

By the way, I read Broken Bonds by Jennifer Lahl, it features a young woman who was totally groomed and exploited for her eggs. Now she has cancer of the breast, which may or may not be related to the hormonal assaults her body has suffered over a ten year period. One of the things that stands out in so many of the stories in that book (which is very upsetting to read) is the lack of care towards the women providing the product. It really is all about the money.

Broken Bonds: Surrogate Mothers Speak Out
by Amazon.co.uk
Learn more: ]]m]]]]w]]]]r]]]]p_]]

[Edited by MNHQ at posters request]

I didn’t state that egg donation was ok. So I don’t understand your response to me timshelthechoice ?

Well done Stroppy It's hard work Isn't it!

But egg donation is okay?

Egg donation has been completely ignored in the consultation. There are no questions relating to it. When the lawyers were asked about this at a public event first they said they had just confined themselves to surrogacy, and egg donation was regulated by the HFEA. When it was pointed out that eggs are actually rather an important part of the deal one of them threw up his hands and said "we're lawyers not doctors"!

In the USA young women are targeted and groomed and coerced to be egg donors sellers - they can earn up around $10,000 and they are encouraged to look on it as a way to pay off their college fees.
They aren't told the risks.

Watch #eggsploitation to understand the harms.

The consultation recommends lifting the current ban on advertising. I wonder, if egg donation is left out of new laws if this will leave more room for manoeuvre to offer increased payments etc? Those lawyers aren't fools after all.

The risks of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome are well known. At an anecdotal level, even though my hospital does not offer ivf services, it is the nhs that picks up the pieces when problems arise and in recent months I have had two young women come through my department (for entirely unrelated reasons) one of whom had nearly died and needed icu, the other was very ill albeit avoiding an icu admission as a result of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome.
There are also risks related to the egg retrieval process that I hadn't even thought about, including haemorrhage, intestinal puncture, peritonitis, ureteric injury and ovarian torsion.

www.nap.edu/read/11832/chapter/5

I don't want my daughters, our young women, targeted and coerced into this. It absolutely is part of surrogacy and it's a disgrace that no attention has been paid to this in the consultation.

It involves artificial production of gametes for use in creating a child that is not biologically the carrier's, but somehow this is totally acceptable because someone wants a baby at the end of the day but altruistic surrogacy is not. And believe me, abroad, women sell their genetic material, eggs, for thousands, because someone wants a baby and can't have one. We're not even sure of the possible long-term health complications to these young women, but they're hailed as heroes and so 'selfless' for 'giving life' but surrogacy is absolutely awful. It's all about someone wanting a baby and using someone else to get one, yet according to MN, no one is 'entitled' to or has a right to, a baby.

Egg donation doesn't involve permanently removing a newborn from the woman who gestated and birthed it, whom it understands as its mother. So not really comparable to my mind.

Egg donation is a whole different ball game and the health risks are still long term, but I see this as slightly less inconvenient as it is over sooner and doesn't involve a risky pregnancy for 9-10 months. It still means another life can be created and I see it as giving away your DNA and creating a half-sibling for your child or future children.

If you never wanted children of your own and it was done for altruistic purposes for a family member or best friend who would then carry the baby, without payment (but expenses were covered) I would still think it's risky but find it morally acceptable but barely.

The Law Commission failed to cover this thoroughly in the consultation and much is not yet known about the long term health risks.

Thanks for the prompt to fill in the consultation. Cripes, that was lengthy, even with the Nordic Model's help

Surrogacy should be illegal

But egg donation is okay? Females pumping their bodies with artificial hormones that risk their health and which may have future negative impact on them to donate their genetic material for the express purpose of creating a human being because someone, including other females, fancy a baby?

I think there has been a bit of a shift on MN at least. When Tom Daley and Lance Black announced the birth of their child, there was a thread on here saying how lovely it was.

I was told I was a horrible homophobic person for saying that I fundamentally disagreed with surrogacy.

I know this thread is in feminism but I feels like the pro surrogacy voices are quieter (I used to think it wasn't too bad until I actually thought about it). Because the narrative is always about the adults, never the babies.