Normalising buying babies

Physically, it's the birth mother's body that creates the baby. The DNA and original cell or few cells may come from elsewhere, but the physical material of the body is from the gestating mother, and everything that is influenced developmentally is regulated by her body and hormones.

These infants truly have two mothers.

You do know some surrogate mothers are living on entirely different continents than the commissioning parents for the entire pregnancy/birth?
Yes that's the extreme, but I bet it's not many that all live together in the same house, eating the same foods, sleeping in the same bed for 9 months?

How would a new-born infant know that their genetic parents are their genetic parents?
They have just come from the womb of their birth mother.
Putting aside my argument about the primeval bond that exists between (birth) mother and child and just addressing your argument about genetics/DNA:

Genetic material passes both ways from birth mother (I'm only using this term to be clear in the language) to foetus/un-born child throughout the pregnancy.

I had no idea about this, never thought about it to be honest, until I heard Elizabeth Day discussing it in in a podcast in context of her own infertility and exploring her options. I think she decided not to use a donor egg partly (or maybe fully) because of her 'ick' (I'm paraphrasing) that another woman's DNA would be absorbed by her body if she used a donor egg.

"As early as the second week of pregnancy, there is a two-way flow of cells and DNA between the foetus and the mother. Cells containing DNA from the foetus cross the placenta and enter the mother's blood circulation, while cells from the mother cross in the opposite direction and transfer into foetal circulation."

"The (birth)mum’s cells also stay in the baby’s blood and tissues for decades, including in organs like the pancreas, heart, and skin. In one study, more than half of adults still had maternal cells in their blood. In some cases, even cells from maternal grandmothers – acquired during a mother’s own gestation – can be transferred to the foetus."

"Regardless of the reasons behind it, what is certain is that mothers and their children carry a piece of each other for many years following pregnancy and birth"

https://arielmedicine.com/mothers-day-genetics-how-long-does-a-mother-carry-a-child/

I think @MMmomDD you believe what people imagine they’ll feel is truly what they do feel.

Birth, death, separation, etc. We imagine we’ll feel a certain way in the future and be completely wrong when reality hits, we can even imagine ourselves to feel a certain way in the here and now, when actually , the primal, animal part of ourselves is feeling exactly what the primal, animal part of ourselves should feel, unregistered in our consciousness. It’s why people sometimes burst into uncontrollable sobs and don’t know why. They thought they weren’t actually upset.

A woman who agrees to gestate a child, going through all the natural hormonal processes, getting the nesting instinct, etc. She might be telling herself “don’t start getting emotional and attached, you aren’t keeping this baby” but her body and instincts will be telling her a different story, no matter how much she tries to tune it out.

Human beings are not machines. We have instincts and emotions for very good reasons of survival and going against them isn’t good for us.

OP I follow that woman as well - the ‘tablescaper!’ - I think she’s a friend of a friend of a friend - and I had a similar reaction to you.

The endless fawning and ‘you’re so brave’ comments from her friends and followers felt so tone deaf to me. Another woman is literally recovering from giving birth and giving away her baby and it’s this other woman who is the brave one??

I feel there’s a slightly odd dynamic with that family though. The young photogenic kids seem to be featured on her page frequently but when they’re no longer little and cute they are sent off to boarding school and are shown a lot less.

Why do you assume that taking a biological child from birth mother - against her will is comparable to surrogacy?
That mother has gone pregnancy knowing that the child will be ripped away from her - with all the associated stress associated with it.
That pregnancy is and child development under increased stress is completely different from surrogacy.

Surrogate and the biological mother of the future baby build a connection. The biological mother of the embryo is involved in pregnancy, similar in a way to how a father is involved. The biological mother is not a stranger to the baby when they are born. And she is genetically related.

And surrogate is not under stress of losing their own biological baby.

So a surrogate birth is very different than the forced adoption scenario you described.
And there is no reason to assume you can extrapolate from one to another.

The baby will never going looking for their family because they're in their family

There’s a child in my daughter’s grade at school who has two dads and was born via a surrogate in India. She tells everyone that when she’s old enough she’s going to go to India to meet her mum 😥.

The baby doesn't know that these people are related to them biologically or are close to them, all they know at birth is that birth mum will protect, nurture and feed them because baby knows birth mum's smell, voice, body. When this doesn't happen and someone else looks after them, trauma is created - their brains develop different neurological pathways to what they would have done normally, and the babies create survival strategies that they shouldn't need to. The trauma that this separation from birth mum creates has been discussed in many research articles, and brain scans show the difference, no matter how well meaning the intended family are, this trauma cannot be underestimated.

Really well said, thank you.

I think m being adopted by people completely unrelated to you under the circumstances that your mother is so stressed she cannot possibly care for you simply isn't the same as being adopted by your own genetic parents. If the surrogate is well cared for and truly wants to do this then it's a truly different scenario. The baby will never going looking for their family because they're in their family. I don't think the two scenarios are all that similar.

But why do you think this isn't a discussion?
And why do you think people are shouting?
I'm not.
I just don't agree with your opinion.
I can completely understand your point of view, I still don't agree with it, and I don't mind you don't agree with mine.

I have been taught about the trauma that babies experience when removed from their birth mother as I recently went through the Uk adoption process.

Babies are sometimes removed from their birth mother's either at birth or before leaving hospital, the effects of this aren't hard to understand and in adoption circles is considered a huge loss & bereavement even though it's court ordered to protect the child from greater harm.

Many a potential adopters who think that adopting an infant at birth (relinquished or not) will not be traumatised/damaged by this severing from their birth mother 'because they don't know her' are put straight pretty quickly.

I adopted through my Local Authority, not some hippy-dippy organisation, they were very clear about this severing (although for the right reasons) being a massive loss that will be felt throughout a persons life (and for the birth mother too).

We are entirely helpless at birth, our birth mother's smell, touch, voice, suckling at the breast (if possible) etc tell us that we are safe and help regulate our fear and lower cortisol.
That is why skin on skin is encouraged after birth. That is why often very young infants can not be soothed by anyone but their birth mother's. That is why parents are encouraged to visit/talk/touch/sing to their unwell infants who go straight NICU after birth. It's why parents often choose to co-sleep or at least sleep in the same room as their infant child.

I'm suggesting that our 'choice' as adults should not top-trump a baby/child/teenager/adult's choice not to have this trauma inflicted upon them.
(Still not shouting).

And I would add that the percentage of surrogacy cases where there is genuine choice on doing it and managing one’s own pregnancy with one’s own choices is actually tiny.

If it can be guaranteed that a woman undertaking a pregnancy for surrogacy is absolutely 100% choosing to do it with her own agency, and 100% has the choice with how she conducts her pregnancy and birth, she is still choosing to inflict deliberate separation on the baby (not through unforeseen circumstances) and subject it to potential trauma. Her choice affects other humans. As a result, her choice isn’t the be all and end all of it, other things have to be considered and can override that freedom of choice, particularly when there’s a child involved.

Can you explain what you mean by “Same goes to selling of existing children.” please @MMmomDD ?

I would like to know why you think deliberately creating a child to be sold/given away is different to selling an existing child.

@sailyclose

Organ donation is not the same. We don’t grow new organs. If one chooses to donate an egg; or carry someone else’s foetus to birth does not leave them without a vital part of their body.
Same goes to selling of existing children.

Morality is a relative, not an absolute concept. And it evolves we progress. Very few things are absolute.

For me - choice is important.
If I could and wanted to help a friend, a relative struggling with carrying a pregnancy - I do not agree that ‘morality police’ should be able to tell me i can not do it.
If i wanted to donate my eggs - it is My choice.
And - as some one said upthread - if i wanted to charge for sex - again MY choice.

To me - this is a definition of respecting women and their choices. Their - being important here. And recognising that people can have different opinions.

But here we have a group of women who seem to want to control how other women think and feel. And even down to the words we use describing our pregnancies.
Doing exactly what men used to do to us.

Personally - i understand that other people have opinions about surrogacy and egg donations. I don’t think they are wrong - they have a right to have their opinion.
Sadly - like with all divisive topics there is no real discussion - of facts or anything objective. Just repeated shouting and indignation..

Indicative of how we are as a society, really.

Sorry posted too soon.

....or actually do we have a moral responsibility not to do certain things that exploit even if we have 'choice' ?

Is there really freedom of choice when economic factors come into play?

Are we free to sell our organs for example? Or sell our existing children?

Each state in the US has different laws on this.

Oh, well that's just awful. 🥺 Poor cows and their poor calves.

We do and it is horrific.

We don't take baby animals away from their mums when they've just been born.

Dairy cows. And yes, it's horrific for the cow and calf.

I feel like there's some cognitive dissonance with some people who watch or have read The Handmaid's Tale. They think that in that it's bad, in the real world it's good. (And even then the babies aren't taken straight from their mums like they are in the real world.)

Feel like this is another thing where animals are treated better than humans. We don't take baby animals away from their mums when they've just been born. Baby humans are fair game though. Have these people even heard of the fourth trimester?

I know in the grand scheme of surrogacy, it's likely a very minor percentage but I think it's worth discussing the impact of babies born via surrogacy and then not collected by their 'intended' parents.

Women who have birthed babies, for other people, who are then forced to either raise the baby or give it up for adoption.

I've read a handful of articles where this has happened; most notably a set of twins and a child born with Down Syndrome.

Surrogacy, I think, has the illusion of altruism but if it goes wrong, and it does, the consequences are too profound to justify the risk.

Bravo, bravo and did I say bravo?

believe in personal choices

Choices which have a profound and lasting affect on others are not truly ‘personal’.