To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

ohHolyJ

You live up to your name and have a never ending supply of fish.

@SphincterSaysWhat

I'm still Involved in the surrogacy world, and it's not all 'women on benefits' being rented by gay celebs.

Do you mind, can I ask how your two surrogacy pregnancies and births went, if you still see the children, what expenses you got paid and whether you would do it again?

I completely understand if you would rather not answer, but given that you posted about your own experience or being a high tax payer and not in the category of a 'woman on benefits' I wondered if you might share some more details? (Not about your income obviously).

[quote OhHolyJesus]@Starcup
You said
"But you don’t get to decide because it’s not your choice"

I said
"That's exactly why I posted about law reform of U.K. surrogacy laws on the other thread you and I were on Starcup. The laws of the land are for and apply to everyone."

We were both on that thread and it still stands. I referred there to the Rumplestiltskin thread which details proposed law reform.
It have details of the public consultation of 2019 which is relevant to the subject and would have provided, had you read it, lots of information and links to help you understand both existing laws, proposed changes and what is legal in other countries.

You have consistently conflated IVF and Adoption with surrogacy. Posters have pointed out how they are not the same and I agree with them that the whataboutery is quite something. On the other thread a different poster conflated IVF with cancer treatment and treatment for diabetes, on a surrogacy thread.

This thread and the other thread both had OPs asking and talking about surrogacy. It's clear that IVF is connected to gestational surrogacy but it's the surrogacy the majority of posters have an issue with and are commenting on, not IVF. The other thread was temporarily moved (not at the OP's request) and so I understand why there was so much discussion about IVF, but, going back to the OP here, it is about surrogacy. It is in the title.

You say you don't want to engage with people with "extreme views" and what others do is nothing to do with you. You're alright then, no one is forcing you. Don't worry about women who regret surrogacy, the women who die, the babies who die or are abandoned or live a life where they feel blight. Leave it to us to worry about them.
[/quote]
It’s their choice. No one holds a gun to their head.

The way some people go on on these sites it’s as if a woman is a pathetic being, who is constantly being controlled and can’t make up her own mind.

It’s boring as sin, hearing the same arguments over and over but but but….

Not every mine sees the world like you and many others in here. The whole debate wouldn’t be happening if there was a blanket ban on it everywhere, but as there isn’t, some places (including the US) don’t view things the same as you.

You keep saying that taking the baby away from its mother when it’s born is the problem (to add I’m not saying it’s a great idea) but what if it’s a heterosexual couple and the new mother is the best friend of the biological mother and is happy to do it?

Someone has posted on this thread if you care to read and said it worked for them. What if a woman had ovation cancer and couldn’t have kids naturally and her friend stepped in and said she would do it?

I know you wouldn’t agree as many others wouldn’t and that’s fair enough, but going back to the original point, people bring in kids to the world in circumstances that will be damaging but that’s overlooked.

It’s a very vocal thread and that’s fine but there’s a lot of judgment and I don’t think it’s as black and white as taking a baby off it’s mother especially if the eggs used aren’t hers to start but belong to the person who will be the child’s mother, even if they didn’t give birth.

@Starcup
You said
"But you don’t get to decide because it’s not your choice"

I said
"That's exactly why I posted about law reform of U.K. surrogacy laws on the other thread you and I were on Starcup. The laws of the land are for and apply to everyone."

We were both on that thread and it still stands. I referred there to the Rumplestiltskin thread which details proposed law reform.
It have details of the public consultation of 2019 which is relevant to the subject and would have provided, had you read it, lots of information and links to help you understand both existing laws, proposed changes and what is legal in other countries.

You have consistently conflated IVF and Adoption with surrogacy. Posters have pointed out how they are not the same and I agree with them that the whataboutery is quite something. On the other thread a different poster conflated IVF with cancer treatment and treatment for diabetes, on a surrogacy thread.

This thread and the other thread both had OPs asking and talking about surrogacy. It's clear that IVF is connected to gestational surrogacy but it's the surrogacy the majority of posters have an issue with and are commenting on, not IVF. The other thread was temporarily moved (not at the OP's request) and so I understand why there was so much discussion about IVF, but, going back to the OP here, it is about surrogacy. It is in the title.

You say you don't want to engage with people with "extreme views" and what others do is nothing to do with you. You're alright then, no one is forcing you. Don't worry about women who regret surrogacy, the women who die, the babies who die or are abandoned or live a life where they feel blight. Leave it to us to worry about them.

And I am all out of fish.

Starcup

"crunchermuncher

This is whataboutery again. No one has said it's ok to not have a father! It's crap. But it's not what was being discussed.

Can you genuinely not understand the difference between a baby being removed from a mother at birth, and never knowing their father? Its not a competition - neither is good.

Your argument seems to be 'bad stuff happens, so we shouldn't try to prevent further bad stuff from happening'.

Is that your argument?

Or are you just trying to make this all about men?

Can you genuinely not understand the difference between a baby being removed from a mother at birth, and never knowing their father? Its not a competition - neither is good

I think your point of view is that a mother even if she’s a shit one, is better than a father (a good one) so on that case I don’t agree with this."

...

How on earth did you draw that conclusion from my comment? I have not said and do not think that a shit mother is better than a father. As others have said, you seem to be conflating mother with mother figure or care giver. Of course a man can be a care giver (my partner was a damn good one) but this doesnt change the fact that removing a newborn from its birth mother straight after birth is traumatic, and this trauma to the child is a direct result of the surrogacy process.

Most of your points have already been addressed upthread but you can't be arsed to read them.

Your entire argument seems to be 'it shouldn't be up to me, so you shouldn't get a say either' - luckily, public policy in the uk is not your responsibility so you can rest easy! However, someone does need to make these decisions (unless you are advocating for anarchy?), which is why this topic, surrogacy, was being discussed. Changes to the law are being considered (in the UK) so it makes sense to consider and debate these - this is politics in action.

If you don't want to have a considered opinion, that's fine, but please don't try and shame those who do by misrepresenting and twisting what we have said.

Okay Starcup

You stated that if a woman chooses to do it, you can’t see the problem. So what if a woman chooses to do it, signs a contract with the clause I posted on the previous page, and her partner has no say in life support decisions should something happen to her?

You say they aren’t the same, but don’t you understand that some people view any medical intervention as unethical as each other, whether it be IVF or surrogacy.

I don’t wish to engage with such people.

Note what you like, it’s one thing disagreeing to surrogacy and the effects on the baby but it’s quite another to to think IVF is completely wrong full stop.

I can’t be arsed with extreme views like that

I've had IVF, I've seen Kimikos views but they aren't relevant to a debate on surrogacy in the same way as it's not relevant to tell someone they shouldn't take an aspirin because there are crack addicts so I don't feel the need to engage. If it was an IVF thread it would be a different matter.

I honestly don't care if they have. This thread is about surrogacy- you're the one bringing IVF and (bizarrely)prostitution into it.

I note you haven't even attempted to consider why countries such as Iceland etc have completely banned surrogacy.

But if surrogate wants to do this then they will.. they’re obvious ‘allowed’ so it’s not up to me to decide what’s right or wrong but in many countries surrogacy isn't allowed, in the UK it is restricted. Some people want more restrictions (i.e. it being completely banned) other people want the rules relaxing (i.e. commercial surrogacy beging allowed). The OP has in the space of a few hours gone from thinking surrogacy was a lovely kind fluffy thing that produces only winners (intended parents get a baby, baby gets loving parents, surrogate get warm smushy feelings from doing a good thing) to understanding that it's rarely grinning sisters with turkey basters but much more complex and full of potential pitfalls when things don't go to plan. People do lots of things which aren't ideal and as a society we decide which are not ideal but legal, which are not ideal and illegal and which are not ideal but allowed within certain circumstances. No one is asking you personally to decide.

So everyone is entitled to their opinions and I recon hers is more valid than the average persons on here, who hasn’t been through it.

The responses to the "whataboutery" have been very informative.

No. Because I know that for every post I and others write in reply to your inane whataboutery, thousands of others will read over the coming months.

Some may have the same questions as you and may read our answers and think to go and do their own research and form their own opinions. That is how MN feminist board works.

I also know that other, more knowledgeable, people or those who have some personal experience to answer you will likely come along and give you even better answers than I ever could.

But, in case they don’t, I think you have had plenty of people give your repeated questions time and effort.

You won't see a Hollywood star be a surrogate. They only benefit from them.

Think about why that is.

Its the commodification of children to order - with the physical risks to them. Thats born by a woman who is less well off.

There is no such thing as altruistic surrogacy either. Its emotive and exploitative even when someone does it for a friend or family member.

Absolutely horrendous isn't it @NotBadConsidering ?
We can at least take comfort (I believe) that such a contract would not be legal in the U.K. and the NHS would never honour it. Although even as I typed these words I find myself wondering if they would give some (unofficial) consideration to the opinions/desires of the commissioning parents whereas I would say they had no place in an intensive care unit with all communication and medical decisions to be discussed and agreed with the pregnant woman's next of kin only.

@PleasantBirthday

What a lovely fried you are (but this doesn’t suit the narrative of many on here 🙄)

I think you keep referring back to the mother that you don’t see fathers as in integral part of a child’s life and I think that can be damaging to children too.

FFS. Where have I stated this nonsense. I have clearly stated ideally a child will have both mother and father. But many things shape a family in a child’s life. The point is to not deliberately create a life that will be removed from their mother on birth.