Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

987 replies

Blackbird1234 · 30/12/2021 18:29

I've seen a few posts on some threads in this topic, from people condemning surrogacy. I don't understand why it is seen as bad, if all parties consent. Can anyone explain, please?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
RepentMotherfucker · 31/12/2021 14:31

This thread's got weird Grin

Starcup · 31/12/2021 14:24

@Packingsoapandwater

My position on surrogacy is simple.

If you commission an individual to undertake mental and/or physical effort to achieve a purpose or result that you desire, that is work.

Therefore any commercial surrogacy arrangements must comply with health and safety legislation and employment law.

So good luck trying to get surrogacy through Working Time Regulations when you are talking about a working week of 168 hours with no rest periods or annual leave.

You are also looking at paying out, ooooh, a good £60,000 in wages if you manage to get someone who will accept National Minimum Wage for growing what is essentially a third-party-created parasite in their uterus.

And I really don't think you would get a vaginal labour or a caesarean section past H&S at work legislation. And, of course, you will need insurance to cover the cost of litigation in the event of potential injury or death of your "employee" in the act of "working" for you, and I suspect those premiums would be very high.

They want to pay someone to do something for them? Then they have to abide by the rules. And those rules make it impossible. Which says something rather important, doesn't it?

But another poster used an example about men going down the mine for paid work and compared it to taking risks and was shot down.
Starcup · 31/12/2021 14:21

@Ylvamoon

Be nice Don't think critically Don't say nasty things Turn a blind eye because of all the unhappy infertile women (rich/western - poor ones just have to suck it up) and oppressed gay men. And what about their (already priviledged) rights? Don't use 'bad words Don't spoil the PR and 'Happy Ever After' Myth

Well said!

Dear me Confused
Lovelyricepudding · 31/12/2021 14:21

crunchermuncher we were talking about under-the-radar informal arrangements with the 'turkey baster' or ONS and the lack of protections in these - not the formal adoption route.

Starcup · 31/12/2021 14:18

@OhHolyJesus

There is regulation in the countries where is available. Your point is moot as it’s not available here currently so there is no regulation as it doesn’t exist…. No, again you miss my point. We were talking about regulation and assisted dying is not available in the U.K. yes, but as you said, you suspect it may arrive on the U.K. and if it did I would say it is essential it is highly regulated, therefore making the point about regulation being applied to a socially controversial practice, which would be voted on in HoP by elected representatives by us, the general public. Do you see how this works? Making a comparison with another example to demonstrate a point is standard practice for discussion and debate. As was done ineffectively on the other active thread with IVF vs Surrogacy. It’s irrelevant what you or I think, some people think it’s unethical to not allow a procedure and others think the polar opposite.

No. Everyone's opinion is welcome on this social media platform, no opinion is irrelevant but I would say an informed view is more helpful for discussion. When is comes to public consultations for law reform no view is irrelevant, though I wouldn't go so far to suggest that one carries more weight than another, however it's clear from FOIs that for surrogacy some views from vested interests (and controversial lobby groups) were prioritised above and beyond others for politically-driven reasons.

What YOU think personally, isn’t the holy grail of what is right or wrong. I accept this regarding my views too but I’m not ignorant to think I’m right, everyone else is wrong.

Wrong again I'm afraid. I'm not the authority on surrogacy, but I have read a lot and share what I think others may found useful. As you have seen and say, I'm apparently 'famous' for that reason. I don't think I'm right but I am able to argue my point and share examples to support my arguments. It's ok for you to ignore these examples, my points and dismiss my argument and imply that I consider myself or my view to be above others. Not so, but I am informed. What is right or wrong is subjective, hence why I ask questions of women who have had surrogate babies as I want to understand more.

For the sake of a debate, I'd like to know what you make of my earlier questions if you'd like to return to those? I'd like to stick to the subject of surrogacy and discuss those examples of surrogacy and the ethical questions posed by those examples rather than divert to whose opinion has more value. If you'd like to discuss assisted dying from a feminist perspective you could start a thread on this on the same board, or on feminist chat perhaps...

You don’t get to dictate what people post.

Your views appear to be extreme regarding surrogacy and I assume you think it shouldn’t be allowed under any circumstances? That’s fine.

Others think it should be available to anyone at any price and cost (both monetary and emotionally)

Most people will likely fall somewhere in between, in that they don’t think surrogacy in all circumstances is morally wrong.

Obviously on the feminist boards the majority of posters hold extreme views, but that’s ok because that’s the same as many emotive subjects.

Euthanasia, abortion and the like are all emotive topics and quite often people are completely pro choice or actively against it.

The problem arises where you have extreme views like those that oppose abortion full stop, regardless of the reason. More rational and reasonable people will understand things aren’t as black and white and they’ll accept that the women should be able to chose.

The same extreme views on euthanasia where people would argue that under no circumstances should it be allowed to be legalised, ever.

The reasonable people will say there could certainly be situations where it should be allowed under strict conditions etc…

This is why these things are very relevant, the same theme runs through them all, whereby people uphold extreme views.

As stated, I don’t hold extreme views either way. Im happy to listen to people share their reasons why think it’s appalling and I can certainly understand some of them, but I think some of the techniques on here used to bombard people will their opinions actually makes people just go Hmm

RedToothBrush · 31/12/2021 14:09

Crack on Starcup.

Crack on.

Runningupthecurtains · 31/12/2021 14:05

But you can’t say that surrogacy is always forced. I mean you can argue the toss all you want and you would be right in probably many cases
But you can't say drink driving is always dangerous. I mean you can argue the toss all you want and you would be right in probably many cases.....
But we legislate anyway and don't let John say 'I'm OK on a couple of pints'

Starcup · 31/12/2021 13:59

@RedToothBrush

You’re conflating soles and car Thor’s there when talking about human trafficking. I get you need to use engine language to get your point across but it’s too far fetched to take you seriously.

The last that have the example her that was a surrogate to her friend or sister was so far removed from anything to do with trafficking etc that it makes you look silly to compare them.

We know this shit happens and it’s an utter disgrace but let’s not make out that it’s always the case.

No I'm not conflating anything.

This is the UN definition of human trafficking:

Human Trafficking is the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of people through force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them for profit. Men, women and children of all ages and from all backgrounds can become victims of this crime, which occurs in every region of the world. The traffickers often use violence or fraudulent employment agencies and fake promises of education and job opportunities to trick and coerce their victims.

I do actually think that women and babies are very much victims in the way described above.

The coercion. The abuse of women - particularly abroad, but not solely (see above examples of women forced into signed really dubious legal agreements which sign over their bodily autonomy often under highly pressurised circumstances so they don't get the opportunity nor the legal advice to understand fully what they are signing). The extremely glossy PR that so often neglects the reality. The kids who are not thought of because of promise of a 'wonderful life'. And of course we shall ignore the 'dumped' and 'imperfect' babies that have no voice because the commissioners just fuck off and abandon them because they aren't up to the fairytale and therefore don't have 'value'. And we will ignore the abject lack of safeguarding that is applicable to fostering and adoption.

So yeah, I stand by EVERY WORD I say. And I think its very appropriate to use the term human trafficking - people need to have a long, hard think about it because it is certainly part of the surrogacy trade (numerous examples and why some countries have actively banned the practice because of how it was being run by unscruplous organisations and groups for profit).

The issue is this makes people be confronted with the reality that they don't want to engage with and consider because ethics and morally are, I quote, 'Boring'.

They like the idea of it being a 'Happy Ever After' all parties are juuuusttt finneeee because it suits their world outlook and they can carry on as before without critical thought or being compelled to challenge the PR myth or the 'progressive' Trojan Horses they ride on the back off.

It is always poor women and babies that are most at risk in surrogacy. Its always poor women and children who are the biggest targets for exploitation by rich people.

I think the phrases: 'baby selling' and 'human trafficking' should be used as much as possible to remind people of what is going on and how it very much is appropriate to do so.

What I find enlightening is just how much discussions about this are then shut down by the 'but altruistic' stuff or 'not in the UK we have laws' and then still avoid how similar is also true even in the UK. The avoidance of discussion how this particularly affects the poor or the vulnerable is a sight to behold. The avoidance of discussion of the need to safeguard is eye opening 'but they didn't have a gun to their head' therefore its ok. The only abuse that seems to really matter is violence. Not financial and not emotional. These are 'invisible' abuses that are merely 'inconvenient' to the rich and priviledged who don't have a concept of how easy it is to find yourself in this situation.

EXPLOITATION BY THE RICH. HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

Keep saying it.

But you can’t say that surrogacy is always forced. I mean you can argue the toss all you want and you would be right in probably many cases, but the case of a woman being a surrogate for her best friend, is no such thing.
Packingsoapandwater · 31/12/2021 13:59

My position on surrogacy is simple.

If you commission an individual to undertake mental and/or physical effort to achieve a purpose or result that you desire, that is work.

Therefore any commercial surrogacy arrangements must comply with health and safety legislation and employment law.

So good luck trying to get surrogacy through Working Time Regulations when you are talking about a working week of 168 hours with no rest periods or annual leave.

You are also looking at paying out, ooooh, a good £60,000 in wages if you manage to get someone who will accept National Minimum Wage for growing what is essentially a third-party-created parasite in their uterus.

And I really don't think you would get a vaginal labour or a caesarean section past H&S at work legislation. And, of course, you will need insurance to cover the cost of litigation in the event of potential injury or death of your "employee" in the act of "working" for you, and I suspect those premiums would be very high.

They want to pay someone to do something for them? Then they have to abide by the rules. And those rules make it impossible. Which says something rather important, doesn't it?

Starcup · 31/12/2021 13:56

I’m laughing at the twisting of information to suit the cause, but that’s what’s happening right now….

Runningupthecurtains · 31/12/2021 13:52

@RedToothBrush

this poor deprived man

Stop using emotive language. Its not ffffaaaiiirrrr.

It's OK Red I'm infertile so I'm allowed, not as allowed as a gay man obviously but a little bit allowed. I think I can do sad faces too but as I have a child thanks IVF I'm not sure if I have to knock this on the head now.
Starcup · 31/12/2021 13:51

take some nerve

Starcup · 31/12/2021 13:50

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

What YOU think personally, isn’t the holy grail of what is right or wrong. I accept this regarding my views too but I’m not ignorant to think I’m right, everyone else is wrong

hang on, so you can give your opinion because @Starcup but other people can't because they think they're right?

i'm not sure what point you're making?

But I’m not judging people that decide to become surrogates……

Imagine having the nerve to stand there and say how disgusting it is….

Imagine saying that to someone that has been a surrogate for their infertile best friend…. Hmm that wound that some nerve!

Ylvamoon · 31/12/2021 13:47

Be nice
Don't think critically
Don't say nasty things
Turn a blind eye because of all the unhappy infertile women (rich/western - poor ones just have to suck it up) and oppressed gay men. And what about their (already priviledged) rights?
Don't use 'bad words
Don't spoil the PR and 'Happy Ever After' Myth

Well said!

RedToothBrush · 31/12/2021 13:42

this poor deprived man

Stop using emotive language. Its not ffffaaaiiirrrr.

Runningupthecurtains · 31/12/2021 13:41

Why there aren't women lining up...

Runningupthecurtains · 31/12/2021 13:33

@FannyCann

This gay man who has been actively promoting surrogacy for single me. in the news, on TV couldn't make it clearer that he regards women as walking wombs who should provide babies to order. He said on TV "Because I am gay I don't have access to a womb". He also bemoaned the stress of going to surrogacy meet ups in the hope of connecting with a womb woman who was prepared to have a baby for him, complaining that "surrogates have all the power - they get to choose". How awful, right? Those mean women hoarding their reproductive rights and choosing who to have a baby for. Hmm
Fucking hell. Is he really saying round up some wimmens and let me decide which one I want to use as an incubator? Because that is how it reads. I can't imagine why there are women lining up to risk their physical, mental and reproductive health to provide a service to this poor deprived man HmmConfused
Windywuss · 31/12/2021 13:22

*due

Windywuss · 31/12/2021 13:22

@RedToothBrush it absolutely is in the UK if you have the money to go abroad, and that isn't just the Elton Johns etc. I know someone who went to Eastern Europe and went a way down the road of surrogacy before ruling it out because the child wouldn't look like him die to his ethnicity. They didn't seem to have any regard to the fact that they were going abroad because the UK wouldn't allow this process.

Our society is now utterly entitled. Anything and anyone can be found in the global market. But you're right. It's the dishonesty. Its doesn't fit the nice progressive narrative which hides the utter narcissism in our world.

RedToothBrush · 31/12/2021 13:15

'Be nice'
Don't think critically.
Don't say nasty things.
Turn a blind eye because of all the unhappy infertile women (rich/western - poor ones just have to suck it up) and oppressed gay men. And what about their (already priviledged) rights?
Don't use 'bad words'
Don't spoil the PR and 'Happy Ever After' Myth

HOW VERY DARE YOU USE EMOTIVE WORDS!
(Yeah cos the monopoly on those belongs the infertile women and oppressed gay men to promote surrogacy already - the rights to those got bought out too).

OhHolyJesus · 31/12/2021 13:11

There is regulation in the countries where is available. Your point is moot as it’s not available here currently so there is no regulation as it doesn’t exist….
No, again you miss my point. We were talking about regulation and assisted dying is not available in the U.K. yes, but as you said, you suspect it may arrive on the U.K. and if it did I would say it is essential it is highly regulated, therefore making the point about regulation being applied to a socially controversial practice, which would be voted on in HoP by elected representatives by us, the general public. Do you see how this works? Making a comparison with another example to demonstrate a point is standard practice for discussion and debate. As was done ineffectively on the other active thread with IVF vs Surrogacy.

It’s irrelevant what you or I think, some people think it’s unethical to not allow a procedure and others think the polar opposite.

No. Everyone's opinion is welcome on this social media platform, no opinion is irrelevant but I would say an informed view is more helpful for discussion. When is comes to public consultations for law reform no view is irrelevant, though I wouldn't go so far to suggest that one carries more weight than another, however it's clear from FOIs that for surrogacy some views from vested interests (and controversial lobby groups) were prioritised above and beyond others for politically-driven reasons.

What YOU think personally, isn’t the holy grail of what is right or wrong. I accept this regarding my views too but I’m not ignorant to think I’m right, everyone else is wrong.

Wrong again I'm afraid. I'm not the authority on surrogacy, but I have read a lot and share what I think others may found useful. As you have seen and say, I'm apparently 'famous' for that reason. I don't think I'm right but I am able to argue my point and share examples to support my arguments. It's ok for you to ignore these examples, my points and dismiss my argument and imply that I consider myself or my view to be above others. Not so, but I am informed. What is right or wrong is subjective, hence why I ask questions of women who have had surrogate babies as I want to understand more.

For the sake of a debate, I'd like to know what you make of my earlier questions if you'd like to return to those? I'd like to stick to the subject of surrogacy and discuss those examples of surrogacy and the ethical questions posed by those examples rather than divert to whose opinion has more value. If you'd like to discuss assisted dying from a feminist perspective you could start a thread on this on the same board, or on feminist chat perhaps...

RedToothBrush · 31/12/2021 13:08

You’re conflating soles and car Thor’s there when talking about human trafficking. I get you need to use engine language to get your point across but it’s too far fetched to take you seriously.

The last that have the example her that was a surrogate to her friend or sister was so far removed from anything to do with trafficking etc that it makes you look silly to compare them.

We know this shit happens and it’s an utter disgrace but let’s not make out that it’s always the case.

No I'm not conflating anything.

This is the UN definition of human trafficking:

Human Trafficking is the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of people through force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them for profit. Men, women and children of all ages and from all backgrounds can become victims of this crime, which occurs in every region of the world. The traffickers often use violence or fraudulent employment agencies and fake promises of education and job opportunities to trick and coerce their victims.

I do actually think that women and babies are very much victims in the way described above.

The coercion. The abuse of women - particularly abroad, but not solely (see above examples of women forced into signed really dubious legal agreements which sign over their bodily autonomy often under highly pressurised circumstances so they don't get the opportunity nor the legal advice to understand fully what they are signing). The extremely glossy PR that so often neglects the reality. The kids who are not thought of because of promise of a 'wonderful life'. And of course we shall ignore the 'dumped' and 'imperfect' babies that have no voice because the commissioners just fuck off and abandon them because they aren't up to the fairytale and therefore don't have 'value'. And we will ignore the abject lack of safeguarding that is applicable to fostering and adoption.

So yeah, I stand by EVERY WORD I say. And I think its very appropriate to use the term human trafficking - people need to have a long, hard think about it because it is certainly part of the surrogacy trade (numerous examples and why some countries have actively banned the practice because of how it was being run by unscruplous organisations and groups for profit).

The issue is this makes people be confronted with the reality that they don't want to engage with and consider because ethics and morally are, I quote, 'Boring'.

They like the idea of it being a 'Happy Ever After' all parties are juuuusttt finneeee because it suits their world outlook and they can carry on as before without critical thought or being compelled to challenge the PR myth or the 'progressive' Trojan Horses they ride on the back off.

It is always poor women and babies that are most at risk in surrogacy. Its always poor women and children who are the biggest targets for exploitation by rich people.

I think the phrases: 'baby selling' and 'human trafficking' should be used as much as possible to remind people of what is going on and how it very much is appropriate to do so.

What I find enlightening is just how much discussions about this are then shut down by the 'but altruistic' stuff or 'not in the UK we have laws' and then still avoid how similar is also true even in the UK. The avoidance of discussion how this particularly affects the poor or the vulnerable is a sight to behold. The avoidance of discussion of the need to safeguard is eye opening 'but they didn't have a gun to their head' therefore its ok. The only abuse that seems to really matter is violence. Not financial and not emotional. These are 'invisible' abuses that are merely 'inconvenient' to the rich and priviledged who don't have a concept of how easy it is to find yourself in this situation.

EXPLOITATION BY THE RICH. HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

Keep saying it.

MrsPelligrinoPetrichor · 31/12/2021 13:00

@HeyGirlHeyBoy

People have commented on kittens and puppies staying with their mother for the first 10 weeks or similar. Clearly this doesn't happen with surrogacy and tbh if it did, would the (altruistic) women do it in the first place / be able to give the child up in that scenario? I know a man currently waiting for the birth of his baby (UK). I have repeatedly said 'mother' when discussing the surrogate mother and he has never reacted to this. However he is upset his dh name won't be on the BC. He also told me with a smile that the baby's mother will be out of the scene immediately after birth. I feel most for the baby here. It's a work colleague and everyone is thrilled, he's an absolutely lovely, warm person but I have bit my tongue. It seems it is just not thought through.
That's a prime example of male entitlement. My tongue would be in two!
Blackbird1234 · 31/12/2021 13:00

@FannyCann You said you'd like an update on the outcome from the OP (me), do you mean you'd like to hear which opinion I've formed based off this thread?

OP posts:
HeyGirlHeyBoy · 31/12/2021 12:08

People have commented on kittens and puppies staying with their mother for the first 10 weeks or similar. Clearly this doesn't happen with surrogacy and tbh if it did, would the (altruistic) women do it in the first place / be able to give the child up in that scenario? I know a man currently waiting for the birth of his baby (UK). I have repeatedly said 'mother' when discussing the surrogate mother and he has never reacted to this. However he is upset his dh name won't be on the BC. He also told me with a smile that the baby's mother will be out of the scene immediately after birth. I feel most for the baby here. It's a work colleague and everyone is thrilled, he's an absolutely lovely, warm person but I have bit my tongue. It seems it is just not thought through.

Swipe left for the next trending thread