If you had money to burn, would you use a surrogate?

[Hippiesip]

Say you're having difficulty TTC a second or third child, would you pay for an American surrogate if you simply didn't want to wait/go through the pregnancy?

I think I would. I loved creating my son but pregnancy was extremely difficult for me mentally and emotionally. I would rather not doing it again, but still growing our family.

I hope my next comment won't offend you. I genuinely don't want to upset but I do think there is a narrative currently where the pain of infertility trump's everything. I'm not saying it is not a sad situation but I don't believe we should blindly try to resolve infertility by any means regardless of ethics.

Posted too soon! Fat fingers

No offence taken at all. I completely agree with you. I strongly believe in the importance of ethics in anything fertility related and believe strongly in regulation and ethics committee approval for all treatment

To have IVF in the UK all paperwork is registered with the HFEA, and one of the documents is specifically about the welfare of the child. Gamete donation cannot be paid for. Donation cannot be anonymous

I have issues with anonymous donation and the ethics of clinics overseas who are unregulated and who will risk high order multiples by stuffing in large numbers of embryos.

I have issues when traditional surrogacy arrangements are undertaken privately without both parties undergoing implications counselling.

I have issues with surrogacy tourism in countries like the Ukraine and Georgia where I believe surrogates are exploited.

I strongly agree that doing anything regardless of ethics is fundamentally wrong

I definitely think as well that we need to be very specific about which country we are discussing. As other people from the surro world have said, the idea of anybody on either side being open to exploitation is something none of us agree with. There are active groups working with solicitors such as Natalie Gamble, to try & improve surrogacy within the UK for both sides, & many of us support action in countries where exploitation could be a higher risk. My experience of surrogacy here in the UK is that you are dealing with a large number of selfless people.

Bananafish

I'd agree with what a previous poster wrote here

Altruistic surrogacy where a friend or loved one carries a couple's genetic child for them is IMO completely different to a surrogate using their own eggs or commercial surrogacy.

But I also agree with this

I genuinely don't want to upset but I do think there is a narrative currently where the pain of infertility trump's everything. I'm not saying it is not a sad situation but I don't believe we should blindly try to resolve infertility by any means regardless of ethics

I see commercial surrogacy as a major ethical issue along with other aspects of fertility treatments such as egg donation and the ability to choose the genetic makeup of a child (sex selection and the like). I also worry about the attitudes of some of those who have the money to brush aside any impediments in their paths to parenthood and see their wish to be parents as the paramount issue.

Spottytop if you are an adoptive parent or an adoptee, have a look at your child's/your own long form adoption certificate. It DOES NOT SAY record of a birth.
If you are not, stop talking about things you do not know about.

I also wince when I see terms like 'surrobub' and 'tummy mummy' which just seem very twee and also a major diminution of the role a surrogate plays.

Some of these women are the biological mothers of these children let's not forget and, even when they aren't, it seems like the phraseology makes it all very cutsie and somewhat demeaning in my opinion.

That i use the terms 'tummy mummy' & 'surrobub' - my surro baby is biologically mine. In almost three years since I gave birth to her the only people that attempt to make those phrases demeaning imo are those who don't fully understand just how amazing surrogacy is

This is a really really interesting thread because I don't know very much about the process of surrogacy in the uk, and it's been good to learn. Thanks to the people who have shared their experiences! Lots of people have pointed out that surrogacy in the uk is altruistic and no one gets paid for it beyond reasonable expenses, however it looks like £12k-15k is often paid as a "reasonable expense". Now, I don't know about anyone else, but my pregnancy didn't incur anything like those kind of expenses! A pair of £20 maternity jeans and a few quid on the bus to go to appointments. Can anyone give me their experience with this? Is this figure just an urban myth, or only offered in exceptional circumstances? Is it a bit of a loop hole to offer a financial incentive without officially commercialising the process? If you used a surrogate, how much did you give them for expenses?

I find it abhorrent that someone with infertility problems would exploit a woman outside the uk and pay for surrogacy. But those saying they would pay because they want to avoid the difficulties of pregnancy and birth truly sicken me.

(By pay I mean exactly that, I'm not referring to someone unable to conceive covering a uk surrogates expenses. Although I do think that someone physically able to carry dc themselves but paying the expenses of a uk surrogate purely to avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy and birth would be morally wrong too)

@NordicNobody this may be helpful: Lisa who is one of the admins of one of the surrogacy groups I'm on has made a series of videos explaining the surrogacy process

This is one specifically about surrogacy expenses

m.youtube.com/watch?v=mdFLosOHjpk

But you are much more than a 'tummy mummy' mustbe you are that child's biological mother. 'Tummy mummy' just doesn't give the important role you filled the acknowledgment it deserves as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks banana will give that a watch later

Mustbe you would prefer the the intended parents to have more rights present birth. Really. You think it's OK to give a woman no rights over a baby she births. Women may change there mind and its absolutely there right to, anything else would be absolutely sickening.

Bananafish Lisa is amazing, her videos are fantastic.

Nordic expenses also cover loss of earnings if the surrogate had to take time off for pregnancy related illness, it covers additional childcare needed, not just the basics like clothing etc. Personally I have always been really vocal about higher expenses (one reason why I believe that IPs are more at risk than surrogates from exploitation here) & was warned that mine were too low & i'd be 'out of pocket'. I wasn't, at all, & spent two weeks arguing about what to do with the leftover amount in my account once baby girl arrived!! Expenses are monitored by CAFCASS tho.

That biology doesn't make me a mother in the sense of giving a child what he or she needs & deserves. There is a lot more to being a mum than biology, & that's how I & other surrogates view it. I'm not her mother, not even in a legal sense anymore.

Do we donate kidney-widneys and lovely red lifejuice? It’s interesting a biological process is being described by someone who has gone through it with such cutesy language. I find it really jarring.

I can understand someone wanting to surrogate for a dear friend or family member but I would not exploit their kindness for my own sakes.

While it may be relatively easy for a traditional surrogate to view themselves as tummy mummy/not the "actual" parent, to view the baby as the baby of the IPs, children born from surrogates don't always view themselves like that.

And especially with surrogacy overseas/commercial surrogacy (but also to some extent with surrogacy in the UK) there is no real guarantee that the child will have the freedom to explore their origins, meet their biological mother/siblings etc. if they would wish to. My understanding is that like with donor conceived children there is a right to information but there isn't any guarantee that the host mother will want to have contact - let alone biological siblings.

I can imagine that would be pretty distressing for a child or young adult.

mustbemad YOU may not think you are the child's mother. The child may view it differently when older.

Oswin yes I absolutely would. And having been through the process I stand by that. You don't go into being a surrogate half heartedly, you hold a couple's entire world in your hands whilst you are trying & pregnant. Anyone who goes into it with even one iota of a doubt about being able to hand that baby over should not be a surrogate. We talk about it being selfish to use a woman for a baby...it works the other way. You don't get to string somebody along for 9 months then decide that you actually want the baby after all. Having more rights for IPs pre birth would further cement that for everybody involved.

BTW even if a surrogate keeps the baby, if the IPs take her to court the judge is more likely to award custody to them. What good has that done the baby in the time people are fighting over him/her???

Dr then surely in that case adoption needs rethinking? Because often when a child is adopted they lose all gateways to their biological family...there isn't really a way around that because obviously there are reasons for adoption & changing that contact can sometimes be dangerous

Adoption in the UK (where children are removed) is seen as a last resort. Traditional surrogacy sounds to me to be akin to deliberately creating a baby in order to give it up for adoption.

Stitched we'll have to agree to disagree on the last resort thing! What about adoption where a mum refuses an abortion but goes for adoption instead?

Regardless of whether someone does GS or TS a parental order is needed, so even if the baby biologically isn't the surrogates, the IPs still need a PO.

Yes because it's medically impossible for me to carry a child to term and I would adore more children. But I can't risk another pre 28 week preemie

mustbemad Adoption is a last resort when children cannot be cared for within the biological family.
Children in the UK who are adopted do have the right to their pre-adoption information and to try and contact their biological family. Again, there is no guarantee that they will be accepted.
However, almost all adoption arrangements these days include some degree of contact from children to biological parents/other members of biological family (where it's possible and there aren't extreme safety concerns - which is rare - the vast majority of current UK adoptions include some form of contact).

This is usually in the form of letters and sometimes pictures between the child/APs and their biological parent(s) but it is also VERY common for children to see in person their biological siblings and extended family (e.g. grandparents can't care for a child due to their age but they see the child and their APs once a year, or foster carers/adopters of a birth sibling can't take another child/the APs are the better option for that particular child.)

So YES it has ALREADY been rethought. The CHILD is at the centre of adoption arrangements - not the bio parents or the adoptive parents rights.

I think that's what sticks in my throat about surrogacy. We adopted our children because they needed a home. We were actually presented with a match for a child that we felt (and no we're not specialists) could be raised by biological family, based on the information we had, and we refused that match partly on those grounds (note we are overseas adopters so the system is different, so I'm pretty confident children are not placed for adoption in the UK when this could happen - in this case without saying too much one of the adults in the case was possibly thinking about themselves not the child).

As dr says, adoption doesn't always mean severing all ties. I know of a family where the dc were adopted due to bereavement, and they have contact with the surviving family member just as they would if they were still with the birth parents. (Not exactly the scenario but think a grandparent a few hours away who physically couldn't raise them suitably to adulthood)

That biology doesn't make me a mother in the sense of giving a child what he or she needs & deserves. There is a lot more to being a mum than biology

It may not make you the primary caregiver of the child but you are their biological mother. A very important thing and not to be brushed aside lightly.

I've never adopted, but my observations from a few who foster as well as some people who have had their worlds turned upside down by adoption tells me it isn't always the case. I have two friends who have had their biological children removed yet six months/a year later both have then been given guardianship over siblings because the parents are no good. Similarly with the fostering, many of them have been refused contact with biological siblings despite being able to see one bio parent for example.

Perhaps these are few & far between...but so too is the total severence of relationships between a surrogate's family & the IPs family.