This article has completely changed my view on surrogacy

[IGaveSoManySigns]

Archive.ph link due to the original being behind a paywall

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2025.09.04-181120/www.wired.com/story/the-baby-died-whose-fault-is-it-surrogate-pregnancy/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2025.09.04-181120/www.wired.com/story/the-baby-died-whose-fault-is-it-surrogate-pregnancy/

I cannot believe how crazy the “intended” mother sounds. I used to believe there wasn’t an issue with surrogacy but now I feel it should be banned. Wow!

In many states in the US, the commissioning parent's name is on the birth certificate. Unbelievable I know. This means it will be very difficult for the child to track down the surrogate later. But also it means that the commissioning parents is legally the parent from day 1, depriving the surrogate of any rights. This includes a say in medical treatment - remember, in this case Bi wanted to know when the bleeding started so she could be involved in medical decisions, including when the baby was born. And she would have had all the rights ifthe baby had lived.

This is also why people from the UK go to America - they are on the birth certificate and the surrogate can't change her mind and it is easier to bring the child back to the UK.

Campaigners want to change the law to do this herr too. The proposals have been shelved for now but there are big interests wanting to push ahead.

There has to be a court hearing in the US before the commissioning father (often the genetic father) goes on the birth certificate. This replaces the first birth certificate, where the birth mother alone (if she is unmarried) is named. At the same time, the birth mother’s name can be removed. The other commissioning parent (intending mother) does not go on the birth certificate (either the US or a UK one) without going through the Family Courts back in the UK.

In some states they can get a pre birth order so the surrogate's name is not on the birth certificate. This gives info https://www.tsonglaw.com/post/who-is-on-the-birth-certificate-when-we-use-a-surrogate

The worst case I know of was an Australian couple who used a Thai surrogate and had twins. The boy twin had Down syndrome so they refused to take him and only took the girl twin. The surrogate was left to care for the boy.

Surely that’s just an opinion though?
“no one is entitled to a child”
”no one is entitled to remove a child from the womb”
Both start out the same. I just think it’s interesting.

But aborting a baby is surely also traumatic for the baby? at least surrogacy gives it life? I just dont think is all as black and white as some posters like to believe.

People don't abort babies, they abort foetuses and it is not traumatic for it.

But the baby didn't exist without surrogacy.

It's a wholly manufactured situation, in which agencies and doctors are making a lot of money.

It involves child trafficking, embryo selection, eugenics, discarding of unwanted eggs and embryos, discarding of unwanted babies, abortion when the purchasers change their minds, exploitation ofwomen, child safeguarding issues.....

To then say "ah but it saves the life of a child" when that child only exists because of surrogacy is pretty crazy.

I think for me until a baby is born it’s all about the mothers rights. If she does not want to continue the pregnancy then she should be able to have an abortion.

Surrogacy commercialises a woman’s body. Looking at the wired story what other job would you ever undertake that could result in a hysterectomy and that’s ok? Every pregnancy comes with potential risks, with surrogacy those risks are much higher.

An employee potentially dying/ suffering life changing injuries is not an acceptable job description unless your in the armed forces and then if the worst comes to pass you’d expect ongoing support. In surrogacy the woman is left picking up the pieces.

That’s before you even get on to the damage caused to a baby by removing it from the only caregiver they have ever known.

An abortion before 12 weeks is the choice of most women. Vanishingly rare after that unless there's dangerous complications or the foetus is unlikely to survive post birth.

The correlation with surrogacy is whataboutery and you know that. An abortion is about choice: surrogacy is about control.

Every single time I read an article by someone who's used a surrogate mother, the way they talk about said surrogate always unnerves me. Same with people who've used egg donors.

I just read this article and immediately came to MN to see if there was a thread. It is honestly one of the most insane articles I have ever read. Bi comes across as reprehensible but also very clearly very ill, and being enabled by so many people around her. Smith's situation is an absolute living nightmare of the kind that you think that somehow 'the system' must prevent but as the complete failure of the restraining order shows, there really is nothing that can be done if one person is so determined to ruin another's life at all costs.

The child’s wellbeing should be the absolute priority for any good parent.

Therefore anyone who thinks it’s fine to take a newborn baby away from the mother who gestated it is fundamentally not suitable to be a parent.

Now that I’m a mother, those images of people happily holding the baby carrier as they walk out of hospital with the baby they paid for makes me feel sick. That baby needs to be back with the mother it knows, snuggling to her chest to hear her heartbeat and bond. To rip it away for your own selfish reasons is fundamentally wrong.