To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

I know someone who was a surrogate. She is a professional woman with a husband and 3 of her own children. She had absolutely no financial need to be a surrogate and she put herself forward after reading about someone who couldn’t get pregnant. The egg and sperm were from the couple she was surrogate for. It was straightforward and successful: she has no regrets at all: it was simply something she says she had always wanted to do,

So, do you get it now then, OP?

Unlike with adoption, in the U.K. at least, where adoptive parents are vetted and prepared, there are no checks and safeguards for 'surrogate' parents.

On top of all the other points that have been made, there doesn't seem to be any safeguarding at all involved. There is nothing to stop paedophiles buying babies by this means.

I don't have an issue with surrogacy if the baby has no genetic link to the surrogate. I know several couples who had a family member act as a surrogate for them

Are you aware @bonetiredwithtwins that the risks of pregnancy are massively increased when carrying a baby conceived with a donor egg?

Do you think putting more than 25% of surrogates and babies at risk of serious complications is acceptable?

https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/assisted-reproduction-using-donated-eggs-has-higher-risk-of-complications-for-mothers-and-babies/

Extract:

Assisted reproduction with donated eggs carries about double the chance of some risks for mothers and babies when compared to pregnancies from natural conceptions or assisted reproduction using the woman’s own eggs. These risks include high blood pressure and pre-eclampsia, preterm birth, low birthweight and a higher risk of caesarean section. In multiple pregnancies, high blood pressure and pre-eclampsia can affect more than 25% of mothers carrying multiple pregnancies following donated eggs.
This systematic review included a large sample of 16,000 women receiving donor eggs from 35 observational studies and national registers. The authors adjusted for the influence of maternal characteristics and multiple pregnancies which can also affect risk of these complications.

Babies don't care about gametes. They care about the bond they build with their mother - the woman whose heart beat they hear, the women who grows them in her body.

[quote ontana]@Soontobe60 I was being sarcastic [/quote]
Apologies, I’ve got the rage reading some of these posts!

I can’t imagine circumstances in which I would be willing to risk someone else’s physical and mental health to that extent in order to fulfill my own desires. No matter how enthusiastic they were about helping me.

I don't have an issue with surrogacy if the baby has no genetic link to the surrogate.

A baby is formed from the body of its mother and the mother will carry fetal cells from that baby potentially forever in her own body. The mother who carries and births the baby isn't a sterile and interchangeable nest, her and the baby are linked forever.

[quote Blackbird1234]@PurpleDaisies Who do you think is pushing for it?[/quote]
Gay men, women who don’t want the effects of pregnancy of their own body, couples who can’t have kids.

Just blame the barrens for surrogacy. Fucking lazy.

If all parties consent and it is a voluntary offer by someone who knows the person who wants a child (sister having a child for childless and desperate sister, for instance) then I think there is nothing wrong with it.

I think if anything could be described as genuinely altruistic, you'd have to be able to decline at any moment without consequences. I just can't see how that works in a family. You agree to have a baby for your sister to raise but then change your mind. You agree to have a baby for your sister to raise but get pregnant and need an abortion. You agree to have a baby for your sister to raise but can't give it up. You agree to have a baby for your sister to raise but it has a disability and she doesn't want it.

Any of these scenarios is fairly likely and doesn't even touch on the normal outcomes of pregnancy for women. None of them, I think, would leave a family intact so I do not believe that altruistic surrogacy is possible.

“So how about if it was a rich couple using another rich woman as a surrogate - would that be viewed in a better way?”

This is very rare (for good reason). And it would still be bad for the baby.

is the link the the woman who carry the baby the strongest link for the baby?

Yes. The baby knows the woman who carried them as their mother and nobody else.

On thé other side, thé baby should have a genetic link with the mother and /or father who adopt them.

Which raises a few questions which I don’t think I’ve ever seen an answer to:

• Is the genetic link to a parent (egg or sperm) extremely strong for the baby? Do they ‘know’ that the parent raising them has/hasn’t that genetic link? I’m thinking if the implication with surrogacy but also egg and sperm donation.
• is the link the the woman who carry the baby the strongest link for the baby? Again, a good question to ask both in case of egg donation and in case of surrogacy.

I am not sure we actually know the answer as surrogacy is really an really new procedure. But I think they are valid questions to ask.

See for example, the impact that being raised by a man who isn’t genetically your father can have (Many situations there from sperm donation to women having an affair etc….)

As I mentioned above. Money isn't the main issue here. Its much bigger than that, it's the trauma that is being done to children coldly and calculatingly.

It’s not the case that a lot of posters said payment was the main reason. Posters outlined a number of reasons.

It's no different to using donor eggs/sperm surely. Isn't this also effectively "buying" a baby?

No, sperm and eggs are not the same as fully formed independently existing infant human people

[quote Blackbird1234]@PurpleDaisies I'm not assuming that infertile women are fine to exploit other women, I'm not sure where you got that from? Until about an hour ago I thought that surrogacy was fine in most cases because I didnt know the reality of it. My assumption is that a woman is more likely than a man to try and acquire a baby if they're infertile, but would assume that most women who arent savvy about surrogacy would then think "fuck that" once they found out more about it, like me.[/quote]
Ok.
It’s a lazy assumption that it’s infertile women pushing for this.

Surrogacy is banned in large parts of Europe.

Commissioning a woman to undertake a risky pregnancy and birth to create a baby for sale is morally, ethically and biologically wrong.

Explaining to an adopted child why their biological mother gave them up (or was forced to give them up) is unspeakably difficult. I cannot imagine trying to explain to a child that their mother sold them.

A friend of mine has JUST had a baby. The baby is a gorgeous, beautiful, vulnerable person that SHE has carried for nine months. The baby’s cells are in her body forever now. Her uterus held the baby, her blood nourished the baby. The food she ate and the liquids she consumed nourished them both. The baby knows her voice, her smell, has gained her antibodies and has had her colostrum. If that baby was involuntarily removed from her right now in the hospital room and abducted, there would be a massive man hunt, an outcry. The medical professionals would know the harm being done to that baby by being taken.

The fact that in surrogacy that situation has been created voluntarily by people other than the baby still means the baby suffers trauma surely! The baby doesn’t go ‘oh yeah, it’s ok I’ve been taken from my mother because I’ve been commissioned. Chill..’

The situation of being motherless and the ensuing trauma persists beyond being newborn, obviously.

@Soontobe60 I was being sarcastic