Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

paid surrogacy in poor countries is NOT exploitation

137 replies

kellyandthecat · 21/02/2015 19:59

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/20/commercial-surrogacy-wombs-rent-same-sex-pregnancy

julie blindel writes a very self-satisfied piece in the Guardian saying surrogacy should be banned in poor countries because the women there are being exploited. she used a very extreme example - the very sad case of the little boy with down's abandoned in thailand by the australian couple - but that's about it. of course surrogacy should take place in good conditions and no one should be forced into it, but to ban it completely seems VERY unreasonable to me. my sister struggled with fertility problems for years and if they had to they wouldn't have had the money to use a surrogate here in the UK or the USA. it was a HUGE struggle and I remember how hard it was for her. its heartbreaking to think people could be shut off from this option when assuming the conditions are right the surrogates in these countries can earn a life-changing amount of money for them and provide such a life-changing help to those struggling to concieve.

now of course the surrogates conditions have to be good and their compensation appropriate. but i feel like a blanket ban is exactly the kind of not-thinking-it-through that led to all the sperm donation rules being changed so now no men donate sperm any more and we have a huge shortage and crisis effecting those with fertility problems.

OP posts:
LaurieFairyCake · 21/02/2015 20:04

No, it's grotesque. No different (but worse) than buying kidneys or other organs.

Carrying a baby should never be done for money.

lucymam · 21/02/2015 20:05

This kind of surrogacy is basically selling babies. There are very good reasons that it is banned in Britain.

ghostyslovesheep · 21/02/2015 20:07

it IS exploitative - using poor women's wombs

HermioneWeasley · 21/02/2015 20:09

No, what is heart breaking is women who have so little choice in life that it is a good option for them to be an incubator for rich western women.

Why is your sister's infertility more heartbreaking than these poor women's destitution?

Original poster
kellyandthecat · 21/02/2015 20:09

well I think its a BIT different to selling your organs - you don't need a baby in you to stay alive for one thing especially one that isn't your DNA

adoption can cost loads of money, how is that not selling babies?

OP posts:
SlaggyIsland · 21/02/2015 20:11

I think it's horrible that women in poor countries have so few economic choices that they have to opt to be brood mares for wealthy westerners.
YABU.

LadyCassandra · 21/02/2015 20:11

I think it is very wrong. Babies should not be for sale and wombs should not be for rent.
I live in Australia and the news stories covering the "extreme" example of the Thai baby, detailed many many other stories of surrogacy in Thailand, Indonesia and India, they were heartbreaking and tragic

TondelayoSchwarzkopf · 21/02/2015 20:11

Why don't you carry a baby for her?

By the way, paid surrogacy is illegal in the UK.

Jackieharris · 21/02/2015 20:11

I think it should be banned just as selling organs is.

Women can die from pregnancy/birth. You can't put a price on someone's life.

whitsernam · 21/02/2015 20:11

Paid surrogacy in foreign countries is a form of selling babies, and victimizing the women who carry them. Not everyone will be able to have a child; that is a reality we all need to accept. Wanting something doesn't give us a right to it. I understand your concern for your sister, but everyone has some sort of issue in a lifetime. That doesn't mean a poor person in a foreign country should put themselves out to meet our wants.

lucymam · 21/02/2015 20:12

Some forms of adoption are selling babies. I don't support that either.

A poor woman goes through growing a baby in her womb, giving birth, and then has to hand it over, all for some money to improve her life. Also in many poor countries there is massive stigma around giving away a baby in this way, and so women often stay away from their children and families for a number of months, once their pregnancy starts showing.

LaurieFairyCake · 21/02/2015 20:12

kelly

The adoption part isn't the bit that costs, there is no buying babies. It's admin fees/assessment fees.

lalalonglegs · 21/02/2015 20:13

Yes, thank God for poor women and their lovely cheap wombs! Hmm

Original poster
kellyandthecat · 21/02/2015 20:13

Hermine you would rather the women stay poor as long as they use their womb the way you think is appropriate? surely if it is THEIR body it is THEIR business assuming as I said that all the conditions and payment etc are fair and above board

OP posts:
MrsTerryPratchett · 21/02/2015 20:14

Once again rich people using poor people's bodies for their own ends. kelly do you see prostitution 'tourism' in the same way?

Either it's OK in the UK and everywhere else or it's not. Illegal in the UK and legal in Thailand (where BTW there are more terrible stories than just the child with Downs) is not OK.

BMO · 21/02/2015 20:14

Adoption doesn't cost in this country does it?

HermioneWeasley · 21/02/2015 20:14

Good point Tondelay, yes OP if it's so heart breaking why didn't you act as her surrogate?

lucymam · 21/02/2015 20:14

I also wonder how these children themselves will feel as adults when they find their parents paid a very poor woman money to grow a baby for them and give birth. It will be devastating for some.

LaurieFairyCake · 21/02/2015 20:15

bollocks Kelly, it's not their choice in
A world where they have enough money to
eat and feed their family.

Plus there's a racial aspect too - rich white families trying to rent wombs from poor black women.

lucymam · 21/02/2015 20:15

Kelly - under that argument, poor people should also be allowed to sell their spare kidney to rich westerners.

Original poster
kellyandthecat · 21/02/2015 20:15

but laurie isn't an 'admin' fee just another way of charging a fee, like the dreaded 'convenience charge'

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 21/02/2015 20:16

YABU.

It is exploitative. Renting a womb from women so poor they are willing to sell themselves in such a way. Conditions are good, my arse. Conditions for women in those countries where this is done are shit.

heartisaspade · 21/02/2015 20:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HermioneWeasley · 21/02/2015 20:17

OP, there are families surviving on the wages of their children working in sweat shops. Or as prostitues. Or selling some of their children into slavery so the rest of their family don't starve. Are paedophile sex tourists justified because they're providing much needed income?

So yes, there are many people in the world with suboptimal choices for staying alive. Doesn't make exploiting them right.

Perhaps you and your sister coukd have used that money to sponsor a child or support charities that promote women's rights in developing countries.

LadyCassandra · 21/02/2015 20:17

It is exploitative. Renting a womb from women so poor they are willing to sell themselves in such a way. Conditions are good, my arse. Conditions for women in those countries where this is done are shit.
This