To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

Until I see some facts around this I can't believe that a surrogate child has the potential to be more unhappy about their lives than any other child. I totally accept that some surrogate children will grow up with issues but so will many non surrogate children. Until you can genuinely present facts that these children are worse off than those born into poverty, or that are the result of a broken home I don't think the argument is valid.

No one thinks of the child and that says a lot to me about the people who feel entitled to buy a baby.

Thanks @NotBadConsidering

Just add it to the 1001 ways legislation can’t solve all the potential things that can go wrong with surrogacy

I will!

Of course if the condition had been diagnosed pre-natally the commissioning parents would presumably have requested either a foetal reduction of the one twin or an abortion of both. Which the surrogate mother may or may not have been happy to agree to....

[quote crunchermuncher]@starcup

Still waiting for a reply to my questions on how society is to handle this issue.

Still......waiting.....

Of course you can have a different point of view, but if you can't back it up with evidence and have no reasonable and considered response to others who challenge your point of view, you can't expect your point of view to be taken seriously, to be given equal weighting.

I would like to understand how you think surrogacy could work and what appropriate and effective safeguards could be put in place. I am willing to rethink my opinion. But you have not given me (or anyone else) any reason to, apart from repeating yourself that having laws is apparently unreasonably infantilising.[/quote]
Starcup has offered to put together a document on this today. I am assuming it will be posted here.

TBF a couple of bullet points showing evidence of any kind of engagement with any of the intelligent arguments posters have tirelessly repeated in the face of 'you're so mean', 'what about babies with no heads, they are sad too' and 'you can't legislate against stuff that's bad, that's like denying that women are human beings' would do me at this stage. Still not holding my breath though.

Yes coercion can happen and there are ethical issues surrounding it, in some situations but you and others want a blanket ban on surrogacy and that’s your right to exercise but you fail to take in to account that some women actually are wanting to do it.

Yes. Until proper, reliable safeguards are in place and a sure way to insure that no harm at all will come to the women whose bodies have been reduced to egg producers and incubators. Until it can be assessed all psychological effects there could be for the child that cannot be mitigated.

Until then, yes. I do think surrogacy needs to be put on hold.

How many women and children are acceptable collateral damage in this pursuit of procuring children for someone who cannot have them?

As PP asked, what are the negative effects on woman who would-be surrogates if they are not used as surrogates? And what would those negative effects be?

monashivf.com/services/genetic-testing/genetic-carrier-screening-kit/

If you are planning to use a known donor (someone you know personally), the couple test is recommended. This will help you to understand you and your donor’s combined genetic information, so you can make informed decisions about your options for conceiving. If you are planning to use a clinic-recruited donor or an international donor, the single test is recommended. Clinic-recruited or international donors have usually already been screened for single gene conditions.

Usually. But maybe not always. In the car you linked who knows where the gametes came from. And I would have to cross reference the list of single gene diseases tested for. But the battery of testing for single gene diseases antenatally is only fairly recent, wasn’t available in 2014, and isn’t extensive. So there is still a chance a donor needs to be told their genetic offspring carries a disease relevant to them. I don’t know what legislation there is for that.

Just add it to the 1001 ways legislation can’t solve all the potential things that can go wrong with surrogacy…

I love how you want to get involved and save the world and be the champion.

I love how women working and campaigning to make life safer for other women and children, to prevent exploitation, is considered to be something to be mocked.

@starcup

Still waiting for a reply to my questions on how society is to handle this issue.

Still......waiting.....

Of course you can have a different point of view, but if you can't back it up with evidence and have no reasonable and considered response to others who challenge your point of view, you can't expect your point of view to be taken seriously, to be given equal weighting.

I would like to understand how you think surrogacy could work and what appropriate and effective safeguards could be put in place. I am willing to rethink my opinion. But you have not given me (or anyone else) any reason to, apart from repeating yourself that having laws is apparently unreasonably infantilising.

I think you can speak for everyone about every topic

I think I can speak about whatever I like and subjects of interest to me, that I do a lot of reading about and therefore now a lot about, are the subjects I am most likely to engage with.

You are the one who said I was famous for my views and as I have said, I consider my view to be an informed own, based in all the reading I've done.

Have you managed to find and read my comments about IVF yet?

Could you honestly look a happy surrogate child in the face and say that they shouldn't have been born.

At no point have I said that surrogacy shouldn't happen at all, nor would I ever say that a surrogate born child, or an adopted child, or a donor conceived child, should not have been born. I would advocate for legal, regulatory frameworks built around the norm and the extremes so to protect, as far as possible, everyone involved in surrogacy, including the child. The example I shared if the Ozarks was shared with the point of them being an extreme example. I made that point in the post.

If surrogate children have issues I will absolutely listen to those but you are arguing on behalf of children who wouldn't have existed otherwise and I don't thinks it's your place to say they shouldn't have had the opportunity of living a full and happy life

No, you have misunderstood. I have never said any child shouldn't exist or that the opportunity of a full and happy life isn't afford to surrogate born children.

Your point about wealth is a relevant one but not all children born into rich families are happy. By saying this doesn't mean rich families shouldn't have children, nor does it mean poor couples shouldn't have children, that would be wilfully misinterpreting my point which I note only so to avoid it happening again 🤞🏻

Thanks @NotBadConsidering

I hadn't thought about the wider picture of the genetic inheritance.

There has been a growth in unregulated sperm donation (easy to find some threads on Mumsnet) which usually involves making contact via Facebook or similar SM and DIY home insemination. (Apologies I'm digressing slightly from surrogacy). It seems to be a very risky thing to do, legally, socially and medically (STI being the most obvious medical risk) but the absence of any medical screening for inherited disease is the other big one.

With egg donation clearly this will be done via a fertility clinic so basic screening is guaranteed I assume but what about follow up if something like this becomes apparent after the birth?

So to be clear following on from my previous post, that twin baby girl being diagnosed with myotonic dystrophy possibly also diagnosed someone else with the same condition, the genetic donor of either the sperm or the egg. What is not clear is who that person was and whether they were told about that possibility. In normal circumstances the parents who were present looking after their baby would find that out they also might have it and be offered genetic counselling as to whether they wanted to know. But this is surrogacy so the questions are:

1. was the sperm donor informed and did he receive genetic counselling?
2. was the egg donor informed and did she receive genetic counselling?
3. do either of these two people have any other children?

So as well as the tragedy of the diagnosis, the horribleness of the recipient, the heart of the family to look after the baby, there is also the unknowns about whether two people have ever been told about the risk they have a genetic disease.

But hey, sometimes it works out, so all good eh?

Sorry, crossposted. I'll be back in a bit

She won’t be able to do such a selfless thing for her sister/best friend

oy vey

the upside for the woman is that she gets to risk her health and her life to satisfy the wants of someone else? you really think women are support humans don't you?

@Starcup

•      you fail to take in to account that some women actually are wanting to do it.
  

You can argue the toss all you like but it doesn’t take away the fact that sometimes it can be absolutely fine for all involved and you or anyone else on this thread can’t decide that they are incapable of making a decision*

So give me one example of a negative impact on women that would completely freely choose to do so, but not being allowed. I'll just settle for one.

If only there was something I could do to help take this pain away?… oh wait….

*Donor of the sperm

sometimes it can be absolutely fine for all involved

fuck me

that's your argument @Starcup ?

sometimes it's OK?

yikes

Myotonic dystrophy is inherited from one parent in an autosomal dominant pattern. It demonstrates anticipation, which means it gets worse with each generation.

This means either the donor or the sperm, or the donor of the egg (the horrible woman?) is also affected, but may not know it yet. It is also theoretically possible the other twin is affected but isn’t showing signs at a young age like the baby girl, but it’s not clear if the boy’s egg and sperm are from the same donor, or if doctors tested the boy after the girl’s diagnosis became evident.

Ah, not so much ‘I’m alright Jackie’, more ‘It’s sometimes alright, Jackie, nothing to see here, none of your business’

It sometimes works out

This is a conversation for grown ups about real lives, real women, and real children, so maybe come back when you’ve had a chance to think more deeply about your answers.

Yes coercion can happen and there are ethical issues surrounding it, in some situations but you and others want a blanket ban on surrogacy and that’s your right to exercise but you fail to take in to account that some women actually are wanting to do it.

You can argue the toss all you like but it doesn’t take away the fact that sometimes it can be absolutely fine for all involved and you or anyone else on this thread can’t decide that they are incapable of making a decision