The first step towards an international instrument to abolish surrogacy.

So interesting the point about surrogacy being more similar to the horrific taking away of babies from single mothers to give them to infertile “respectable” couples. We are encouraged to tut and be outraged about this happening in the past whilst the “right on” left are ushering in surrogacy. Insane.

The child should always come first, and then the birth mother. With surrogacy the resulting parents come first, which is how adoption used to be. The adoptive parents came first, they were being made parents, sod whether it was better for the child or the birth mother.

Luckily it was recognised this was wrong and now adoption should always be for the best interests of the child. In this country, at least, it is also recognised that anonymous sperm and egg donation is harmful for the resultant child. Even now it is not anonymous it can still cause issues with children and needs to be carefully handled

Surrogacy is at the bottom of the pile here. The law needs to be changed

Since the advent of publicity for formal surrogacy, the focus has always been on the benefits to infertile couples, always the emphasis on what adults want. Now surrogacy has been considerably normalised, there is further pressure to not prevent 'non-traditional' would-be parents, such as male couples, from fulfilling themselves, pulling in 'progressive' support.

This diverts attention from the commercial nature of global surrogacy and the promotion of it as a lifestyle choice in the capitalist model of supply and demand. Companies - sorry, agencies - wanting to supply are commissioning babies from poorer fertile women for a clientele which is wealthier. Agencies attempt to tie up these deals legally so natural mothers can't re-claim the infants, sometimes using bio-tech like egg / womb separation across surrogates to muddy the legal issue of biological motherhood.

Bringing children into being within this structure is emotively defended from the point-of-view of the adults involved. It isn't comparable to adoption, in which a need is met for an existing child (although there are parallels in the historic removal and adoption of the babies of single girls, servicing the demand from 'respectable' married couples). Adoption is regulated and monitored in many nations in ways that surrogacy is not. It is a trade, however the language is finessed.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15975121/Surrogate-sued-abortion-Canada.html

Because the cost to men is a wank.
The cost to women is pregnancy and birth.
The two are not remotely comparable.
The risks and investment in creating a baby are completely asymmetrical in males vs females.

This.

Explained in two simple sentences.

One aspect of surrogacy that is rarely discussed is the impact of infant/mother separation on feeding and long term health. Very few surrogates pump milk for the baby they’ve gestated, and it’s known that being pregnant but not breastfeeding/lactating is an increased risk factor for breast cancer and a few other maternal health issues, plus, there are various increases in risk for babies that are artificially fed. Is it ethically sound to deliberately create a baby that is not going to get any breastmilk, or to increase the surrogates risk of breast cancer, diabetes, ovarian & womb/endometrial cancer, osteoporosis?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2812877/

But why do they choose to get pregnant in the first place if they are intending to give up the child when it's born? Are you really talking about a type of surrogacy arrangement?

Sure campaign for that if you want. I am not shocked by your suggestion as I'm not religious and live in a country where it has been possible to obtain an abortion for some time.

I doubt the majority of mothers who end up with their children taken into adoption planned for it to be like this however.

If you genuinely care about the fate of adopted children the best you could actually do would be to concentrate on childhood poverty and adverse experience, relationship education, the cost of living etc.

We're talking about two distinct forms of child abuse here and this thread is about a form of child abuse commited by wealthy people. The methods for ending this abuse are going to be very different, so whilst it's great to see more people understanding more about childhood attachment and abuse, there's not an awful lot of mileage to be had to keep focusing on adoption on this thread, close to my heart though the topic may be.

I remember how at the outbreak of Russia’s war on Ukraine, just after Russia invaded, there were surrogate babies waiting to be collected who hadn’t been.

I wonder what happens in some places where the baby is born with special needs and becomes unwanted?

Lexible do you actually live in the real world? Damaged unwell or drug addicted women don’t sometimes make good choices and when they have a baby they can’t care for someone has to. It’s suboptimal. Adoption is “making the best of a bad job”.

Surrogacy is choosing to bring about this situation for the benefit of the commissioning parent. The two are not the same.

Quite a few in countries that are more religious than our own and have open adoption

Yes I am saying it is true for adopted children. But if it was so damaging and so important, then adoption isnt ethical itself and women should always have abortions of unplanned babies they can't raise. Irrespective of gestation.

@InconvenientlyMaterial · Today 19:31

You explained that so well. 👏💐

It absolutely is an issue for adopted children!

Do you know anyone who was adopted or any adoptive parents? The trauma of attachment loss has been understood for some time.

Even when children are adopted very soon after birth , best practice is to accept they have suffered a traumatic separation and care for them accordingly. This ought to include family therapy, and helping the child understand their unique life story as they grow up. Adopted children also get preferential treatment when applying for schools.

It is not easy to become an adoptive parent, and it is also not easy for a child to be put up for adoption. Social services will try every other possible route to keeping the child safe before that step.

Contrast this with surrogacy, which any wealthy enough person can commission.

Adoption rescues children that already exist from an abusive situation, helps them make sense of their beginnings whilst giving them (hopefully!) a good life. With surrogacy, by ordering the child into existence, only to be removed from its mother, the commissioning parent is the very source of the trauma. The trauma whose existence they will deny. No life story, just euphemistic language to disguise the truth. No special understanding with the schools that this child has had a traumatic start to life.

If this is a real ethical issue, then it is an issue for children destined for adoption.

What do you mean by 'children destined for adoption'? How many women do you think decide to get pregnant with the intent of giving up the child to be adopted?

Would you think it was ok to buy a kidney if it was “mutually agreeable” ?
There is also the baby, the baby isn’t consenting, do you think it is ok to sell a baby ?
Affluent, educated women are not generally the ones selling babies, the relationship is inherently exploitative. The most recent addition is using one woman’s egg and other woman to gestate the baby, to try and avoid the chance of the mother changing her mind. This only highlights the bond between mother and child that the purchaser hopes to break. It also helps the purchaser see the mother as nothing but a ‘carrier’, unconnected to the baby.
I think it’s such a cruel thing to do to a child, it’s utterly selfish towards the women involved and the baby.

The best interest of any given “autonomous” adult is regulated by the best interest of other adults’ boundaries and society.

Surrogacy is very transactional, money for a new born human being in perfect health. We abhor girls being sold into marriage and babies being conceived to be sold and play parenthood is not far removed in my opinion. Women in need of money will always be at a disadvantage. No matter how nice those placing the order are, the surrogate will pay the consequences if things get off the script.

I seem to remember reading of a case where the surrogate died, leaving her own two children orphaned.

Unlikely, since we are in an online forum.

Am I stopping anyone from clicking the link?

I have never been happy with surrogacy and so if it is a step towards a reduction or ending, am glad.

I think it is best that women read it for themselves, rather than have it interpreted for them by others.

I have. It all seems to be focused on women from war-torn and developing countries.

I'm sure you don't need me to interpret the report for you. Have a read yourself.