To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

@OhHolyJesus

With respect, you’ve got so many posts I haven’t got the time sadly to read each one. I don’t know what you can’t answer the question I asked.

Do you agree with IVF?

Do you agree with IVF with another with different eggs?

Do you think the NHS shouldn’t pay?

Just interested to hear your point of view

[quote flippertyop]@DaisiesandButtercups but many of the arguementa on here relate to not knowing the generic background of the child. That's the same with donor eggs no? So I wanted to know how you see this as different. It's a reasonable question to ask I think. For the fist family they child is biologically theirs - for an ivf couple it may not be - potentially that has as many issue in the long term. [/quote]
They're two different things. A child has a bond with the woman who gestated and gave birth to it. That is a profound bond which damages children from birth if it is ruptured (surrogacy). A child raised by people who it is not genetically related to will experience a different kind of trauma/loss.

In the U.K., anonymous gamete donation became illegal in 2005 in acknowledgement that children who are born using donor gametes have the right to know who their parents are which mitigates that trauma/loss to a degree

Some excellent points made above.

I think we can all agree(?) that in some cases, there could appear to be positive material outcomes from surrogacy for the child (leaving aside for a moment all the issues for the birth mother - I would also be very interested to hear of any examples of how women being prevented from choosing to be surrogates has any negatives for them. But I digress).

However....

One or two cases of happy surrogate children, anecdata, can not be extrapolated to society as a whole. We don't know how unusual this positive outcome is, but all available evidence suggests it is very unusual.

As others have said, there is plenty of evidence that attachment issues result from babies being removed from their mothers soon after birth. These can manifest in later life and colour all that person's subsequent relationships. These can't be erased by other material benefits that the child may gain.

So, there is no point arguing about whether or not the children will suffer mental health issues - evidence shows they as a group do (granted, there may be the odd exception, but that's not what were talking about). It is arguably impossible to weigh up how much the potential material advantages of being raised in a wealthy /loving home , neither of which are guaranteed, make up for the probable mental health disadvantage of being a commissioned baby. The question therefore is:
'knowing that there is evidence of probable mental health issues, attachment disorders, genealogical bewilderment etc, to what extent is this acceptable to knowingly inflict on a child in order to satisfy the commissioning parents desire for a baby'.

I think some here, myself included would argue that it is never acceptable.

For those who believe that it is acceptable, how do we as a society then decide how much damage is acceptable? How do we measure it? How do we implement safeguards to prevent this line from being crossed? When forming policy, we need to understand how this could work for society as a whole, not just some specific situations in which it was, luckily, apparently ok (that's a bit like saying 'there's no need to wear a crash helmet, I don't bother and I've been ok'- a sample of one is not statistically significant). If you say you agree with surrogacy but don't explain how it could / should work safely for all, you can't expect others to take your argument seriously.

If we can agree that there is likely some psychological harm to the child, surely we can agree that this, then, is a problem that society should be concerned with (rather than shrugging our shoulders and saying 'women's right to choose innit').

If you would argue that there is no evidence of harm, I would invite you to look at some of the links posted upthread before forming a response.

Donor sperm and eggs have been discussed earlier in the thread.

@DaisiesandButtercups but many of the arguementa on here relate to not knowing the generic background of the child. That's the same with donor eggs no? So I wanted to know how you see this as different. It's a reasonable question to ask I think. For the fist family they child is biologically theirs - for an ivf couple it may not be - potentially that has as many issue in the long term.

I'll correct myself. The babies were delivered six weeks early by emergency LSCS, so significant risk to mother and both babies plus the demands in the NHS. But the disabled child seems to have congenital myotonic dystrophy. I don't know much about the condition but it wouldn't have been to do with being a twin.

The point here is that separating the mother-baby dyad created through gestation and birth is always going to be traumatic to both parties on some level even if never acknowledged.

Bringing in payment is essentially buying one (or more) human being(s) and renting the body of another.

It is unethical, inhumane and in my opinion cannot be justified.

Maybe a new thread for the egg sperm question would be helpful?

It’s not ‘donor’ sperm and eggs in the US, it’s ‘sold’. It’s commercial.

Am against sperm and egg donation where there is sale, including discounted or ‘free’ IVF, and/or where DC don’t have access to the identity of their genetic parent(s).

Having paid lots of money for a much-wanted and longed-for baby, do you think that (some) commissioning parents wouldn't reject the child based on a disability or birth defect? They have paid for a top quality product, with commercial arrangements detailing even what foods a surrogate mother should eat during the pregnancy.

And don't think this just happens in the backwaters of Ukraine and other poor countries with limited protections.
This case was in the U.K. Now the surrogate mother is raising the rejected disabled twin.

Also another case of a woman being implanted with two embryos to create twins despite it being common knowledge that the best chance of a healthy mother and child is if the baby is a singleton. I don't know details of the pregnancy but it's a reasonable bet that a singleton baby would have been born without problem.

Woman rejected disabled surrogate baby as a ‘dribbling cabbage’.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/906372bf-1f6f-4195-b75b-d18202b12bd6?shareToken=35fd7f8390815c5386091e49b49facdff_

Wombs are not incubators for the infertile.

All donor conceived children wonder about their origins. The fact that the children you know @flippertyop are pretending they don't because they live a privileged life (with kind people like you surrounding them telling them how very lucky they are) doesn't mean they don't think about it. All the money in the world cannot ever compensate for the fact that they don't know who their mother is.

The child who doesn't know either their biological mother or their actual mother will be doubly damaged.

Denying a child access to that information is abusive. It is parents treating children as possessions. I don't care how wealthy the people who bought them are.

So out of interest how do you guys feel about infertile couples using donated sperm and or eggs? Why is that any better - or is it not? Genuine question

@OhHolyJesus yes that is an extreme example - as are some parents who can't afford one child and have ten - also an extreme example. Could you honestly look a happy surrogate child in the face and say that they shouldn't have been born. 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

This isn't a surrogacy issue - that's an issue faced by many children regardless of their gestational circumstances.

In terms of non-perfect babies being rejected, it is actually very much a surrogacy issue.

Having paid lots of money for a much-wanted and longed-for baby, do you think that (some) commissioning parents wouldn't reject the child based on a disability or birth defect? They have paid for a top quality product, with commercial arrangements detailing even what foods a surrogate mother should eat during the pregnancy.

An extreme example (on the numbers of children alone) shows what the commissioning mother does to ensure she and her wealthy criminal husband get in terms of the end product.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/14022922/mum-of-11-wants-100-children-and-will-pay-for-it/

[quote flippertyop]@Helleofabore I didn't say it negates it. If 'it' actually exists as a problem which it may do for some. But you can't only use the negative aspects and ignore all the life experiences that being financially secure will bring to those children over and above others - who may still be with the biological mother. You can't pick only the negatives because that suits your agenda . [/quote]
You have brought wealth into this. I am saying in this decision, level of wealth is irrelevant. Wealthy families should not get to exploit other women’s bodies to produce children just as much as families in poverty.

But being well off as a child from a surrogacy arrangement is pretty much a given, because only rich people get children this way. So it’s not a positive. The child wouldn’t exist if the intended parents didn’t have the money to facilitate the child’s birth so to say the child is privileged as a result is paradoxical.

And this leads to the argument that surrogacy is only good because wealthy people do it because the money makes the negatives worthwhile.

And the family may look happy to external observers. And maybe the children genuinely are. Or maybe they daydream about a woman they don’t know. Maybe they cry sometimes and their parents don’t see it. Who knows. Only the children themselves can determine this when they’re older, and accounts from other children of surrogates above suggest the outcome isn’t certain.

That’s why as I said earlier in the thread, there’s no such thing as 100% successful surrogacy; there is surrogacy that got through a pregnancy without serious complications (do you know this for sure in this case?) and a couple crossing their fingers their child won’t grow up and feel the trauma of it. Only decades later can you say a surrogacy has been successful.

‘I don't think you can argue just about the negative parts of being a surrogate child without also discussing the positive parts’

That is absolutely not how safeguarding works!

I used to be in favour of altruistic surrogacy, but threads like this have made me change my mind. Adoption is for the benefit of the child, but can sadly still cause issues.
Surrogacy is not for the benefit of the child, and supporters don't seem to want to discuss potential issues at all. They don't seem to want to acknowledge there could be issues. Its pretty disturbing how attempts at discussion have been ignored.

‘ I don't think you can argue just about the negative parts of being a surrogate child without also discussing the positive parts’

Strongly disagree. The negative aspects of commercial egg sale and surrogacy are specific to those practices and have implications for women and DC more generally.

‘whataboutery’ with respect to other problems / DCs’ situations is irrelevant.

@Helleofabore I didn't say it negates it. If 'it' actually exists as a problem which it may do for some. But you can't only use the negative aspects and ignore all the life experiences that being financially secure will bring to those children over and above others - who may still be with the biological mother. You can't pick only the negatives because that suits your agenda .

I agree with pretty much what most of you are saying but I don't think you can argue just about the negative parts of being a surrogate child without also discussing the positive parts such as the financial advantages that they will have. There could be issues with being a surrogate child there could also be issues with being a child with no opportunities and brought up in poverty. There may also be issues with absent parents etc. my point is not many people have the perfect life and we are all effected by somethings in one way or another, so yes the surrogate child may end up having issues from being a surrogate but are privileged in other ways that other children are not. All I can say is I see no signs of any issues so far and the children are part of a very close family and very happy. As for what happens if the child isn't wanted anymore? This isn't a surrogacy issue - that's an issue faced by many children regardless of their gestational circumstances. Many of you focus on all the negatives and completely disregard the positives and also use issues that effect many children to relate only to surrogacy. I don't think this is a rounded view

What about the ones that are wanted but then don't fit the ideal that their parents expect from their child? With the added pressure of "we paid £xxxxxxxx for you"

Absolutely… not only to have you created especially for that couple, but then all the money spent providing that child with everything they ever wanted.

And yes, the DC will lean that one or two women, likely in much worse financial circumstances than the parents who brought them up, were paid.

And that their sibling is / is not the biological child of both parents.

[quote flippertyop]@Helleofabore I disagree. Private schooling, the ability to attend whatever clubs you want. Have personal training if you are good at something, go to amazing places and experiencing amazing things absolutely enhances a child's life and sets them up for the future. The financial situation of a child is absolutely related to their experience of life and the advantages that will bring them. [/quote]
That is great. We can disagree that the type of privileged life you are describing negates the impact of a child’s creation.

You cannot ‘buy’ a child’s mental well-being.