In GENERAL terms, all forms of surrogacy, altruistic included, is problematic

The "in possession of a uterus" prompted me to comment on the previous thread.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that an adult in possession of a uterus must be in want of a fat pay cheque from an exploitative couple who wish to purchase a baby."

Good post witchesaremysisters.

The comparison with abortion doesn't work at all.

Someone on Twitter has argued that 'consenting adults in possession of a uterus' should have the right to do with that as they please, in the name of bodily autonomy, including being able to 'market their reproductive capabilities' by being a paid surrogate.

Which is strange because I don't think I have ever seen this particular individual argue that 'consenting adults in possession of two healthy kidneys' should be allowed to sell one of their kidneys in the name of bodily autonomy?

I wonder why that is?

Why do people who don't like women asserting these sorts of analyses of bodily integrity always want us to think it's like abortion?

It's never like abortion. That's a reversal. To my mind, surrogacy is almost a mirror-image.

Abortion:
-Women's autonomy over her own bodily integrity, life choices and NOT being seen as only a vessel for a pregnancy. Also one of the key arguments for abortion is specifically that the procedures are LESS risky to the health of the mother than carrying on with pregnancy/childbirth. Abortion advocates for women to be seen as full human beings, not merely incubators for a foetus.

Surrogacy:
-Being called a gestational carrier and committing to undergo this life-altering experience for other people's benefit, to meet THEIR desire. Signing a contract to "rent your womb" which has clauses to control you, your body and the resulting baby. All of the medical risks. You are described as a "surrogate" (ersatz, not "real" even though a mother is what you are). Surrogacy doesn't see you as a woman in your own right, you are reduced solely to your perceived "role/function" of bringing someone else a child.

rorosemary

"We're all fine with dads taking care of babies, while they didn't have a womb attachment with them either. This isn't different, baby will bond with the other parent."

I think services would be pretty concerned about a family where the birth father had sole care of a baby unless the mother was dead or totally incapacitated!

In a typical family set up the foetus will know the father's voice so that's also not the same as being handed to "intended parents" at birth but in either case the situation is not what we know to be optimal for the newborn's development. They won't die, but that's not the yardstick!

Are.. are you actually suggesting newborns don't have a right to life?

I read that as a right to life with its birth mother not to not having a right to life at all

I do always wonder what happens if the child is born seriously disabled - presumably the potential parents walk away and leaves the child with its birth mother?

I personally think surrogacy is just slavery (different if it is a close family/friend doing it for their family/friends of course as then the financials aren't the main driving force).

I expect it will become more and more common as women's rights are consigned to the dustbin.

You can't look at a 5 year old who was born through a surrogacy arrangement and say "he looks ok, it must all be fine then'. The way those children will feel is going to evolve for the rest of their lives including when they have their own children.

I was fucked up by my birth family in a different way, I thought I'd processed it all and actually now I've reached the age my parents were when it happened I feel very differently and judge one of them in particular much more harshly than I did as a young woman.

Are.. are you actually suggesting newborns don't have a right to life?

I'm fervently pro-choice but I think we can all agree once the baby is born it's done. The right to life is a given.

And yes, a newborn should have a right to be nurtured in the first few months of its life by the woman in whom he/she has grown for 9 months.

Your it must be accepted that harm to this person must outweigh the harm to another is a bad argument. It can be easily extrapolated to any pregnancy, Adoption is somewhat harmful to a baby, but we don’t force mothers to have an abortion unless she can demonstrate the harm to her outweighs the harm to a baby being adopted out? No. That is a sword of Damocles you are proposing.

Completely agree

No contrast how, when a child it put up for adoption the intervention of social services whose purpose is to above all else protects the rights and needs of the child

Yes I'm still wondering what protections could possibly be in place that doesnt result in a baby just being abandoned in a hospital whilst both parties implement their get out clauses. Or a birth mother who cabt really afford to look after a baby feeling obligated to raise a baby they never planned on having. Not as if they'd even have anything when they are discharged a few hours later witg a new born and not even a car seat.

How is any of that in the babies best interests or the surrogate mothers interestes.

As a pp said, if its all so altruistic what do they need protection from exactly

You try and protect ALL women by banning everything reproductive with risk then we will end up back in the dark ages with no rights and no agency.

You are forgetting that there are limits on abortion.

The public debate centres on when and in what circumstances. Very few people are pro abortion in all cases or anti abortion in all cases.

I agree.

A far better comparison is that of adoption.

No contrast how, when a child it put up for adoption the intervention of social services whose purpose is to above all else protects the rights and needs of the child.

This is why open adoptions are now commonplace (or as a minimum letterbox contact with the birth mother except in very rare cases) because it's widely recognised that retaining a relationship with the birth mother is beneficial to the child.

In commercial or even altruistic surrogacy, the focus is always the outcome for the commissioning parents and there is often an absence of impartial oversight that centres the needs of the child.

But think altruistic surrogacy with a contract in place to protect the surrogate is what should be allowed.

How do you define 'altruistic'? If it is truly altruistic then why the need for a contract anyway?

I am interested in statistics around 'altruistic surrogacy' and how many surrogacy arrangements are truly between family members or very close friends, with absolutely no money changing hands?

In the case of Hannah and Jake Graf - does that count as 'altruistic surrogacy'? They found their surrogate Laura through a website, where Laura had obviously put herself forward to be a surrogate, she had volunteered to do it. Laura was a single mother from Belfast and was paid £15,000 in 'expenses' which one could argue is quite a lot of money for someone in her position. Does that count as 'altruistic surrogacy'? I guess so as commercial surrogacy is not allowed in the UK, but there still seems to be quite an imbalance of power, and still a long way from a family member doing it for you.

By the way, I know it says we shouldn't name names, but the Grafs have obviously recently made a prime time TV show about their experience, so I am guessing I am allowed to speak about it in the way that I have (ie not attacking anyone?) Although knows what the rules are anymore!

What "protection" are you talking about.

How do you protect someone from not receiving their payment or compensation or expenses because they couldn't carry the baby to term or deliver the healthy child desired.

What protection from having to make the heartbreaking decision when the intended parents fuck off decidng they don't want to risk a brain damaged child would a contract have exactly?

Even the newborns “right” to life with its birth mother...straight out of the anti-abortion play book.

This only makes sense if you think, somehow, weirdly that feminists here are campaigning for post birth abortions for newborns

In altruistic organ donation donating family members get counselling and are allowed to discretely opt out by 'tests showing they are incompatible'

Potential recipients already know that this 'opt out' exists, plus there are now 'matched donor' registries, so even being genuinely incompatible is no excuse if you have a relative who needs an organ. The counselling is often focused on ensuring you aren't being forced and understand the risks. It often does not deal with the huge family pressures, both overt and passive, that potential donors may be under. It's designed to brush past them, in fact, since the whole system is geared towards obtaining more donor organs. This is also why there are no long-term studies on living kidney donors' health.

I don't want to derail the thread. But I think we'd see similar dynamics emerging were surrogacy to be fully normalised, so this is perhaps relevant. The image the public has of living organ donation is a sanitised one. There's no institutional pressure to provide a more accurate picture, because doctors are focused on the dire need of the patients who need organs, not the people who may be required to supply them. In the final analysis, doctors and others are prepared to handwave the ethical problems inherent in living organ donation, because it saves lives. Surrogacy has no such argument in its favour.

Even the newborns “right” to life with its birth mother...straight out of the anti-abortion play book.

An abortion doesn't require a contract with others who can decide what happens. An abortion is decided by and given to the one person involved.

Its nothing like surrogacy

All these sob stories are so like anti-abortion activist arguments.
Every year SOME women die from the risks of abortions....oh one woman dying is too many so let’s ban them
SOME women get pressured into having abortions by family, financial /economic reasons, etc, oh one coerced woman is too many, let’s ban abortions.

Every right comes with responsibility and risk. You try and protect ALL women by banning everything reproductive with risk then we will end up back in the dark ages with no rights and no agency.

Contracts have clauses to protect the rights of both parties. Contracts are not dictation of one party to another. They represent the mutual agreement both parties have reached jointly. In negotiating one, no party to forced to agree to any terms that they don’t want to. You literally talk back and forth until you reach something you both can agree to. Then you sign your consent.

You're working from the premise that both parties have equal bargaining power.

The reality of commercial surrogacy is that the dynamic always favours the commissioning parents because they are "buying" a service.

Having financial leverage means they are at an advantage in dictating terms with the underlying knowledge that if one surrogate declines their terms another (more desperate) party will accept.

There is also the fact that many surrogates are gaslighted to believe that extremely controlling contracts are "normal".

And I will say it again, I don't like surrogacy in general.

But when men who spend all their time telling women that they have no right to define themselves, to advocate for themselves as a separate group and that biology is irrelevant, then want to use a woman's body for his own ends, showing that they knows exactly which kind of human he needs to carry out reproductive labour for them, then I think that is absolutely despicable.