Famous men and surrogacy

Completely agree @Taxtaxtax

I think the woman herself has the right to make decisions over what happens to her body, ahead of what the ‘people who love her’ want.

If she has made the decision that she’d rather keep life support on to keep the fetus alive, personally I think her wishes should be respected. I would be upset if it was my sister but if she expressed her wish then I wouldn’t go against that.

If she hasn’t explicitly said that, it goes to her next of kin to make the decision.

At no point should the parents have any say in the mother’s health unless she becomes incapable of making decisions and has explicitly said and signed something - even then I’d imagine it would be hard to uphold and it’s a very hypothetical question.

Surrogacy for money should be illegal worldwide, i think the UK has it right. Likewise people going to poor countries for surrogates, it doesn’t sit right. Altruistic surrogacy is no one else’s business but the woman and the parents.

It’s sad how little faith people have in women to make their own informed choices. No wonder we’re going backwards in this part.

Suggesting the law should change to prevent women from having a choice in what they do with their bodies, as if they’re too thick to decide themselves, does not sit right.

Any aspects that mean the woman does not have a choice in the matter, is already illegal in the UK. So you are, essentially, saying a woman shouldn’t be able to decide what she can do with her body and that makes me feel very uneasy.

I'm not saying I'd be happy with it, but if it was my brain dead sisters choice that that's what her body was used for, then whether I'd be happy about it or not is irrelevant to her choice of what she wanted to do with her body.

Now what I would consider an argument against allowing that is the issue of consent. Can a brain dead person consent and if consent was given prior to becoming brain dead, would the fact that because they are brain dead remove consent because they are no longer capable of physically withdrawing consent? Or should the consent be passed to next of kin etc.

Lots of 5 month old child, and older , are adopted for many reasons

What about if the reason is that a rich person is really sad that they don’t have children and offers the child’s mother a bunch of money to take the child off her hands?

Because that’s what is being talked about here

Lots of 5 month old child, and older , are adopted for many reasons.

Evading my question yet again....

Sure, lots of children are adopted, but this is done through the state, and only as a last resort, and only with extensive vetting and interviewing.

You believe it's all up to the individual, so much so that (you claim) you'd be perfectly happy for your brain dead sister to be kept artificially alive indefinitly to provide gestational services to strangers. So why would you not also believe that a mother can give away her 5 month old to a stanger so long as she signs that all-important contract? No need for all that faffy oversight by the state? Who are YOU to tell her she can't, eh?

You’re cool with your brain dead sister being used as a human incubator?

Are you Charlie Brooker researching for the next series of Black Mirror?

I'm really not playing devils advocate and I'm as horrified at the views that oppose mine as they are to my views.

Lots of 5 month old child, and older , are adopted for many reasons.

I’m pro not taking other women’s choices away.

Some people are all about freedom TO, not freedom FROM aren’t they?

And mypuddin, I can only hope you’re playing devils advocate. Otherwise.......Jesus

That's what my point is, why should YOU decide that they can't?

I shouldn't. But the law should. And the law should never ever allow someone's selfish wish to have 'their own' child to take priority over human dignity and the wishes of a person's loved ones.

BTW you never answered my question - this is becoming a pattern - as to why a mother should not be allowed to sign a contract giving away her 5 month old to share the 'joy of parenthood'. After all, some women might choose to do this and why should YOU decide that they can't?

If that what I wanted then yes.

It's what SOME people do, yes @IcedPurple . I don't understand why you find it so difficult to understand that some people chose to be surrogates and go into it with their eyes open. That's what my point is, why should YOU decide that they can't?

if that's what my dead sister wanted and signed to, then I'd have to suck it up.

And if she 'wanted and signed to' a contract which, as described above, allowed her to be kept 'alive' indefinitely as a human incubator for strangers, you'd be shrugging your shoulders at that too?

She said it's just what you do back home and if I can help someone who can't have children then I'd love to!

So putting yourself through pregnancy and childbirth to 'help' someone is 'just what you do' in NZ? So there's no problem with infertility because some other woman will happily volunteer her own body to 'help'?

Must be an incredibly generous society. Could you ask her just what men do to help others? Or is it only women being called upon to make sacrifices?

parties should have tight legal contracts

This is just NOT possible. Read the link I posted. It’s from FannyCann from a previous thread, but it highlights the problems with contracts. You just cannot do it.

I do agree that people should not be allowed to Womb and Baby shop from poor countries. It’s exploitation.

I HRTFT because I really need to leave the house but just my 2 pence. Whilst I agree and completely understand where you are coming from, I know a amazing mum at school who is from NZ and she did this. She said it's just what you do back home and if I can help someone who can't have children then I'd love to! She see the now 3 year old a couple of times a year and the family even named him after her son. So, I do think some people are really happy to do this.

@NotBadConsidering if that's what my dead sister wanted and signed to, then I'd have to suck it up.

@FannyCann, interesting stats that actually also say that women shouldnt conceive via donor egg either.....

As far as I am aconcerned, there are several parents there

• the biological father
• the woman who gave the eggs
• the woman who carried the baby
• the man wo will play the role of a father for the child (the second partner in the gay couple)

Tbh, the one role that is quite clear is the one of the biological father. The one of his partner is also quote well defined.
Who is or isnt 'the mother' in that equation is to be discussed (is it the woman who gave the eggs or the one who ccried the baby?) and what is impact of missing one of them is to be established (I include there the children born from egg donor - there many of them nowdays, some of which might never 'know' who gave them their genetic make up).
There is some sort of experiment going on there much on much wider scale than just the issue of gay men becoming fathers.

The issue of 'renting'/paying for the use of a woman's body is another issue entirely imo. I do not agree with that one but bthis is an entirely american issue. Surrogacy is totally different in the UK. And the women I have met who do that do it from an entirely altruistic pov.

A lot of this comes back to the point I made several pages back: we don't just legislate to cover the easy, Mary Poppins cases, we legislate to cover the really hard cases and protect the vulnerable.

A surrogate with hyperemisis to the point of it making her life a living hell - can she abort for the sake of her health and mental well-being if the commissioning parents say no? A Catholic surrogate - can she be forced to abort a foetus found to have Downs syndrome on the say so of the Commissioning parents?

The baby is born and the commissioning parents don't want it - who picks up the pieces? The birth mother realises in the third trimester that agreeing to surrogacy was a mistake and she's bonded with the child she's carrying - has she irrevocably waived all rights?

All these genuine issues don't go away by focusing on the Mary Poppins version.

No mypuddin I am making two assumptions. Firstly, that a surrogate mother may consider everything, only for things to change and then it’s a can of worms everywhere. And second, that inevitably, vulnerable women will be exploited, as happens with the majority of surrogacy around the world.

I'd say that's a bigger argument that every country should have proper legislation and parties should have tight legal contracts. You can say the same for many things, women not being allowed to drive, prostitution being legal in some countries, it's up to each country to legislate. Maybe part of uk legislation should be that you can't adopt babies from surrogate mothers outside of the uk? Just a thought of how we could move forward rather than a blanket ban when that's not what everyone would want.

A new ethical conversation to be had? Do you mean rather than the ethical conversation about the hypothetical situation where you leave your dead sister on a ventilator to complete a contract?

I can see why you’d want to move on from that, but none of those topics are the same.

Where do you stand on sperm donation? Egg donation? ICSI? Genetic testing? There's always a new ethical conversation to be had.

There is - though if your ethics allow for the use of women as brain dead human incubators I'd wonder what would be off limits.

If you're interested in discussing any of the above topics, why not start a separate thread?

Where do you stand on sperm donation? Egg donation? ICSI? Genetic testing? There's always a new ethical conversation to be had.

No mypuddin I am making two assumptions. Firstly, that a surrogate mother may consider everything, only for things to change and then it’s a can of worms everywhere. And second, that inevitably, vulnerable women will be exploited, as happens with the majority of surrogacy around the world.

Well indeed? I think you've tapped a viable market there!

I guess we could just have it inserted as an additonal clause in the small text of the contract. Because it's all about contracts and not human dignity.