To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

Gay men can't acquire a newborn any other way really

Men exploiting women again, when will it stop?

Probably a naive/stereotypical view, but I would've thought that it would be women who would try absolutely every single avenue to acquire a child rather than men.

It’s a lazy assumption that infertile women want to exploit other women to have a baby.

The baby can't consent.

This, we have to think of the rights of the unborn child.

[quote Blackbird1234]@TreesoftheField Why is surrogacy massively in the interest of men? I would've thought it was for women a lot more so.[/quote]
You're raising a lot of different points and not coming back to say what you think about the answers OP.

Lots of posters have said very intelligent things about the comparison you raised with adoption. Can you now see why surrogacy is different?

The other thing with adoption in the UK is that private adoptions aren't allowed. Adopters have to have a social services assessment, and as has been said, the priority is finding the right parents for the child, not finding a child for the parents.

LI would've thought it was for women a lot more so.
Why?

[quote Blackbird1234]@TreesoftheField Why is surrogacy massively in the interest of men? I would've thought it was for women a lot more so.[/quote]
Gay men can't acquire a newborn any other way really

And I suggest you look up some of the US stories of egg donors who may die, have strokes directly after or loose their own reproductive capacity because they get paid to produce and donate eggs. (Sometimes going to Canada to be ‘harvested’).

Please tell us how putting a donor’s body into hyper ovulation for someone else’s benefit is not exploiting them. Even with full consent.

Adoption is a necessity as the child is already there amd yes the fact that money isn’t changing hands is significant. There isn’t a woman being treated like a commodity at the centre of it.

If you're really interested, there's plenty of info on the subject available out there that you could have a read of.

Because how can anyone be so very sure that there is absolutely no guilt, no coercion at all in even a consentual non- economic agreement.

Because what about those women who sign up for multiple surrogacies ‘because they like it’ and continue to do it even after nearly dying during the last one or two? What about that is not exploiting someone’s mental health issue?

Because if, as it has happened recently, a sister dies or is left incapacitated during pregnancy, is this then written off as ‘well, she wanted to help?’.

What family or friend is NOT exploiting a loved one’s willingness for their own gain?

And that is before even looking at the rights of the baby. Is that infant where the rich mother doing it going to have a relationship with that child for life?

How do you propose that now adult child process the fact that this was not just ‘assisted’ conception (ie, like in an IVF situation involving only the parents eggs and sperm) but they are a child that was conceived and carried for the sole purpose that someone who wouldn’t have had a child, gets one made to order? Because that is essentially what it is. A new person made where so much effort has been expended to fulfill someone’s need to have a child of their own, usually with a biological link to them, but commoditising another woman’s body for nine months.

There is a reason people want the word ‘gestator’ used. There is nothing but commodification happening here.

Often surrogates carry donated eggs so that they are not the genetic mother.
These types of pregnancies involve a lot higher risks to the mother.
I think the risks of pregnancy can be so high, not just mortality but birth injuries that can be life changing- I don't think anyone should ask a woman to go through that for them.
I find people are really keen on 'a woman can choose what to do with her body' when it comes to sex work or surrogacy but we Don't hear the same arguments about people selling their organs. It's massively in the interest of men for these issues to be sold as empowering when they're massively exploitative.

• the child already exists
• usually these days the children are being placed for adoption because their birth families are unable/unwilling to care for them properly
• where a baby is relinquished the birth mum can't make a final decision until 6(?) weeks after the birth
• no money (even 'expenses') changes hands
• it is really the 'least worst' option for the children

Surrogacy you are creating a child with the initial aim of removing the child from its birth (/gestational) mother.

Removing a child from its mother at a very young age creates an instinctive loss in the child. Choosing to do that (rather than needing to) is highly dubious morally I thnk.

It’s illegal to remove puppies or kittens from their mother before 8 weeks old isn’t it? It’s cruel and detrimental to their welfare.

We know it’s the same for humans, we know there are poorer outcomes for adopted kids separated from their mothers (even though being adopted is better than not being) so why would anyone advocate for creating a situation that does exactly that?

My friend was a surrogate a few years ago. Of course in England you can't officially be paid for it, but her expenses seemed to include having her entire house redecorated and new furniture.

Her MH was awful after she had the baby. I was seriously worried for her life at one point. She's still not the same 9 years later.

Twenty years or so ago my local job centre was carrying adverts for women to work on sex chat lines. With increasing crackdowns on benefits I don't want to see a situation where women are expected to carry babies as a legitimate 'job'. Legalising commercial.surrogacy brings that a step closer.

Far-fetched? I think 10 years ago nobody would have thought a male born swimmer would be sweeping women's competitions in America or that men would be allowed into women's changing rooms on their say-so. Cultural norms change, protections can be erased, particularly it seems when it's what men want.

The problem is that far more often than not it is 'consent' out of desperation. That's why you don't actually find a lot of rich surrogates having a baby for a stranger. You find it is poor women, often from poor countries with little to no state help that basically rent out their womb in order to survive.

Years ago I saw a story on some day time tv programme or other about a sister who had carried her younger sisters baby, it seemed so lovely and supportive, a genuinely heartwarming thing. No money changed hands and baby had his mum and bio mum. Then I grew up and had my own babies, I became aware of the dangers to our bodies, how bloody precarious our female reproductive health is in a western civilisation. Not to mention many babies are not born “perfect” and there are so many stories now where the baby is rejected by the buyers and dumped. When you think of the amount of women and children sexually trafficked and you hear about the “finders fees” to connect wealthy westerners to poor desperate women around the world it’s pretty sickening. Imagine being locked up and breeding a baby that will be ripped from you and sold on? When I think of it in those terms, not the lovely sisters on the this morning sofa, I know it’s wrong. We aren’t entitled to babies.

No one can fully predict what effect a pregnancy can have on their body... it can end in disability or even death. Can a price be put on that?
Thats before the rights of the child are taken into account.

I have massive sympathy for people that cannot have their own children, including gay couples, who would make fantastic parents. But buying a baby isn't the answer.