Surrogacy-help me explain to my daughter why this is exploiting women

I'd start with what pregnancy does to a woman's body. If you are lucky you only have stretch marks to show you were pregnant. If you are unlucky then you might need a heart transplant or die.

Babies are usually 'bought' in third world countries.

Bodily autonomy of the surrogate. Who decides what happens if something goes wrong? Maybe the surrogate wants to give birth vaginally but the person paying want her to have a caesarean because the baby will be 'prettier'.

What if the baby is disabled? Or there are other problems. Have a look at 'baby Gammy'.

What if the buyers change their mind and tell the surrogate to abort?

What about the baby? These days most adoptions are 'open adoptions' because of the psychological impact on the adopted children.

As the child grows up don't you think they will want to know where they came from and how?

It’s good to see this in defence of motherhood:

“One child psychologist who gave evidence in the case said that the men were attempting an 'erasure of mother’ from their family, which he said did not reflect reality and was not in the best interests of the little boy at the heart of the legal battle.”

The only shame is they failed to point out that the SM actually got the Parentsl Order overturned, a legal first.
The men then tried to get round this by trying for step-parent adoption which the judge denied.

Of note, during the trial the men accused her of being homophobic. As she pointed out, she would hardly be likely to have agreed a surrogacy arrangement with a gay couple if those were her views.

They did themselves no favours and really illustrate the dishonesty employed to use women as convenient gestational grow bags.
These were family friends remember.

Flowing this the fathers tried another tactic of seeking a "step-parent" adoption, which would have erased her status as legal mother/parent.

Thankfully the judge was having none of it.

The case notes are here:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2024/20.html

It is a shame the article didn't explain that the mother made legal history by having the parental order overturned. She had sensed the fathers would go back in their promise of ongoing occasional contact and had been reluctant to agree to the order. The judge at the time suggested making a contact order so she could be assured of maintaining contact. However the father's reneged on this, and so she resorted to the courts. Consent to a PO must be freely given and in this case it was not, conditions were attached. So the PO was overturned meaning she is the legal mother with parental rights that follow.

Here is the case.

caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2023/16

As a heterosexual woman that had many gay male friends, I feel a bit used by gay men now that they have full access to patriarchal structures.

Interesting to see accusations of bigotry used in this way with little regard to the interests of the child.

Given we know that there is a deep psychological need for many adoptive children to know who their biological parents were, even though they have very good relationships with adoptive parents (and lots of awareness of this due to the many TV entertainment shows about this), I'm glad it's gone this way.

It's reflective of the rights of donor's generally which are still developing.

It's wrong when a biological parent wishes to involved from the word go, to deny a child this right, purely because they are under 18 and the legal parents have a strop about being somehow being slighted by this.

It's not homophobic to consider the rights of the child to know their own identity and where they came from. The same issues would apply if the child was being raised by a heterosexual couple...

I hope eventually they will ban it for everyone.

So glad she won.

I saw that article too, misscockerspaniel. It's horrifying. The natural mother was told wanting to see her own child was 'homophobic'.

Interesting case re; surrogacy
Surrogate mother wins access to her biological son in landmark case - after gay couple said it was 'homophobic' for her to be involved in their 'motherless family' with 'no vacancy' for a woman | Daily Mail Online

Your daughter is old enough to form her own moral opinion. And she does not have to agree with all of your opinions.
Most things in life are not universally black/white.

Instead of trying to convince her you are right - she is wrong…. You can try to have a discussion and see if she has arguments that are valid. If you hear her - she may be more open to hear your arguments.

There are arguments that are for and against on surrogacy. There is, of course, a need in a robust legal framework and enforcement - that exist in some places and does not in other.

Thinking people can come out on different sides of this debate. And can also change their minds as time progresses.

The Catholic Church globally is opposed to reproductive technology, gamete donation, IVF, etc and has been since these things were invented. It is also opposed to surrogacy, gender identity ideology and practices, pornography, prostitution, etc etc so there have always been these particular areas of agreement between Catholic Christianity and some feminists. Is it not new as far as I am aware.

Rather! Delphinium We have seen that so many times in the past. Being the most loved and wanted is supposed to make a child who understands that they have been transacted as a product feel so much better.

I often wonder if it registers to those who support 'that it is sometimes ok ' or 'it is fine because.... ' ever wonder how they would feel realising they have been a product transacted and brought into existence to fill someone's personal need. I doubt it.

And if someone is ok for a child to be transacted to fill such a need, what else are they ok for humans to be transacted for ? Or just children.

Prior to the pope's declaration, in the US, I've rarely seen this framed as a conservative vs. progressive issue. Gloria Steinem (a leftist radical feminist) came out strongly against the commercial surrogacy bill put forth by then NY Governor Cuomo (a Democrat). There are plenty of very evangelical Christian groups who use surrogacy as a 'way to build their Christian families' and egg buying/selling agencies market to Christians. Also, laws on surrogacy in red states try to ban surrogate mothers from getting an abortion. Laws to strengthen the commissioning parents' rights are often proposed by conservative legislators. However, I fear that w/ the pope stating this, suddenly we're going to hear only about the mean conservatives who deny gay men the rights to parenthood and, again, the leftist feminist voices will be drowned out.

From personal experience, I know plenty of Christian women who vote conservative who are utterly opposed to surrogacy and egg donation and plenty of left-leaning women who vote Dem who feel the same way. I hope this doesn't change as I have felt it's one topic where you can get cross-party support on.

someone then uses an emotionally manipulative appeal about the pain that parent may feel.

And then that cycles around to the untold damage to that child of the burden then on them to continue to alleviate pain. Which they won’t work out until maturity usually. It must be a complete headfuck.

This emotional heartstrings narrative is always, always about the adults, never, ever about the children minus a mild, "Well, they will be loved."

I happened to hear the discussion about surrogacy on Radio 4 this morning, between 'Christian ethicist Dr Helen Watt and fertility lawyer Natalie Gamble' (programme website). Natalie Gamble is also a founder of Brilliant Beginnings, a surrogacy service. I didn't think much of the discussion as a discussion - the professor made some general criticisms of surrogacy, Natalie Gamble said it was great, and it was all about 'altruistic' surrogacy within the UK. No analysis of paying surrogate mothers who are economically disadvantaged. No probing questions from Ed Stourton, mostly 'Helen/Natalie - your response?'.

I can’t find anything I disagree with in the quoted statement.

What the Pope said according to the Australian article linked earlier

“In a recent address, Pope Francis called surrogacy "deplorable", criticising the "grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother's material needs". A child, he said, shouldn't be "the basis of a commercial contract".
The pronouncement produced an unlikely alliance between religious conservatives and some feminist progressives.”

To be fair, I don't know who was on between the couple plus surrogate at the beginning and the, I think, agent at the end. But it was on the show at all because the pope recently came out very strongly against it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001vc36

So, just the standard ‘anyone who disagrees is a conservative’ tactic?
This tactic is rolled out on so many issues and it drives me up the wall. It's like "be kind" on steroids with a hint of "but you don't want to be like them.

It fuels the 'us and them' style of thinking where one side is good and right and the other side is awful. It's the sort of thinking that would hinder cross party discussion and consensus because people who use this tactic seem to think that if you share an opinion with someone on one issue, you're somehow 'aligned' on all issues.

So, just the standard ‘anyone who disagrees is a conservative’ tactic? The one designed to be a thought terminating silencing tool. Because people who want to be seen as liberal and progressive get the message that to be seen as what they wish to become, they must support some kind of surrogacy at the very least.

I don’t recall Julie Bindel being socially conservative… yet on this issue I am in agreeance 100% with her. And most others too but particularly this one.

Odd they don’t get her on to counter that message of conservatism.

A section on surrogacy has just been on on radio 4 Sunday programme (starting c. 7.45). Only caught beginning and end, so will listen later,but beginning and end were both "pro" with "anti" being described as socially conservative position, which seems an odd characterisation.

Yes. People who declare they just want to help others by having a pregnancy for them need to have their reasons thoroughly checked. They may very well have underlying mental health or trauma issues that mean that this is not something they should be doing at all! I doubt it gets picked up with a couple of hours ‘counselling’ that may be given.

We will have all sorts of posters deny it, but it does happen. I would predict it happens much more often than ever reported. I remember once reading about a surrogate who was told by her eighth surrogate pregnancy that it was now incredibly high risk for her. She had her own children too. She ignited it. Her need to be pregnant, to ‘selflessly’ give away the child was so great.

it was never about the child. It wasn’t even about the other parents. It was a significant need within her. She would put each child at even higher risk and her own child at risk to be motherless to do this.

That is a power over the decision making that needed to be explored. Yet, which regulation will cover that issue? And if the mother denies they have the issue or it hasn’t been drilled into by the counsellor because time and reasons, it isn’t about to appear in a capacity report.

Maybe those declaring that tighter regulations can explain how to protect from this? Or is it that they believe that the woman is there for the utilising and bodily autonomy means she should not be protected. Thereby a woman such as this is grist for the mill in one way as she is useful. But her need is also a negative power position that is impacting the arrangement. She too is using the human being transacted for her own reasons.

It is not an altruistic transaction at all in my eyes. I find once you start drilling down, understanding the different sources of power that are not just financial or obviously emotionally coercive, that I now doubt any of these transactions are ‘altruistic’. Everyone adult in the transaction may be exploiting the human that has been transacted. But it seems that should be allowable.

Because that transacted human is fulfilling an adult’s needs, usually to alleviate their emotional pain.

And in every single post supporting any surrogacy, that foundational fact is ignored. Usually due to the fact someone then uses an emotionally manipulative appeal about the pain that parent may feel.

And then that cycles around to the untold damage to that child of the burden then on them to continue to alleviate pain. Which they won’t work out until maturity usually. It must be a complete headfuck.

Before she became a surrogate, Anna was an egg donor for three different families. "I got hooked on the wonderful feeling of helping others in a really meaningful way," she says. "It's addictive."

This is a big red flag to me - it feels almost like narcissism. What about the children who've been born of this?

Interesting article, I’ll say balanced. Two children born via surrogacy with different views. An example of failed counselling and legal fallout.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-14/pope-francis-surrogacy-deplorable-others-australia-gift-parents/103313940?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link