To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

UnsureAndUnsteady

What you are describing is the process whereby the surrogate mother is subjected to unnecessary treatment to implant the fertilised egg, which seriously elevates the risks involved for mother and baby. This is often combined with the treatment given to the egg donor, who can end up with life-long health problems as a consequence. All of which is done on the frankly appalling idea of stripping the surrogate mother of any rights to claim the baby as her own.

As for the connection between a newborn child and the world it knew in the womb, my dgd only breathed after her birth on hearing her father's voice.

Also what has abortion got to do with it? Surrogacy is actually creating a child who would otherwise not exist.

Of course, abortion from surrogacy is probably more likely than average if the fetus is shown to have an abnormality. Remember that Thai case where the baby-buyers pulled out of the sale because the baby was going to be disabled?

Definitely mixed views, obviously don’t agree to anyone being forced to do it. On the other hand if all parties convent and the baby is going to a childless couple I can’t see the harm. Better than abortion IMO.

Women matter

Completely agree OP it's completely judgemental and none of anyone's business.

I don't go around judging housewives for examples

@Couchbettato I think that goes without saying!

What I was pointing out earlier on is what is the impact of the genetic mother on the baby?
We know that children who are born for donor egg or donor sperm often have a strong wish to know more about their genetic parent. We know there are often some major discoveries such ‘oh this person has this maneurism/that taste’ etc….
It’s not possible to say that there isn’t a genetic link to the baby with the genetic mother.

That doesn’t mean that there is no link with the woman who carried the baby!

But it makes me wonder what is, for the baby and then child, the most important thing?? Has there been any studies around that, maybe from children who were born via egg donor?

I once had a conversation with a genuine volunteer surrogate who was doing it because she loved being pregnant and giving "the most incredible gift" (or so she claimed). She said she would only agree to it if the couple were willing for her to act as a kind of aunt figure as she felt it was morally wrong for a child to have no relationship with the woman who gave birth to her/him. From what I've seen, maintaining that relationship with the surrogate seems quite rare and is clearly to the detriment of the child.

@Oneforthemoneytwo I know someone who did that too.
Had her own business, two dcs of her own and was passionate about supporting women/pregnant women
She saw surrogacy as a way to support another woman and to give a beautiful gift.

And if a woman is simply treated as a gestator with a womb to rent (even as a gift) what is the next step? Growing infants in bags for parents?

I am genuinely shocked by the comments here that seem to see a womans womb and pregnancy as of no biological significance to either her or the baby, as long as the embryo isn't hers!

This is how surrogacy is damaging. You have bought into this myth which devalues both mothers (the one who carries the baby) and babies.

Pregnancy may be natural but it is neither effortless nor risk free and leaves physical changes on/in the woman for ever. We are not incubators!

I don't think the baby's consent is a reasonable argument. Babies are unable to consent to everything but the decision to drink milk

But that's why as parents we need to make decisions that are in the child's best interests, and that should apply pre-conception too. It's not a responsible or child-focused decision to create a life knowing you will remove it from it's biological mother. There are other ways to be a parent. I say this as someone who has had 4 miscarriages.

It's great that it worked out for your friend but as many people have pointed out here, it's an ethical, emotional& physical car crash for most mothers and babies. The fact that it's not harmful 100% of the time doesn't make it morally right, or a good idea.

We can't say it wasn't harmful to the baby.

It's great that it worked out for your friend but as many people have pointed out here, it's an ethical, emotional& physical car crash for most mothers and babies. The fact that it's not harmful 100% of the time doesn't make it morally right, or a good idea.

Down the physiological changes in their hormones when they're being held by their mum Vs someone who is not their mum.

They can recognise their mothers smell, voice, heartbeat, touch, gait etc.

As mammals, they deserve their mother's milk. The only person who should veto that is the birth mother and that's after making an informed decision. But they really do deserve the opportunity to be with the person who can give them that.

So often the surrogate has no biological link to the child.

No, Unsure, that is not true. The mother who gestates and births the child has an extremely strong biological link to that child and vice versa. Wombs aren't inert incubators. Babies are plumbed into their mothers bodies, you don't get a much stronger biological link than that.

Humans aren't for sale, who wants a human baby slave?

In addition to the many excellent points raised by other posters I would also add that surrogacy epigenetics means that the surrogate can influence the development of the child, it isn’t as simple as the egg and the sperm coming from the ‘parents’ determining the health outcomes of the baby. The surrogate mother also has an influence. She is inextricably linked to that baby forever, she isn’t merely an incubator.
www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/making-babies/0/steps/15924

I haven’t read all the posts so sorry for this has been said before but (through work) I know about the legal side of things. To all of the people who say that it doesn’t consider a child’s right to their “biological family” I am not sure if you are aware that in order for it to legally be a surrogacy agreement/situation in UK law the baby HAS to be biologically related to at least one of the parents (not the woman that carried them). So either has to have the mothers egg or fathers sperm and then placed in the surrogate. Very rarely is a surrogate carrying a child that is biologically related to her. This applies even if the baby was born outside of the UK. To get a parental order here (the order that makes surrogacy legal) you have to prove a direct biological link. Otherwise it is just inter-country adoption (totally different beast).

So often the surrogate has no biological link to the child. Also UK law says that there is only allowed to be “reasonable expenses” currently set about £15-20k. This sum applies regardless of where the child is born and doesn’t go far in the UK for in country surrogates (there are a number of agencies who have British, well informed, altruistic women on their books) BUT it goes a lot further in poorer countries hence why more women there are willing to sign up (often equivalent to a year or two’s wages). America has a huge surrogacy “market” but bringing the babies back here is really tricky as they charge £100k+ and the UK can’t qualify that as reasonable expenses and so it is considered buying a baby! That’s not to say the Uber wealthy can’t find a way round it but there is a LOT of red tape, huge court costs and often they have to end up adopting the child even if they are biologically related as the courts won’t make the orders.