To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

I meant there has been several pages of discussion upthread comparing and contrasting adoption and surrogacy so it would be a shame to go back over the same ground as there is a very interesting discussion developing around consent, coercion and freedom vs regulation and the rule of law.

But I might have misunderstood the point being discussed (am very tired), apologies if so.

Im racking my brain for something relevant by the philosopher John Locke about the intersection of rights but Im shattered and I cant quite dredge it up from the recesses of my brain.

Because , I think especially when it's for altruistic reasons rather than compensation, the emotive element ,the trust and bond is too high. It's hard when it's all being made about the fuzzy and warm feelings , how you're a hero and a star and doing this amazing things, pesky details like risks and various what if scenarios get overlooked. The focus is always on the outcome and the happiness and the baby.

Great point.

When money is involved the boundaries become significantly blurred.

When money isn’t involved but emotion and relationships are, boundaries become significantly blurred.

There is no scenario where this can be played out without serious problems.

Like I said earlier, so called “successful” surrogacies have only happened because of sheer dumb luck.

And that “success” doesn’t factor in the child’s future. On that AMA, the surrogate seriously didn’t think that a child with two dads would be interested in asking who and where their mother was .

It seems odd to find amusement in such things.

I have read the thread @crunchermuncher but I must have missed that part of the discussion. To point me to the relevant posts please.

So it's not a private fostering arrangement.

As far as I know the only safeguard currently is an alert midwife or health visitor or other HCP raising safeguarding concerns in the usual way.

Because liberal feminism focused on a woman's right to choose rather than dismantling the system of oppression, we now get to choose which oppression we suffer, like a sort of "choose your own adventure" of debasement.

Excellent point Eishet that I have been struggling to express as clearly as this. Liberal feminism is a complete failure of politics as it only works for women who have plenty of autonomy and practical resources behind them to choose, but even then it doesn’t take account of social conditioning. It’s a misunderstanding of what consent actually is and how it works, just saying yes or going along with things without complaining doesn’t cover the full picture of what’s needed for fully informed consent.

FannyCann if there is no genetic link then wouldn't that be the same as private fostering arrangements?

But there is genetic link in DIY arrangements - the father provides the speed and the "surrogate" mother self inseminates. Then, because magic word surrogacy it is handed over to the father and any partner. If they then want to tie it up legally they apply for parental order, severing the mother's rights, and confirming the commissioning parents as the legal parents, even issuing a new birth certificate to reflect this I believe.

Do I think women are unable to asses risk ? No.
Do I think there is full disclosure and emphasis on all the possible risk and that it's kept at the forefront in any and all discussions regarding surrogacy? No.

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?

Local authorities must be notified about private fostering arrangements (schools, NHS etc are required to do this where they suspect it) and local authorities are required to visit the child regularly and ensure it is a safe placement.

Welcome BlueBrush

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.

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.

FannyCann if there is no genetic link then wouldn't that be the same as private fostering arrangements? I am also guessing in the ONS scenario that the mother would remain the mother with parental responsibility and liable for child maintenance should the father choose.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/AMA/3806707-Im-becoming-a-surrogate-AMA?pg=2

This is the thread, almost two years ago. A real insight into the lack of thought that can go into these decisions. The OP answers the car crash question from page 1 with the following on page 2 (linked):

Oooo interesting. I’ll ask them. But if I found out my son had a baby and he died before it was born I’d claim it in a heartbeat.

I'd love to know the outcome, I wish the OP would come back and update us all.

Here's a thread about just such a case @NotBadConsidering
Surrogacy between friends an absolute car crash because no one gave any thought to possible outcomes.

surrogacy has gone wrong www.mumsnet.com/Talk/surrogacy/2188488-surrogacy-has-gone-wrong

I remember there was an AMA type thread on MN a year or two ago where the surrogate came on and said she’d just had the embryo implanted for a gay male couple and was happy to answer any questions. She seemed clear it was her choice.

On the first page someone asked her what she would do if the couple died in a car crash before the baby was born. She answered that she hadn’t thought of that possibility .

Several pages later she came back to say she would give the baby up for adoption.

No forethought, embryo already in, eventualities not considered. That was her choice, to go ahead anyway.

My last example and the example from @FannyCann were both 'altruistic' and not commercial surrogacy, so we're not shared as examples of human trafficking snd were shared for the exact opposite reason, to demonstrate and explore what altruistic surrogacy means in response to Star's own comments about women having a choice to do what the want with their bodies.

This bothered me somewhat as the babies are all biologically hers. She won't do surrogacy when her egg isn't involved which I just don't understand

It is impossible to regulate so called "traditional" surrogacy as this is usually done via DIY insemination at home and often with minimal legal advice so it is very risky for all parties imo. I don't know what the legal situation is for a woman who, for example, had a one night stand, didn't want the baby but agreed to sign it over to the father and I'd love it if someone with legal knowledge could fill me in on this. But I see the DIY arrangements as essentially the same. I believe they should be covered by adoption law with all the proper checks of the people the baby is being handed over to. At present I am far from sure that any proper safeguards exist in these arrangements.

Furthermore when commissioning parents apply for the legal parentage conferred by a parental rights order then some checks are ordered by the court. Of course by then the baby will have been resident with the CPs for some time and best interests of the baby will normally mean leaving it with the people who have been its primary carers since birth so unless something very bad was uncovered the PR is likely to be agreed even if these people would not have passed the more extensive adoption checks.

I have looked at some CAFCASS reports and I find it concerning that apparently quite a few of these surrogacy arrangements go under the radar as the CPs don't bother to apply for a parental order. Sorry I'm on my phone and haven't time to look for links. I don't know why people wouldn't want to tie everything up legally but I have my suspicions.

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.

Exactly. That was an 'altruistic' example.
Dear me, I'm getting tired of spelling this out. The issue in that example was the fact that the women doing a kind thing was left paralysed.

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

Yes, you're right, one example is not the majority. But it is one example. One woman is left paralysed as result of engaging in surrogacy. Would you like to know how many have died (that we know about), no? I can share other examples of where surrogacy has gone wrong but I see little point as you haven't responded to multiple questions, shared links, by me and by others.

Go make your party food, you are not engaging in good faith but I thank the OP for doing so, and the lurker for delurking (welcome ).

There was a thread on MN a while ago by a woman who was being put under enormous family pressure to be a kidney donor. How could she let X suffer and maybe die when she only needs one kidney? On and on. She was aware that the surgery carries a risk, that while people can live happily with one kidney that there can also be complications. She was the mother of young children and didn't want to put herself at risk but the family would not stop badgering her. She was told that if she went for assessment and told the donor team her feelings that she would be rejected and her family told she was 'unsuitable' but someone without that advice might have been pressured into being assessed, and then if they were a suitable match pressured into going ahead.
No one is saying women can't make a decision just that there can be pressure applied to vulnerable women who aren't fully informed or who can't see that there are other choices available to them. It doesn't mean all surrogates are vulnerable, it doesn't mean women are deemed incapable of making informed decisions it means that we need to be mindful of those that are vulnerable.
In the UK you can't sell organs or children, you can't kill people, or drive when drunk not because we this people are pathetic weak beings that can't make decisions but because as a society we accept that some choices can have negative consequences.

It's no different from buying a kidney.

But that’s the point, some people would like assisted dying to be available here and it wouldn’t surprise me in the coming years if it because a possibility.

No, you missed my point again. I was talking about regulation. For those who want assisted dying do you think we should just let them get on with it, it's none of our business, who are we to say what they can and can't do with their lives or planned death?

OR

Should it be tested in law, regulated so oh I don't know, Dr Shipman types aren't left in charge, running a business in it, charging money to kill people with no background checks, safeguarding procedures, checks on whether someone is of sound mind before signing a consent to death contract? (Not I did not say murder).

If regulation is key to ensure safe access who should decide that regulation? The public? The government? One judge? A jury?

Your view appears to be a liberal ones and I have no interest in derailing this thread further so I will leave those questions with you and hope you apply them to your own thoughts and views on surrogacy, but again, no one is forcing you.