A horrific example of how badly wrong surrogacy can go

Also from the Times article:

‘ The Law Commission, the independent body that advises the government on reform in England and Wales, has proposed changes to ensure parents can have legal status from birth while maintaining surrogates’ rights to object to this in the very rare cases where this is needed. For this to happen, pre-conception safeguards would have to have been fulfilled, such as having independent legal advice, counselling and checks on health, criminal records and screening, which focus on the welfare of the child.

The surrogacy community also overwhelmingly favours surrogacy in Britain remaining altruistic, with no payments for carrying a baby, to protect the principle of surrogacy through friendship and to prevent coercion.

In developing countries surrogacy can be appalling, with husbands forcing wives to carry babies for money. Our experience of altruistic surrogacy in Britain has been joyous, but independent surrogacy arrangements without the involvement of an organisation such as Surrogacy UK also happen in Britain and can lack proper oversight. Legal changes are needed to ensure exploitation is never a possibility. With delays caused by Brexit and Covid-19, it will probably now take another two years until the changes to surrogacy law are implemented.. ‘

So where (as a Times journalist?) is he getting this idea that Brexit and Covid are delaying the Law Commission’s consultation proposals (..which are a completely different thing from ‘legal changes’) from ^being implemented*? The Law Commission haven’t reported yet. They haven’t drawn up a draft bill for Parliament yet. It hasn’t been debated or voted on democratically. We’ve no idea what ‘pre-conception safeguards’ would be required from that list. He’s talking like it’s an inevitability.

I can only imagine that the lobby groups around this are telling parents that it’s just a matter of time before prebirth agreements are enforceable on women? And if so, by whom have the lobby been given that impression of inevitability?

Unfortunately I also can’t imagine what legal changes could ever be introduced (apart from legally banning surrogacy) that could stop coercion from being a possibility.

From the Times article:

The hospital, Chesterfield Royal, had made arrangements for me and Robin to be at the birth. But then, as Rachel went a week overdue, the management panicked about the pandemic and said we could no longer come. During lengthy discussions with the heads of midwifery, we argued that it was in our son’s best interests for us to care for him that first night. We reminded them that Rachel also felt strongly about this and wanted to be able to rest after labour and not be left to look after a baby she didn’t view as her own

I am curious how they mean ‘best interests’ here. Why is that best for the baby? What evidence is there for this?

@TheReluctantPhoenix

hazardous transactions juxtaposed with 'human rights'?

So women should have the human right to sell babies regardless of the 'hazards' is that what you're saying?

And as for "speaking from a position of comfort", how about we consider offering that to women who are in poverty to the point where they feel they have to have a baby for someone else in order to feed their own children?

If having a baby for £5k (Ukraine and elsewhere) or £15k (U.K. for 'expenses') is life changing then it is you who are speaking from a "position of comfort".

Thanks for that Times share. So there are a couple of Times employees who have bought babies. Sophie Beresiner and this guy with his partner.

Is it a bit like trans identifying employees in Commissioning at the BBC?

At least they lay their personal agenda on the line I suppose.

And here is the Times normalizing surrogacy complete with details of who supplied the clothes and the make up for the photoshoot:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0bebef36-5a46-11eb-86f4-4fa0aa4e7fd3?shareToken=d431c19a2af32af449f06c9f619c6f1c

I think one big issue is the normalizing of surrogacy by famous people who are likely to hold sway over people's opinions.
So rich Hollywood actors, famous singers etc.
Personally I am against it under any circumstances but when the media post "sweet pictures " of the rich and famous which project the images of perfect beautiful families without considering the wider issues then it is only likely to become more mainstream over the generations much in the way plastic surgery did. A few years ago that was also v rare and seen as an extreme thing to do . It was the domain of aging Hollywood superstars with more money than sense whereas now even young women are destroying their looks with fillers and BOTOX that make them look deformed.
In my opinion babies are not a commodity to be bought and sold and neither are women's bodies. But I fear it will become more and more common. There are enough children in need of parents already in this world so why not adopt ?

Someone whose entire life was turned around by the money received from surrogacy would equally passionately say that it was a their human right to willingly help someone have a much wanted child in return for a life changing amount of money.

It’s really not a human right tho, no matter how you dress it up. It’s damaging to women and children, which is why surrogacy is illegal in an ever-growing number of countries, including France, Germany and Sweden.

And, personally, if I needed the money and someone offered me enough, I would consider selling a kidney or a bit of liver

Whilst kidney donation to family members is common, and of course I'd do it in a heartbeat for my close family, the risks should not be underestimated. We have lots of renal patients come through my department, for many, after one kidney has packed up or maybe has a malignant tumour, the saving factor is that the other kidney picks up the slack.

And liver surgery has significant risks.

Someone whose entire life was turned around by the money received from surrogacy would equally passionately say that it was a their human right to willingly help someone have a much wanted child in return for a life changing amount of money

Someone who has to choose money over a child that they carry for 9 months is indeed in a precarious position.
I does not look like a freedom of choice situation to me.

@CheeryTreeBlossom,

Well, I would disagree. I suspect you are talking from a position of comfort, as that is your experience.

Someone whose entire life was turned around by the money received from surrogacy would equally passionately say that it was a their human right to willingly help someone have a much wanted child in return for a life changing amount of money.

Talking about ‘selling human beings’ is emotive and sloppy language. No one is being enslaved here.

There is an over use of the power dynamic here where (generally powerful) people take a view that anyone who makes a certain decision cannot be doing so rationally and of their genuine own free will and that there must be hidden coercion. I always think of Animal Farm when ‘feminists’ start dictating to other women what they should or should not be able to do, of their own free will.

In the same sense as abortion is argued as a fundamental human right (‘not your womb, none of your business’), what other women choose to do with their wombs is none of your business with regard to surrogacy.

Clearly surrogacy has a serious impact on the surrogate’s life and does need to be regulated as are any other hazardous transactions. Well regulated, though, it can benefit both parties.

(And, personally, if I needed the money and someone offered me enough, I would consider selling a kidney or a bit of liver if it were legal and regulated).

This is an excellent account of a commercial surrogacy which demonstrates familiar themes of commissioning parents exerting pressure on a young, less powerful surrogate mother. Transferring four embryos despite her expressed concern at carrying more than one baby. Seeking to economise on her medical care when she was clearly ill, pressuring her to leave hospital early despite nearly dying of pre-eclampsia and still needing supervised recovery.

Women need protection from this. That life changing sum doesn't look so good against a life changing illness.

hazlitt.net/longreads/anatomy-surrogacy

What are you views on selling organs? Should we allow people in poverty to sell blood, kidneys, a lung, part of their liver? You could probably get £20k for a kidney and as you say it's life changing.
I'm sure many people would donate a kidney for £10m.
I don't think that makes it an acceptable business that should be regulated by the state. Yes there might be a market out there, but there's markets for many things that are unsavoury and we continue to outlaw them (e.g. most things on the dark web). A proper society protects and supports the vulnerable, not allow them to be exploited by those with money and desires for bits of them.

Well yes, some people would kill for a 'life changing amount of money' but that doesn't mean we should strictly regulate the assassin industry!

Again, one can argue for a more egalitarian view of society where no one would want or need to be a surrogate, but that is not the status quo. I would wager a lot on this thread would change their mind if offered, say, £10 million to be a surrogate.

This is not a pro surrogacy argument at all - it makes the total opposite point!

You could say the same thing about a lot of crimes, a 10m bribe would move a lot of people’s moral lines, but that’s not a reason to change the law and make harmful actions regulated instead of outlawed.

The resulting children are biologically yours and you are giving them to people you know nothing about.

I meant to highlight @EdgeOfACoin's sentence

The resulting children are biologically yours and you are giving them to people you know nothing about.

That's what kills me too...I can't imagine either of my two daughters somewhere in the world and I had no impact on their care or family....you wouldn't even know how many children you had had!! At least with adoption, a mother might have the option of an open adoption, choosing birth parents or writing letters, knowing the agency screened the parents.

Of course, I get why surrogate moms do it for the money and don't doubt I could easily have found myself in the same situation if my life had been different. I don't have any fight with them...I just want to protect surrogate moms from being abused.

I have to be honest, I don't understand how someone can be an egg donor. I could never do it. The resulting children are biologically yours and you are giving them to people you know nothing about. You don't even know for certain that you are giving them to a loving couple who can't have kids of their own. Even if you did know that, there are no checks on parents needing donor eggs in the same way that there are checks on adoptive parents. You could be sending your child into an abusive family, for all you know.

I think either egg donors are under huge emotional pressure (discount IVF) or are young and haven't carefully thought about the implications.

I don't know how sperm donors can do it either, but I think they tend to be young men without much thought to the future. Also, I suppose a sperm donor can assume there is more likely to be a mother on the scene who intends to bear and raise a child, whereas a donor egg may end up with a surrogate mother for commissioning parents.

I can more easily understand the desire to be a surrogate mother for a close friend or relative than I can an egg donor.

This is a horrific case.

However, surrogacy can be the exchange of a much wanted baby for a life changing amount of money.

I think the vociferously anti surrogacy theme on here is driven by a complete lack of understanding as to how 20k, say, can be a life changing amount of money for some people.

It is all very well to say that ‘bodies are not for sale’, but that generally comes from a position of comfort.

Again, one can argue for a more egalitarian view of society where no one would want or need to be a surrogate, but that is not the status quo. I would wager a lot on this thread would change their mind if offered, say, £10 million to be a surrogate.

It needs to be a well regulated business with laws protecting the well being of the surrogate.

I cannot imagine how a woman can be so callous about a child she commissioned. But maybe that’s the point, I’ve never commissioned a child. I needed ivf to have dd, didn’t succeed the first time.... The diary of a surrogate is also awful. I couldn’t imagine giving my body and babies I’d grown for people, who already have 2 children.

That Sherry story is absolutely appalling. I can't help thinking of the lies the birth mother and the egg mother were likely told...something along the lines of typical egg donation advertising (it's legal in the US) that they were "giving the gift of a family to loving parents" or "making a family whole." If they had known how horribly their little boy would would have been treated, I highly doubt they'd have made such a sacrifice to their bodies.

www.huffpost.com/entry/surrogacy-sherri-shepherd_b_9152642

people.com/celebrity/sherri-shepherd-wins-huge-victory-in-child-support-case-ex-lamar-sally/

This has been a big story here in the US.

Sherri Shepherd is a award winning actor, TV host and personality. Her and her then husband commissioned a surrogate, and an egg donor, also using the husbands genetic material, to make their child.

Then the couple separated, and Sherri refused to be the Mom in this dynamic. The little boy is maybe 4 or 5 yrs old now, cared solely by the father, the situation is a disgrace.

How Sherri continues to get work, I don’t know, but somehow she’s managed to skate past the whole thing. She even does the “poor me” thing.

However, I know she pays maintenance, but this poor, poor boy, caught up in the middle of such heartless, transactional behaviour.

That article is very troubling. Obviously we only have the surrogate's perspective but even so.

This is an example of a family surrogacy that was far from successful. The grandmother, who was appalled when she found out about it, managed to hold the family together and prevent a full breakdown of relationships.

As PandorasMailbox suggested, jealousy of the surrogate mother for being pregnant was a feature. In fact I have seen this mentioned several times, I think it's similar to mothers who are jealous of the nanny when their child runs to the nanny for comfort when they fall over. But a lot more complicated I am sure, especially when the surrogate mother is a relation doing you a massive favour for which you are meant to feel great gratitude.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/secret-diary-of-a-surrogate-mother

I also want to stress that there will always be adoption...but not because there is a demand for it, but because there will always be children who for one reason or another can not be raised by their biological parents.

The concept that there is a "demand for surrogacy" and a "demand for fertility equality" just shows how this is. commodification of women and babies.