FFS re. Hilaria & Alec Baldwin and normalisation of surrogacy

Ok, so where do stand on a woman donating a kidney to a family member or friend? Because based on your logic, that would be placing her body under unnecessary risk for the happiness of someone else? The happiness being keeping alive their loved one.

Should we just let nature take its cause for fear of the women’s body being placed under ‘unnecessary’ stress? All operations come with risk after all?!....... should she really place her body under that stress for the sake of someone else? Because from what you’ve said, you would also disagree with these circumstances?!

I think that’s a very very different thing to what I feel is acceptable, the close family member/friend doing it for their infertile loved one. No money exchanged. It’s a completely different in my eyes.

I think this also makes me question WHY a woman is socialized to risk and use her body for someone else's perceived happiness. For us as a society to accept that this is some kind of lauded role for women makes a lot of feminists cringe...it feels wrong because we know how women have been guilted into being sacrificing bodies for millennia.

I also find the whole "you want to take motherhood away from infertile women," a rather elitist concept. Makes me think of the wives in The Handmaid's Tale who believe they too are owed a woman's body to become mothers. Nevermind the risks or wrongness of the entire thing. Those women have a RIGHT to what they want and damn those pesky feminists for questioning it.

Also, I'm sure it's not just feminists who find surrogacy problematic. I think a lot of the population senses the wrongness of it.

Bravo, Oh.

You either support a woman RIGHT to chose what’s RIGHT for them, regardless of whether it doesn’t work for others or you don’t.

I don't support a woman's 'right' to give her babies away no. However right it is for her. I don't support a woman's 'right' to have an elective double mastectomy either.

Her body her choice, not when it's harmful to her or someone else.

Reproductive rights for women are about preventing or ending pregnancy - they are not about human trafficking or gifting human beings. That's a real stretch.

If that's your personally definition of feminism then...good luck to you.

(Please do tag me if you find that U.K. law about a right to a family.)

That looks interesting Cherry I will read.

The U.K. Law Commission frames it in a similar way, and when the NYC bill was being discussed, states that still outlaw it are labelled as old fashioned, their laws outdated.

The idea being that we need to move with the times and just accept that women have this role to play and to argue against it or to simply disagree we are archaic thinkers.

In LGBT media and conversations we are also labelled as homophobic because we cannot deny the same sex makes their 'fertility equality' and 'right to a family', which is ironic as several gay men and lesbians I know are very much against surrogacy.

I find it connected to several leading issues in feminism, the untethering of language to biological reality, reducing women and their purpose to reproductive organs and body parts, and the body positivity/sex work is work mantra is now 'nouveau feminism' and 'intersectional feminism' is cool and the feminism that centre women (and in surrogacy, children) is bigotry is well...to be expected.

@TableFlowerss I see it a bit like euthanasia. In some circumstances people would be able to consent while aware of the level of risk, but there is too much room for exploitation for it to be a good idea overall.

I also object to surrogacy as I believe it is cruel to remove a newborn from its birth mother unless strictly necessary.

Feminists speak for women. Who’s speaking for the right of women that WANT to do this? No one. It would appear feminism doesn’t count in these circumstances. You can’t pick and chose. You either support a woman RIGHT to chose what’s RIGHT for them, regardless of whether it doesn’t work for others or you don’t.

You can’t have it both ways

There's a gushing article in this weekend's FT and the author Ginanne Brownell "is writing a book on cross-border surrogacy around the globe".
It talks about the positives only, and implies it's only a matter of time before the rest of the world ' catches up' & accepts the commercial surrogacy.
No mention about all the countries, in the west and developing nations, that have recently outlawed it because of the obvious issues it brings.
It certainly feels like there's an agenda to normalise it.

Surrogacy, America and me - on.ft.com/2OS6VhH

I find it so bizarre on a feminist board that you’re failing to see that by removing the choice with a blanket ban, is worse than allowing it to happen.

It appears you haven't read my posts.

Maybe someone else said they wanted a blanket ban, I said I didn't think that was possible or likely. What was being said was why other countries have done it and why.

I find it bizarre that you're on a feminist board and think surrogacy somehow fits into body positivity/body autonomy.

We 'allow' prostitution but many of us here rail against that and Nordic Model Now, from the earlier link is doing great work on that too. In that 'allowed' prostitution many women are vulnerable, trafficked and exploited...but they chose it right? So that's ok. Her body her choice.

Should women who object to buying babies/giving babies away like gifts not consider themselves feminists? Are we feminist-ing wrong?

you don’t think wanting to be a mother is that important when it comes to surrogacy.

On the contrary, this is clearly the key motivating factor for commissioning mothers, ditto commissioning fathers, gay or straight, and the surrogate mother is pretty much how surrogacy gets to happen. If it wasn't important to infertile couples surrogacy wouldn't happen, neither would adoption. You sound confused.

Your view appears to be that because someone wants a baby and they are infertile they should get what they want and a woman who provides that service is neither exploited or at risk of exploitation and the baby is the end result but is more a product of the arrangement than a person.

You also seem to think that 'altruistic' surrogacy in families is the majority and you have no worries about what that means for anyone involved, now or in the future.

You sound like you have been fed on a diet of women's magazines and haven't applied any critical thought and as a result you have a very surface level understanding of the issues involved.

That's fine it just doesn't aid debate when you're not open minded enough to explore those issues, when several of us are trying to explain them to you.

You also seem to be deliberately ignoring questions, unable to share anything other than your opinion and are misinterpreting comments. Again, that's fine, it's just not that useful. You don't need to change your mind or agree, I would still really like to see that U.K. law you mentioned that grants rights to a family though.

Spout out what you want on here, share your views, add links and articles and the like... but it’s like you’re blinkered and so consumed with the ‘rights of women’ who have had terrible experiences due to surrogacy (and I agree there will be many) that you’re failing to take in to account the rights of women that want to make that choice for themselves. The women that WANT to do this for someone close, not for money, not because of cohesion, but because they want to enable a close couple to become parents.

I find it so bizarre on a feminist board that you’re failing to see that by removing the choice with a blanket ban, is worse than allowing it to happen.

I’ve expressed several times that there are certain instances where I think it’s disgusting too, such as, they don’t want to be pregnant themselves and they’d prefer a ‘host surrogate. That’s vile and I’d object to that. Or that they wanted to chose the sex, eye colour etc.... again, vile.

I think that’s a very very different thing to what I feel is acceptable, the close family member/friend doing it for their infertile loved one. No money exchanged. It’s a completely different in my eyes.

And to think this is the feminist board that’s supposed to be in favour of women’s rights. All I see is a bunch of activist hell bent of trying to get a law changed in the name of ‘feminism’, yet all it does it take away a woman’s right to chose where they want to partake or not.

How dare someone want to help out a loved one?! How dare that loved one take them up on the offer?!

Makes me gasp when you suggest that other countries have somewhat better laws than surrounding this! Oh yes, because euthanasia is a great idea (not), as is taking away a women RIGHT to wear a burka (not) as is prostitution (not) or to remove a woman’s right to abortion (not) so don’t try and guise other laws as a reason because not all laws are favourable!!!

egg biological

I think the last paragraph of yours is about your thoughts as clearly you don’t think wanting to be a mother is that important when it comes to surrogacy.

Probably know more than you!

And yet you fail to demonstrate your knowledge....

Love this quote from Steinem made at the time the bill was was being discussed:

Under this bill, women in economic need become commercialized vessels for rent, and the fetuses they carry become the property of others,”

And this article which acts as the antidote for the NYTimes fluff

mercatornet.com/super-mom-dreams-of-having-105-children-100-via-surrogacy/70255/?fbclid=IwAR1g5gFeahOjGtJ-oEOFrfcER5-uueUH3QW-GqcLUPENy2onFraKxW3jLOM

Sen. Cumo suggested in the passing for the NYC law

Very glad OhHoly brought this dude up...Cuomo is currently under a lot of allegations of sexual harassment of young women. He also thinks women can make surrogacy a 'career choice'. Both tell me all I need to know about what some people think about women.

It's why Gloria Steinem (well-known, well-respected U.S. Feminist) came out so sharply against Cuomo's desire to deregulate surrogacy in NY. Of course, did Cuomo listen? No.

www.stopsurrogacynow.com/gloria-steinem-calls-upon-new-york-gov-cuomo-to-not-legalize-commercial-surrogacy/

Don't you love the little baby at the end of the help line top left?

And this slide shows the number of commercially interested parties who profit from surrogacy whilst the woman who goes through nine months of pregnancy and childbirth and suffers any consequences of complications must do it "altruistically" for the joy of being kind.

2- We’re talking about a couple who has her eggs fertilised by her partner. No one else.

So are you against traditional surrogacy and only support so-called altruistic surrogacy where the mother isn't genetically related to the child and where the commissioning parents are related to the mother and boy only her maternity clothes and take her to all her appointments?

3- Yes - that child is created from the couple who provide the egg and sperm

That would omit a large number of surrogacy pregnancies.

4- Yes it is irrelevant in this set circumstances

Ok so mothers and motherhood don't matter. How you got to be here doesn't matter. To you. Ok got it.

*We’re talking about a couple who has her eggs fertilised by her partner. No one else.

3- Yes - that child is created from the couple who provide the egg and sperm*

What are you talking about? Many surrogate born babies will not be the genetic child of both the commissioning parents, as about 40% are gay men so they have to obtain an egg from somewhere plus in many cases the woman will not have been able to supply her own egg and will need an egg from an egg seller donor. In some cases the child will have been created through "double donation" where neither commissioning parent supplied genetic material. Currently not allowed in the UK but the law commission propose allowing this in the future.

I have just been on a very interesting webinar about surrogacy around the world. The Canadian speaker supplied these slides with a link to and egg/sperm bank where you can choose genetic trait and browse the catalogue.

www.canamcryo.com/en/eggs-donor-catalogue

you’d be surprised to know I have a degree that covers attachment etc...

Based on your responses I am yes, very surprised.