paid surrogacy in poor countries is NOT exploitation

[kellyandthecat]

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.

If it is not an exploitative industry then why has it flourished in places where corruption and exploitation are not so much transgressions against the system, as woven into framework of the system ?

Some wierd freaky coincidence ?

Op can't you see the ethics would be all wrong? Even if (playing devils advocate) you could do it within the UK in some regulated type way then think of all the vulnerable people this might attract? Those who are facing homelessness, severe poverty or struggling to feed their family. We have a major crisis in terms of food poverty in this country..maybe they'd even advertise for surrogate mothers at the food bank? Can you see the kind of ethical questions that would raise?!

Forcing something so vile underground is much better than condoning it. It will at least minimise incidences.

But will allowing surrogacy 'not help them', no it will most likely harm them.

And once these rich white couples, have their baby, how likely is it they will get the necessary antenatal care? Will that also not help them either, or once again will that cause harm.

If the world is going to go down this route, why not just cut out all the hassle of pregnancy and birth and let people sell their babies, or orphans can go to the highest bidder?

What you're suggesting is morally corrupt and you are wrong, it is exploitation.

"It'll happen anyway".

So will all crime.
Hey, why not make paedophilia legal?! It'll happen anyway, right, op?

I love the way the OP is avoiding all the difficult questions.

basically i think for those of us who had our children and never had to worry about fertility its really hard to get into the mindset of someone in that situation. of course they talked about adoption but that has many worries as well. its very easy to say 'i would adopt' if you've had your own kids no problem but you don't know what that feels like. now imagine this idea that you can have a baby in a mutually beneficial way. maybe it doesn't work out like that in reality, but you can see why its appealing to so many people. honestly i think some of you are being a bit heartless to act like that anyone involved in surrogacy is a privileged baby snatcher.

I used to be supportive of the idea of surrogacy but, increasingly, it makes me uncomfortable. It's a grubby business - in any country, including this one

If being a surrogate is so great and so wow how come mentally healthy women only be surrogates for their sister, their brother, their best friend and not randoms.

Everything you have said is an argument for sending kids down mines btw. Or whoring them out. I don't have anything against surrogates, no-one does, stop being ridiculous. It's because I care for them - and because I'd be in their position if I weren't lucky enough to live in this kind of country unlike most women on this website - that I am against it.

So you were going to be your sister's surrogate yeah? That would be a great favor for a loved one, not exploitation. And don't compare it to sperm (not that most straight men/lesbian women wouldn't have a suitable brother/cousin either? surely most is for unexplained infertility and not to avoid diseases nowadays with better embryo/sperm scanning)

kelly that article about shortage of sperm donors is 9 years old.

I have fertility problems OP so you can put that fake sympathy back where it came from as well thanks

I can see two sides to this. It is exploitation but it's also pretty patronising to take away a valid choice from women who may be poor, but at who least have an option.

Western women wouldn't feel the need to use services like this if adoption and surrogacy procedures were better in this country.

"I don't believe that any management team in India would hand over that much money to a woman who is possibly so desperate that she could be persuaded to do this for just a couple of hundred dollars."

Good point really - I wonder how much they really get paid.

fairlylea i can see how that could happen. i still think there could be ethical paid surrogacy with some kind of filtering process to make sure people understand the risks and aren't doing it out of desperation

the article has an example of a military wife for who the surrogacy money allows her to spend time at home with her small children while being a surrogate when her DH is on deployment

so clearly it can happen without exploitation. but i suppose really they need to hurry up and make some kind of artificial womb machine

'honestly i think some of you are being a bit heartless to act like that anyone involved in surrogacy is a privileged baby snatcher.'

They paid someone for the use of her body, a woman who is poor and desperate. And you call people who see that as disgusting heartless. These women are someone's mum, someone's daughter, someone's wife, someone's world, so poor and desperate they will sell themselves in such a dangerous way to feed and provide for their loved ones. To feed someone's desire.

Buying people is vile, no matter how it's dressed up.

There is a crisis in sperm donation because many adults born to sperm donors wanted to know who their biological father was, and couldn't find out. Now sperm donors are no longer anonymous, the number have fallen. And it is right that the needs of children born to these methods are considered.

I've never had fertility problems, no.

But I've never, ever, ever thought about using someone's body and life to enrich mine.

Would you care to answer some of our points, op?

'the article has an example of a military wife for who the surrogacy money allows her to spend time at home with her small children while being a surrogate when her DH is on deployment'

Because soldiers are underpaid for doing one of the most dangerous jobs on Earth, she sold herself to provide childcare for her children.

In the US, it's poor women, also, who feel compelled to do this. For money.

Anyway you slice it, it's exploiting poor women with limited choices in life.

Hope to see it banned there, too, for money.

there are have been a couple of really compelling documentaries about the Indian surrogacy clinics.

Very often the local women are taken their by their greedy husbands who want the money and don't give two shits about putting their wives through the ordeal of pregnancy and childbirth (not to mention the mental anguish of surrendering a child they've carried.)

There was one harrowing scene where the potential surrogate was crying and saying she didn't want to do it and the doctor kept saying 'but you'll be able to buy a house, you must stop being selfish and think of your family. '

Op.
When a penniless woman in India does it it is NOT an altruistic act to earn pin money ffs.

She's putting her life in danger and alienating herself to put food on the table.

Kelly morally right, even somewhat morally right, doesn't always mean popular. A child has a right to know who their father is and should be able to find them when they turn 18-the law reflects this. The crisis comes from men not wanting any future offspring to come find them and so the level of British donations dropping off. TBH, the issue around donor children are more complicated than that. Historically, a birth certificate would reflect the commissioning couple rather than the genetic/biological parents but, with the rise of same sex couples and single women having donor children, that is starting to become tricky. There was also a fairly major court case where a woman fought to have her donor child status reflected on her BC and was vindicated. We are arguably moving towards a future where BCs have to as accurately reflect the true genetic status of the child, as legally upheld. Anyway, I presume that you agree with anonymous donation? Do you think that the desires of the donor should trump the wishes of a potential child? (In terms of time and effort spent on these laws, trust me it's significant. There just, as you can see, aren't any easy answers).

Op, you are heartless and utterly blinkered.

OP, you don't know anything about any of us and our fertility so please take your "you're lucky" or "if you'd suffered it you'd exploit poor foreign women too" mentality and fuck off.

we 'buy' people all the time expatinscotland. you're probably 'buying' someone's beloved mum typing on your chinese-made keyboard that she works her fingers to the bone in a sweatshop 19hrs a day to make. if a surrogacy system could be made that was SAFE and ETHICAL, then your outrage is very selective

i appreciate thats probably not possible in india etc. for all the reasons described, but it obviously works in places like california and maybe should be legal here where the pressures are less