To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

What about the ones that are wanted for all the wrong reasons?

Like Adam Truong. He was very much wanted. By paedophiles.

If DC won’t, when an adult, have access to the identity of their biological mother, for example, they may suffer detriment.

[quote flippertyop]@zweisamkeit I don't disagree with what you say however to spend tens of thousands on a child means you really want it. Contrast that with the millions of kids who are born as an accident or without the proper means to bring them up? Who do you think will be worse off in the long run? For the children I think there are worse things than being the child of a surrogate mother [/quote]
What about the babies that are really wanted and then they're not anymore, because they're disabled,relationship breakdown etc.?

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"

What about the ones that are wanted for all the wrong reasons?

@flippertyop

I didn't say they would have more issues than other children. They have been bought but they may not feel they have been bought. I don't think it would be right to ask them, given their ages, that would be wrong.

They have the full medical history of their genetic mothers, well that's good, but they may want to know more than that. I'm assuming that the eggs that made these children were not under U.K. HFEA and they won't have the name and details of their genetic mother/mothers? Under U.K. law anonymous donor gametes are not permitted. This sounds like a commercial arrangement, perhaps based in the US or the Ukraine? Most likely US given the age of the children.

These children you mention may or may not experience genealogical bewilderment, like some other donor conceived and adopted children. Who knows? They only know one of their mothers, the commissioning mother who is their social parent, not their biological mother nor their genetic mother. I'd say that creates a situation where genealogical bewilderment is more likely, rather than less likely. This can be triggered in adulthood, particularly around the time they wish to start their own biological families.

We also don't know anything about the mother, the women who have birth to them. The arrangement she entered into may have been a friendship-based situation, where she fully expected to be in the child/children's lives until her death. Everyone can make promises at the beginning but no one can force this by law. See the Drewitt Barlows and their first surrogate mother who was adored up and promised lifelong friendship until she gave birth to their first set of twins, and then dropped within a few weeks of their birth. I wouldn't expect you to know about her side of the story as you have only heard what you have been told by the commissioning parents and witnessed the children's behaviour. Depending on how close you are, you may only see their best behaviour and not know their inner most feelings (of the children, not the parents).

One surrogate born adult has said that the birthday cards from their parents every year feels like a reminder of the pay check to their biological mother. I'm not suggesting for a moment that every surrogate born child feels that way, but for even one adult to feel that way (they didn't feel this way as a child) is sad, I think we all can acknowledge that and that not everyone thinks or feels the same. This thread alone is an example of that.

‘ The donor egg child has full access to the medical history of the egg donor’

Does the DC also have access to their biological mother’s identity?

The US system - commercial sale of sperm and eggs and commercial surrogacy - is unethical. Lots of the reasons are outlined on this thread, including risks for DC born these ways.

but what you certainly can't say is that these children will have any more issues than my DSis or the millions of kids who are brought up without a loving home or the financial advantages that these kids have.

No I think you absolutely can say that that is very likely. If not certain. A much higher likelihood of attachment, trauma and self esteem issues and resulting difficulties with relationships going forward.

flippertyop but there is no objective means by which you can measure the level of disadvantage to those who are born via surrogate to wealthy families versus those who are born into poverty/addiction/etc. Just because these children are not materially disadvantaged does not guarantee them to be emotionally less so.

I don't disagree that both couples we know will bring up their children with all the love in the world. But there will be a little part of their family history that will always be missing - not some distant great aunt, or a long lost sibling, but the woman who gave birth to them. Unlike adoptions, which I wholeheartedly support, this has been a deliberately engineered and crafted process from before the child was even born. The emotional complexities of understanding that may be far less visible than, say, financial poverty, but we will never be able to measure whether it's a "better disadvantage" or, indeed, whether private schools and the best holidays will be able to compensate for that.

@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.

They know they are surrogate children. I can guarantee at their age they will be wondering who their mother(s) is/are. Will this make them unhappy? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe in the future. Maybe not.

But you cannot determine happiness from privilege.

They are not in any way poor children they are some of the luckiest children alive both emotionally and financially.

I find the discussion here about ‘financial’ advantage to be irrelevant to a child’s well being. Sure providing a child with copious financial resources (by whose standards) is nice to do. But it is being used here as support for ‘these children have a better life than those without copious financial resources’. Is that really what you are saying?

Just like the poster who declared that a child born into poverty conditions (by whose standards again) is in as bad situation as being removed from their mother at birth.

We are discussing surrogacy. Whether a child is placed in a family that is rich or poor, the child has been removed from its mother as an infant. This will have impacts as the child reaches adulthood (or even before) when they process the implications of their birth. It maybe a minor impact, or it may be life changing to realise how their creation came about.

The affluent financial situation of that family actually is not the issue. It is the same if it was a less affluent family situation and they went to a state run school.

Both may also have very loving parents, but the mother who gave birth to that child was deliberately removed from their life in a transaction that resulted in their creation.

@zweisamkeit I don't disagree with what you say however to spend tens of thousands on a child means you really want it. Contrast that with the millions of kids who are born as an accident or without the proper means to bring them up? Who do you think will be worse off in the long run? For the children I think there are worse things than being the child of a surrogate mother

@OhHolyJesus perhaps they will have issues in the future. Perhaps not. I doubt they will see it as being sold. I certainly don't. I see it as them being created as a longed for child. People have issues regardless of whether they are children of surrogates. My DSis committed suicide and was brought up in a loving family by both biological parents. Who knows the future - but what you certainly can't say is that these children will have any more issues than my DSis or the millions of kids who are brought up without a loving home or the financial advantages that these kids have.

flippertyop I also know a couple who have used a surrogate in the States. In fact, they used two different ones. Like your friends' children, they will no doubt have access to the very best of everything, such as holidays, schooling and a secure, stable home, and the children have been much loved and wanted. I don't deny that.

But as PPs have said before, we are yet, as a society, to really fully understand the emotional and mental health implications that will come with a group of people being part of that society, knowing that their mother was deliberately excluded from their parenting; indeed, she was never intended to be in it. I cannot imagine how complex it must be to process that an egg from another woman was used to impregnate a totally different woman, and that money in the six figures was used to erase both of these women from your life from the minute you were born, so that you could be taken to a different country altogether. As a result, you do not legally have a "mother". The whole thing seems so distant, so transactional, that I don't know what could ever compensate for that.

14 and 12 is, sadly, prime age for the complexities of these feelings to begin to emerge, but without the emotional maturity to deal with them. I sincerely hope it does not happen to your friends' children, or the children of the couple I know, but the point is what if it does happen to most or even just some children?

Moreover, I dispute the idea that just because it happens in the US, it is ethical for the women concerned. There is a company advertising donor egg harvesting from Ivy League graduates (I can't articulate just how uneasy that makes me) and while surrogates can't be on financial aid, considering the low bar for welfare in the USA, I can't see that as being evidence that the woman is financially secure and not compelled to do this in some way.

Now that could be a new Staniland question @ldontWanna

I await answers with interest.

What I really want to know is what's the downside or negative effect on the mother (since she's the one taking all the risks) if surrogacy is not allowed? I obviously expect answers from the posters that support it, but everyone is welcome.

No whatabouterries or analogies or how other things are bad too. Just one(at least) negative impact for a woman not being allowed to be a surrogate.

The position of liberal feminism to me can be summed up as "I'm alright Jackie" vs radical feminism which is "are you alright Jackie?".

Brilliant summing up @OhHolyJesus

One for my book of quotes.

The fact is you don't know these children. They are not in any way poor children they are some of the luckiest children alive both emotionally and financially. I see you pick up on the private school but not the fact they have loving parents hi h I also mention. There are probably a million children in the U.K. born to shitty parents who can't or won't look after them. Save your sympathies for them not for the kids who are perfectly happy and have every available advantage given to them. In terms of health issues one is a donor egg one is the biological child of both parents. The donor egg child has full access to the medical history of the egg donor. Neither were the egg of the birth mother.

May I ask what country these examples come from, are they U.K.?

[quote flippertyop]@OhHolyJesus 14 and 12. Yes they know they are surrogate children - no they don't have anything to do with the birth mother[/quote]
Thanks for answering. Were they each created from the egg of the woman who is effectively raising them? Do you know how much was paid in 'expenses'?

Neither are old enough to have had their own children yet so I'd say it's a little early to tell if they've been effected or not, especially if they are not related to the commissioning mother. If either child is a girl and experiences pregnancy and childbirth herself they may feel differently about whether they are effected or not and as you said, you can't see any psychological issues, but the children themselves may feel differently. They may also be unable to speak about it, even to their parents.

100% @PaleBlueMoonlight that should be pasted into every thread on this

flippertyop It’s the US, so was commercial surrogacy. Coercive in that a woman (or women if a different woman’s eggs were also used) was paid.

Will the DC have access to the identity of their birth mother (and their genetic mother if eggs were donated)? If not, that’s a risk for them. There are also other risks, eg impact of separation from their birth mother.

[quote flippertyop]@OhHolyJesus 14 and 12. Yes they know they are surrogate children - no they don't have anything to do with the birth mother[/quote]
And this in itself tells me that decisions made by the adults weren't made in the best interests of the children based on research which absolutely shows that ongoing contact results in better outcomes for children who can't live with their birth families.

Poor kids.

But they went to.private schools? All ok then

Anecdata.

I'd also question whether you have any real idea about the quality of these children's attachments or self worth.

The psychologist my DD has because of the issues resulting from her removal from her birth parents would tell you that there are ALWAYS issues for these children. But even if it were 50%? 20%? What's acceptable to you so this trade in babies can be fuelled?

Absolutely spot on @PaleBlueMoonlight, I've bookmarked this because you've perfectly articulated my own views on why even "altruistic" surrogacy by willing women is not ok