To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

You seem to want the impossible

What adequate safeguarding for women and children?

There is a reason why other countries ban all surrogacy. It is not an impossible situation.

But the rest of it about it being a last resort and about inter country adoption I agree with. And I think his is a really interesting perspective and one that the adoption community should be aware of.

As an adoptive mother I think that adoption isn't ideal. It's the least worst option for children who cannot stay with families.

I would be as against foreign adoption now as I am against surrogacy, as there is no proof that the mother's giving up their children (often to middle men) are doing so willingly - they can be coerced by expectation, by financial need, or by direct payment. It may be their "choice" but in many cases in reality there is no alternative.

Foreign adoption used to be wealthy western couples bringing "home" unwanted babies from poorer countries. As it developed into wealthy couples giving large sums of money to agencies to source babies it started down a very slippery slope.

But I agree with you that it’s immoral for companies to target women specifically

Who the fuck else would they specifically target for egg donations? Platypuses?!?

“So what would happen to the kids that were removed from their parents?

If adoption wasn’t legal, what would become of the kids? Just children’s homes?

That would be a worse outcome for the child for sure in most cases…. What is he thinking”

He is thinking that in the interests of children their birth certificates should never be altered and that families in poverty should be supported by the state so that they can stay together, that any stigma against single mothers should be ended in order that mothers and babies can stay together.

He is particularly against international adoption but also argues that nationally fostering is preferable to adoption in cases where the parents are abusive, beyond help or dead. This last part about fostering being preferable to adoption is not what I would have said myself before listening to him. I am not sure I am convinced but I accept his argument about not changing birth certificates, I’m not sure that happens in the UK, I thought that an adoption certificate was a separate document but I need to look into that further. He has an interesting and relevant argument though. I invite you to listen to him yourself to discover what he says and how you feel about it, or have a look at his website.

Wouldn't we all like the impossible? That every person/couple who wanted a baby could get pregnant (presuming they would be good parents).

That all children could be born to loving parents who could afford to keep them.

That every woman in a poor country wouldn't feel forced or coerced to sell her body or her children for money.

That all children would have access to their genetic information, and that they would all be happy about the decisions the adults in their lives made before they were born.

We would all like the impossible, but it's just that, impossible. Laws are not made to support the happy outcomes, but should be drafted to prevent the harmful ones.

Adoption law has changed over the years to minimise the harm caused to children. Saying "well it sometimes worked out" or "many of them did better with adoptive parents" or "that was the thinking of the time" to excuse past adoption legislation isn't a gotcha on surrogacy legislation. The fact that we know how much harm has been done to children who were taken from their families in the past should be a warning to society that sometimes we can't achieve the impossible, we can't just have a happy family because we (as individuals) want one.

I know it wasn't my task but I've been thinking of some safeguards and restrictions to put in place to make as fair as possible.

First of all yes, mandatory , independent and confidential psychiatric assessment prior to insemination, after ,all throughout the pregnancy and at least a year after birth. If things go wrong interventions and options to be offered.

The parents have no legal right to the baby or the mother up until birth. So the buyers can't dictate what the mother eats, does, what medicine she might need, they have no rights to decide if complications arise or any health issues.

On the money side, while they can't pay "for the baby" costs for the mother should be covered with documentation (time off work if unpaid,medical costs etc). They should also be responsible for any medical (mental or physical) costs as a direct result of the pregnancy/birth. The parents are legally responsible for this regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy. In the same manner they are financially responsible for the baby even if they don't want it. Any and all associated medical costs , finding them a new family , being looked after the state etc.

Checks on the parents , DBS , a psychiatric assessment for themselves , who are they,where do they come from,where are they going etc. No opportunities(or as least as possible) to just "disappear" in the ether.

The mother has the right to change her mind either during pregnancy or up to a year after birth. This is controversial and it has it's own downsides so I have to think on it a bit more.

The mother has her own panel of "support". Independent Doctor,lawyers ,maybe even a social worker to advise about any and all risks.

The option of being in the child's life is they so wish, unless that would be detrimental to child as assessed by an independent professional.Same for the child, full access and information to any and all information they might require, including the possibility of contact if they want to.

In case of death the baby (or the mother on their behalf if she chooses to keep the baby) is a beneficiary of the estate.

I'm sure I missed a lot(which shows how complex this is) but that's just the very least that is needed.

There is legislation in the UK which on the whole I agree with. It's imperfect but it's practical. I'm not arguing with the legislation, I'm arguing for it not to change! It's amazing that you're ten pages in without having understood that

You seem to want the impossible

surrogacy is illegal in many countries. I want something that is demonstrably possible

I am surprised that you, who have had two children, cannot acknowledge that.

Well, I just had one and it resulted in a pretty traumatic c section. That was totally unforeseen. So, I guess I have a good insight into just what the risks are even with a ‘normal’ pregnancy.

There will never ever be concrete guarantees in anything, so I’m interested to know your suggestion…

You seem to want the impossible.

There is a good reason surrogacy is illegal in many countries. Because it's not in the best interests of anyone involved except for the 'intended parents'.

It's abusive to the babies and exploits women. It's unconscionable in an ethical society

Your suggestions are more of the same and do not adequately safeguard women against coercion and mental health issues.

Signing a form…. I am pretty sure that is what they do now. Working well isn’t it?

And it doesn’t come close to mitigating the mental health risks to the child. The one who might not want to have been made the way they were; you know, exploiting women’s bodies.

But I agree with you that it’s immoral for companies to target women specifically

And if ALL was limited to this (and again no emotional or financial coercion to donate those eggs already harvested) until such time as to be sure those ‘naive’ women who get ‘sucked in’ it would be fine

There will never be a way to know for sure about someone MH or emotional well being so not sure what you’d want as evidence

Because a baby being taken from its mother at birth is horrific. Babies need skin to skin, breastmilk and the sent and sound of their mother. To deprive them of this is heartbreaking and abuse.

There’s risks in everything. Is it morally right to go in to university’s etc? no but there’s always rogue companies out to make a quick buck and there will always be naive women who get sucked in.

That shouldn’t be a reason to stop someone who is well informed in donating their eggs.

And the women who have almost died due to egg donation included well educated women from university. And they still got ‘sucked in’ and almost lost their life… so tell us again how to determine the degree of coercion and mental health issues involved in making these donations or offering services. And how coerced or mentally ill women are not falling through these cracks at the moment.

Most of the time the procedure will have taken place via IVF so the egg retrieval will have been done anyway and not specifically for donation.

And if ALL was limited to this (and again no emotional or financial coercion to donate those eggs already harvested) until such time as to be sure those ‘naive’ women who get ‘sucked in’ it would be fine.

This scenario isn’t the same as the ones in your example (which I also disagree with)

No and I have now said it at least two times about using already donated eggs left from other treatments being fine ( under proviso of no coercion)

to add nothing is ever guaranteed. Even a routine operation can go wrong so I’m not entirely sure what guarantees you’d like to see…

How could anyone ever know the outcome? They can only make sure the woman is well informed and signs a firm to say she understands the risks (both emotionally and physically)

I've been reading this thread with interest, having never formed a firm opinion on surrogacy.

With adoption, any negative impacts on the adopted child are likely to be acceptable because the alternative of not being adopted (eg a childhood spent in care) is even worse.

With surrogacy, the situation is quite literally man-made.

I don't know what the psychological effects of being a surrogate child are, and I suspect these effects are variable and unpredictable, but in the event that a surrogate child suffers MH trauma, what is the point of a lifetime of "privilege" and financial security if they're not happy within themselves?

To say that surrogacy is fine because many children are born naturally into rather rubbish circumstances, is an illogical argument.
The fact that many children may be born into rubbish circumstances is terrible but it doesn't then follow that it is okay for other children to be deliberately born into different rubbish circumstances.

Currently, it seems impossible to fairly safeguard everyone's interests (and in particular, the surrogate mother and child) should anything go wrong.

Like many things, a good indicator of whether surrogacy is an equitable arrangement or not is: is it equally available to (and equally taken up by) a good cross-section of people on "both sides" of the undertaking.
ie, are there roughly equal numbers of wealthy/white/western/privileged/etc... would-be parents AND surrogates... or is there an imbalance somewhere
And if there is an imbalance, then one group are probably at a disadvantage...

No. People do accept that some people want to be surrogates. However, as I mentioned a page or so back.

Until there is a robustly proven way to eatablish there is absolutely no form of coercion at play. No mental health issues that need to be considered.

These want to be surrogates cannot be safeguarded adequately.

And we have shown evidence that too often women making this decision do not actually think seriously enough about it. They only look at the positives, a bit like some posters.

That shouldn’t be a reason to stop someone who is well informed in donating their eggs. Most of the time the procedure will have taken place via IVF so the egg retrieval will have been done anyway and not specifically for donation.

This scenario isn’t the same as the ones in your example (which I also disagree with)

I don’t think it’s something people go in to without serious consideration.

Some people on here won’t accept it point blank, therefore there is not discussion. They believe that their opinion is the only opinion

You do realise egg donors can actively chose to donate their eggs?? Did you know that???

Yes. I know. I also know the risks associated with egg donation quite well.

Seems to me you’re suggesting they’re forced and that’s erm BS!

Have you ever seen the overly emotive ads targeted at US university students? And other economically vulnerable women.

I dare say you have not read the accounts linked up thread that go with those donations.

They go into the health risks that those women face and too often not protected against in the pressure to maximise eggs.

The same way men can donate sperm.

Fuck this is boring. We have already covered the difference between a woman having her ovaries hyper stimulated to produce as many eggs as possible, the risks that can be stroke, infertility and even death.

Compared to wanking into a cup.