Surrogacy summed up in one photo

Handmaid’s Tale.. Are we but broodmares to these men?

It’s amazing how surrogacy makes people think and talk in such appropriating , creepy ways. I heard two women talking in public the other day about their ivf struggles and they wanted to consider surrogacy. One woman said “it’s so much better in America. The baby isn’t the property of the surrogate but is the parents property. And they don’t have to wait a year to adopt their own child.” Women two then interjected with “it’s shocking the surrogate could just steal their baby if she wanted to in the U.K. it’s sickening to me that she’s called the legal mother . She’s not a mother at all.” These women both desperately want to have kids and seem perfectly nice but the way they were talking about surrogacy like it was purely transactional was very chilling.

I’m thinking the exact same thing

They have commissioned her to sell them her baby. There's nothing charming about it. Commercial surrogacy is banned in most of Europe.

It's very telling that abortion is banned but buying babies is big business in the US.

Yeah, it's pure narcissism. Faceless woman and baby are practically blurred out in the background, all the focus is on them.

I agree with pp she probably wanted to be less identifiable but I feel for the baby who will be removed from their mother

Unless it’s shared care (which I doubt) but even then time apart

That poor baby. In a few months it'll be taken from its mother and probably never see her again.

In any other context, everybody would agree it's tragic. But when it's a surrogate, it's "her body her choice."

There's two different issues for me on this thread (I'm sure I'll be told if I'm wrong!)

1. Is the photo offensive to women/ undermining carrying a baby/ giving birth (I don't think it is)

1. Opinions on surrogacy - I don't know where I stand on this tbh.

I once had a client who was carrying a baby for another couple. She commissioned a custom, thoughtful gift for the parents and she seemed to be absolutely thrilled about them and happy with her choice to do that.

@FunnyTalks read it as a response to the comments re reducing the woman to a cattle status, knowing her place, the woman only being regarded as a uterus, etc. There could've been a woman at the forefront, together with the one (blurred, lurking, etc.) at the back.

Yeh cos they think it’s the “best” one.

From what I can see, she chose to be a surrogate. Her body, her choice

Where do we draw the line on that? Paid kidney donation? Or living cornea donations? We know that pregnancy and birth take a major toll on the mother, almost without exception. There's plenty of evidence that almost all surrogates are already mothers, with other children who are at risk if they lose a parent. Also more evidence that there is a toll on babies who are immediately taken from their birth mother (even if it's by wonderful and caring people). Unfortunately also plenty of examples of surrogacy gone wrong.

Paid surrogacy is often done with good intentions. But given all of the above - it's not as simple as saying 'her body her choice'.

The mother is the woman in whose body the baby develops and who then gives birth to the baby. In the UK this is how we define motherhood legally.

It doesn’t matter if it was a surrogate egg, this is still the mother

‘The only time I think surrogacy is acceptable is if it is done out of love for, say a family member, and no money changes hands. Even then I'm uncomfortable with it. No one has a right to have a baby, certainly no one has a right to buy a baby.’

Absolutely. The ‘right to have a baby’ narrative is the height of narcissistic entitlement. Nobody has a right to use someone else’s body for their own gain.

The only time I think surrogacy is acceptable is if it is done out of love for, say a family member, and no money changes hands. Even then I'm uncomfortable with it. No one has a right to have a baby, certainly no one has a right to buy a baby. The power dynamic is always unbalanced, and as a PP said above, when rich women do this as a service for poor women, we can have a conversation about the topic. Until then, these men can fuck the fuck of with their misogyny. Just because they're gay doesn't make it any less misogynistic.

I thought that maybe she didn't want to be identified so she was in the background so the "bump" was in the photo.

Most posters are assuming the “womb person” is also the “mother”. It is also possible the egg has come from a donor, mixed with sperm from one or both men, and resulting embryo implanted into the womb. The men are gazing at each other as if they are both the fathers which, of course, biologically is not possible. The photo seems to suggest that both the egg (half the baby’s genetic inheritance) and the womb are irrelevant. Presumably the baby eventually will be told something about the biological mother and perhaps also about the “womb person”. Perhaps at some point this “womb for hire” business will be normalised. But at the moment it seems odd and undermines the importance of gene inheritance to individuals’ health, personality and other traits.
in reply to those who say “the baby will have loving parents”: how do you know? We know as little about the likelihood these two men will be “loving parents” as we do about any new parents. Some of us get it right and some of us don’t — regardless of our sexuality.

Praise be

This.

She should be centre stage, with them either side of her. That is a horrible picture.

Is the surrogate stood in the naughty corner?

@Soubriquet Jesus fucking Christ that photo is bad.

Personally, yes. I've never supported IVF .

Cattle status? The woman is still a woman, not a cow. Whether you agree with surrogacy or not, she hasn't been 'reduced' by choosing to do this.

you'll all be happy to hear then that after Roe vs Wade has been overturned, some States no longer allow IVF at all, also not for cis het couples.