To think there's a valid discussion to be had about the ethics of surrogacy?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Just what the title says.

I know some women become gestational surrogates out of altruism, and that in some places (not the UK) women can be paid quite a bit to be surrogates. But I still think the ethics of it is worth discussing.

I'm curious how other people see this. I worry that it's so easy for women to be exploited. And it does seem to me that there's a gendered issue here. I'm not sure men 'get' how difficult and potentially dangerous pregnancy is.

I think there needs to be differentiation in the law between donor gametes where genetic parents don't want to be involved (for example with a lesbian couple), and where donor gametes are used for the IPs to have their own genetically related child. There's a big difference, but maybe it's just me. I certainly seen to be in the minority here.

And by donor gametes in the second example, I mean the IPs own gametes, rather than egg and sperm donation generally. They are entirely different arrangements.

I'm going to get ripped to shreds for this, but here goes....

When I saw pictures of Cristiano Ronaldo with his newborn baby/babies, all I could think of was how a newborn baby needs its mother and where in the world is this poor woman who has had her baby taken from her? How could she possibly have known what that would feel like, when she agreed to it? If it was about the money, then it's akin to prostitution IMO.

This is such a thought-provoking thread. I've been reading along with interest.

It strikes me that this focus on genetic parenthood vs the surrogate mother being referred to as a "gestational carrier" is part of a much longer tradition of ignoring and denying women's fundamental role in creating human life.

In times gone by, women were considered to be the property of men, and any children which they gave birth to belonged to their husband. The time and energy which they expenses on growing the child, and the danger which they faced during pregnancy and birth was completely ignored.

It seems to me that the knowledge of, and subsequent focus on genetics, is actually a continuation of this theme - that actually being pregnant and growing the child is somehow separable from motherhood. That "ownership" for want of a better word, belongs to someone other than the one actually pregnant with the child. As a result, I view surrogacy of all kinds as being a reflection of an outdated and patriarchal tradition of negating the role of women in reproduction.

But that's the whole issue with treating women as incubators @alpineibex. Women's bodies are so much more than that when they carry a baby.

I agree re Ronaldo too. It's the erasure of the women that carry babies that I find difficult.

@Annabelle4 I don't disagree. I do however have male friends who have surrogate children and they are great parents and the children are very loved. However i can completely understand what you are saying re the mum. As I said before the surrogate in my friends instance was paid a lot of money in this country, far beyond what "expenses" would be.

One cannot reduce a pregnant woman's claim over her child that she grew to 'not hers if from a donor egg'

The egg, that miniscule start is not all there is. Every cell of a baby is grown, not just inside its mother, but FROM its mother. Every building block is contributed from its mother. The mother's body cannibalises itself to create that person. It is literally made FROM her.

The recent trend of language has led to the idea that women just house or host a baby, like it is a passive thing. Men announcing 'we're' pregnant as if the baby is making itself unassisted and the woman is just a vehicle.
A woman creates a baby from herself. That has to be acknowledged. It is not a minor thing.

I would ban surrogacy altogether, personally, commercial and altruistic. I do not think that people have the right to a baby, regardless of how much they may want one. I do not think that anyone has the right to commandeer another's body to fulfil their wishes.

Perhaps we recall the photo released of a baby born to a surrogate released by its legal parents? A lovely photo, in some respects, Dad is picking up the baby, overjoyed. The camera is fully focused on him. In the background, blurred out and certainly not in focus, is the exhausted woman who will be carefully written out of the baby's life. We may also cast our minds back to Israeli men fleeing Thailand with newborns in the wake of a natural disaster leaving the surrogate mothers to face any fate that befell them. Live or die. These are examples of the callousness that can accompany the decision to have a baby by a surrogate. These aren't necessarily bad people, but they have allowed themselves to be,I even that women have function but lack a relatable humanity.

When I saw pictures of Cristiano Ronaldo with his newborn baby/babies, all I could think of was how a newborn baby needs its mother and where in the world is this poor woman who has had her baby taken from her? How could she possibly have known what that would feel like, when she agreed to it? If it was about the money, then it's akin to prostitution IMO

I agree wholeheartedly. I hate what Ronaldo has done. We are supposed to find it terribly progressive and celebrate him for raising his children by himself. Same with the Barlow-Drewitt's (the first gay men to do this) I find it depressing and upsetting to think of those motherless children.

I'm certain gay men can make great parents. I'm certain their children can feel loved. But I'm also certain that it is immoral to deliberately deny a child the right to a mother. It is the utmost greed. Tom Daily and his husband may kid themselves they're having a baby, they're not. One of them has contributed a sperm. A woman is then paid to grow and nurture a human life inside her body - to literally make it from her body's resources - and hand it over to them to fulfill their fantasy. I could weep.

Tom Daly's partner said he was shocked at how strict U.K. surrogacy laws were. He couldn't believe a country as progressive as ours wouldn't allow commercial surrogacy.

He can't believe women aren't allowed to sell their babies. Presumably because he doesn't see them as mothers, just "carriers", wombs for hire, a cog in the wheel. Non-people.

Babies should never be sold, and commercial surrogacy is selling babies.
Also agree that it takes much more to create a baby than an egg and sperm. The surrogate mother does not just carry a baby like an incubator, she grows it. She takes a tiny egg and sperm and uses it to create a baby. Of course she is the mother.

I think one of the main ethical issues about surrogacy is that the woman that is pregnant can choose to keep the baby!

And so she should be able to. It is her baby

The money thing is even more troubling. Putting money on a human life is a really horrible concept. I understand for those going through infertility treatment it probably just seems like an extension of all the costs involved in going through that, but fundamentally it still is buying a baby. Something that is illegal even in places like the US which have decided commercial surrogacy is OK.

The pp saying that her friends 'paid a lot of money' for their baby just feels horribly grubby to me. I understand why this might happen, but I wonder how much more control they expected as a result and the knock on effect of that.

And also the desperation of women who will grow a baby for 9 months because they need the money

can someone explain what a "pre birth order" is please?

Currently a parental order to transfer legal parentage may be applied for a minimum of 6 weeks and a maximum of 6 months post birth. The surrogate mother (and her husband, if she is married) goes on the birth certificate. A pre birth order declares the intended parents to be the legal parents as soon as the baby is born, and their names to straight onto the birth certificate

As I said before, most surrogates within the UK community are very much in favour of a change to the law to permit pre birth parental orders if that is what the surrogate wants. They categorically don't wish a move to permit commercial surrogacy in the UK. But whenever this issue is discussed, the comments are pretty much identical from the surro side. They would like the security of knowing the parental order is in place from birth, and that they are protected from the IPs changing their mind at any point. I cannot speak on their behalf, I can only report the general consensus whenever this topic is discussed (which comes up pretty frequently)

You have two surrogates on this thread @mustbemad17 and @Proseccopanda. must has previously said she would strongly advocate for pre birth orders. They would certainly be much better placed than me to provide any sort of comment on the surro perspective regarding pre birth orders.

No pre birth orders do not allow women to change their minds. And lets face it you may feel different after you have given birth.

@bananafish81. I'm a bit confused about the pre-birth parental order and it's advantages. You say that the perceived advantage of a pre-birth parental order is that it protects the surrogate in the event that the IPs change their minds- ie decide they don't want the baby. I can see that this works legally: legally in that situation parental responsibility is with the IPs not the surrogate from birth and she (and her husband if married) is thus free of legal and financial responsibility for the child irrespective of the actions of the IPs. But the advantage of this seems to me to be largely illusory. In such a situation, where the IPs decide they don't wish to keep the child, then I would imagine the surrogate is likely to feel a degree of emotional and moral responsibility towards the child, regardless of the legal situation.

If that were the case, the pre-birth order seems to me to complicate the situation further. You could plausibly end up in a situation where the IPs have parental responsibility at birth, but renounce the child and place her in the care of the state. The surrogate does not wish the child to be adopted by a third party, but has no legal relationship with the child that would prevent this.

Have I missed a vital factor or misunderstood something somewhere?

Pre birth orders are being argued for by organisations that support couples using surrogates. It really is not about protecting the surrogate, because it simply does not do that.
So there have been cases of couples refusing to take babies born with disabilities. So at the moment the surrogate is left in the position of keeping the baby, or putting them in care. Pre birth orders could simply mean the baby goes straight into care.
What it does do is stop a surrogate, the woman who grew and gave birth to the baby, to change her mind about giving her baby away.

And in the US pre birth orders are legal. So mothers who have given birth to the baby and want to keep it, have legally and forcibly had the baby taken away from them and given to the couple paying.

They want to be protected from the IPs changing their minds. How? By being freed from the responsibility of keeping and raising the child themselves? So the birth order, in reality, means the state will take the child if no-one else wants it.

The whole thing is a ethical nightmare and is exactly why so many countries have outlawed it completely.

Countries Lance and Tom would presumably holiday in and consider "progresssive".

There is no form of pre birth order that can protect the surrogate from the possibility of the IPs changing their minds and leaving them holding the baby. None at all. Because parents are allowed to renounce their responsibilities and hand their children over to the state if they want to.

Place marking for later as I think this is is such an important issue that simply isn't discussed enough.

I recently got kicked out a mum's group on FB because a gay man (who has no children so not sure why he was on the group) said him and his partner want a baby but the waiting list for egg donors and surrogates is a year, they didn't want to wait that long so is there any way they could do it quicker after a lot of handmaiden posts I couldn't help myself. I leaped on and said women were not a uterus on a stick, had they thought of the impact On the pregnant woman and why can't they wait the year etc etc. I got booted for being 'homophobic'.

France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden - just some of our near neighbours who have banned all forms of surrogacy.

The U.K. Ireland, Denmark allow expenses-only surrogacy - which to me is open to exploitation and is still babies for sale.