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.

Except they are wrong that this would protect them if the couple decided they did not want the baby. Legally anyone in the UK can give up their baby to the state. There is no way couples can be made to take say a disabled child they decide they do not want.

You do not have to be a surrogate, simply to understand UK law.

I’m baffled by the number of women who think they should have a say over what other women do with their bodies.

The legal status of motherhood shouldn't be altered just because some people would like it to be. There are no circumstances in which the woman who has given birth should not be the legal parent.

Because we care about ethics.

And children

Surrogacy is ALWAYS framed around what the infertile couple want. Never on the needs of the children born or on the needs of mothers used as baby making machines.

I still don't understand what pre birth parental orders would do to protect surrogates.

If it is because they don't want to be left with an unwanted child if the other party pulls out, then they have the option to surrender the child to the state.

Women should not be compelled by law to give up a child they have just given birth to.

Just seen ok on the daily fail the 18 year old daughter of the first guy couple saying she wants to use surrogacy rather than be pregnant. Shes 18, she should be just enjoying being 18. Surrogency is great for couples who struggled but not for an 18 year old.

I think surrogacy should be made illegal

Legally anyone in the UK can give up their baby to the state. That's not quite true, you can't compel a local authority to take your child into care just because you don't want to care for him/her and even if a child is taken into care, you still have responsibility towards them. Equally, any adoption has to be in the best interests of the child, not just the say so of the parents. Admittedly if parents did want to give up a newborn at birth then it's difficult to see a court finding that it wouldn't be in the child's interests to be adopted but it's not quite as simple as just saying we don't want to care for the child, so the state has to instead.

I really struggle with the ethics of surrogacy, what it says about human life and what it says about the value of women.

It is one of those areas where technology has gotten ahead of us without a consensus in public opinion on the ethics. And as it is so new, I think the precautionary principle must apply. I don't know of anybody who says they wish they were a child born by surrogacy.

I think the starting point must be that nobody has the right to have a child. Somebody who wants a child may be prevented by circumstance (gay couples, single people...) or by biology (infertility, hysterectomy...) from having their wish fulfilled. That is heartbreaking and I do not want in any way to minimise the pain of an unfulfilled desire to be a parent. But I have huge ethical concerns with surrogacy as the answer.

Commercial surrogacy or surrogacy for expenses(which, let's face it, can easily be a veil) will always be problematic. There will always be women for whom the lure of desperately-needed money will coerce them into a choice they would not otherwise make.

We don't allow expenses or payment for donating a pint of blood, and we don't lie any possible suggestion of coercion - so for examples blood donation is not permitted in prisons. That's just a pint of blood, the financial value of which would be relatively tiny, and the risks and consequences of donation are minimal and largely very transitory. Yet pregnancy massively increases the risk of death of healthy young women of child-bearing age. And each subsequent pregnancy carries additional risks, the risks for the mother of a fifth pregnancy are much greater than a second.

When it comes down to it, surrogacy implies a degree of control by a third party over a woman's body, placing her at risk of death. I just cannot reconcile myself with that.

Again, I have huge sympathy for the pain of people who are unable to become parents.

I think surrogacy should be made illegal

Let's say you're right and it should be illegal. How are you going to deal with the people who do it anyway? What are you going to do with the people who meet on the internet and get the woman pregnant with the IP's sperm without any medical involvement? Of course if it's illegal they're not going to come clean with the midwife or GP or seek legal advice and no clinic is going to be involved so isn't there just a risk that there's more exploitation and a black market in surrogacy as there won't be open support groups in the way that there is now? Also, what are you going to do about people who go to a country where it is legal to have surrogacy and then come back with the baby? It's pretty clear that the courts here have essentially capitulated when faced with children born abroad from arrangements that would be illegal here. What else can they do? You have a baby with (genetic) parents who desperately want to bring them up and no other adults who want to do so. It is really in that child's interests to say no and put them in the care system? Also, there are human rights constraints, France has been slammed by the European Court of Human Rights for not recognising the relationship between children and parents following surrogacy. In a global world it's a really complicated problem and even if there were widespread agreement that it should be illegal, actually implementing that is not straightforward.

Just on what I said above, this is an example of a case where the court was faced with a surrogacy arrangement that would clearly be illegal here and where the fundamental principle that the surrogate must consent couldn't be complied with. There was no way for the court to make sure she hadn't been exploited but they had to make the order anyway. I'm not sure how you deal with this kind of problem unless you either have a global agreement or you are happy to sacrifice the welfare of children born in this kind of situation to discourage others from doing it in the future (the ethics of that are pretty tricky too).

User255 that example shows what a mess the situation is with international surrogacy, and how much rich westerners are buying babies with little care for the women bearing them (or most probably for the woman providing the eggs). They went along with a clinic that allowed them no contact with the mother so no way for them to know whether she gave true consent, what her circumstances were, whether she was cared for or if she was even paid. As a result their children who will have no way of ever finding out who they fully are as neither the egg provider or the surrogate mother are contactable now and may well also be impossible to find in the future.

Knowing your heritage is incredibly important for children as evidenced by the accounts of many adopted children and more recently by children born from sperm donation with the right to anonymity now removed. I expect that's even more so when your family is European but half your heritage is Indian.

I am not sure what other action the family court could have taken but I do think that there should be some consequences for people who knowingly break the law. I am glad that international commercial surrogacy from India is now illegal, although I read that this has had unintended consequences which has been even more detrimental to the Indian women involved. I do think the onus should be on the rich intended parents to make sure that everything to do with the conception, birth and life of their children is ethical. I wonder how they will explain to their children that they bought them as cheaply as possible and cared so very little about their mothers.

I've had several tags in this but no stable internet so apologies, am mot ignoring anybody.

I'll try skim through a few things that jumped out at me.
Firstly someone mentioned the difference between using an agency & being independent, as I was. When i initially inquired about using an agency, i was in all honesty disgusted by the way this particular one ran. They dictated everything, from expenses to the type of match you 'qualified' for, it gave me the heeby jeebies. The length of time suggested by this agency between agreeing a match & starting the process was very small. They also take a ridiculous sum of money from IPs for creating a match.

Compare that to my independent journey. I spent time getting to know the whys & wherefores of surrogacy by engaging with surrogates & IPs on their groups. I was a member of surro only groups too, which were great as they allowed an in depth conversation from experienced surrogates' perspectives. I met my IPs online, spent time chatting to them about their lives etc before surrogacy even cropped up. When we met up, we discussed all the nitty gritty details that potentially worried us; we also agreed on expenses that matched their expectations & my needs. We did all the DBS & sexual health checks, I had a discussion with my GP about his view on my physical wellness to carry etc. When i fell, SS were immediately informed & everybody involved was aware.

Now my agency experience is of one agency, but it put me off forever. Were i to ever surro again i would bypass them altogether. I have met three potential IPs who have asked me for info etc & all three have had shitty experiences with agencies. To me, agencies are taking money hand over fist & doing the bare minimum by not encouraging a strong bond from the outset. Again, i know others have better experiences. However in the four years i was involved in surrogacy, it was very telling the number of surrogates who did agency journies for number 1, then went independent for subsequent journies...and many reduced their expenses because the agency set £15k was too high.

Re the whole issue of IPs having pre-birth rights, its interesting to see that those not involved in surrogacy are in favour of a surrogate retaining rights until the PO. As bananafish has stated, the number of surrogates here that wish it was different is a lot higher than those who prefer the current system; you only have to raise the question at surro meets or on groups to see that.

The current law allows no PR to IPs unless the surrogate is single, in which case bio dad goes on the BC & claims 50% PR as dad would in a regular registration.
If the surrogate is married, her husband automatically goes on the BC & he is presumed the father. The baby is however taken home by his/her parents (IPs) as soon as discharged; so we have a situation where two parents are caring for a child they legally have no rights or responsibilities towards. A PO cannot be applied for before 6 weeks, & can take months - ours was granted almost a year after birth. In that time, IPs can struggle to register for child benefit, child tax, GP surgeries...the surrogate has to be actively involved in many cases, which can be a total PiTA from our perspective.

Many surrogates would welcome an order that gave IPs some form of PR - be that sole PR or joint PR with th surrogate - so that they can legally make decisions for the child without having to play phone tag. It also means that there is no chance of a surrogate being left 'holding the baby'. That's not to say that if a surrogate's IPs did decide to buggar off, the surrogate would hand the baby to social, because i think very few would. But it gives reassurances to the surrogate - and the IPs - that there is less liklihood of it.
Personally i'd like all pre-TTC contracts to be legally binding, rather than just showing intent.

User255 It is currently illegal in Britain to have commercial surrogacy, but it happens anyway. Does that mean it should be made legal? No I don't think so.

If surrogacy was illegal, then someone who undertook surrogacy would find that legal the surrogate who gave birth was the mother. A couple who paid the surrogate could not be legally the parents. Anyone who still did this would be stupid and really not fit to be decent parents.

Bloody hell, legally binding means if the woman gives birth and decides to keep the baby, the baby will be taken from her.

Crunchy currently choosing to keep a baby as a surrogate doesn't mean you get to be that baby's primary carer anyway. If IPs take the surrogate to court they can be awarded full custody, as has happened previously. I would argue that it is more damaging for a baby of 18 months (the length the last such case i know of took to be resolved) to be taken from the parents they know & given to what by then would be total strangers?

As I've said, it's a clear divide between opinions when it comes to this one. The almost irony is it is experienced surrogates who are calling for - and working towards - more rights for IPs

A baby should never be taken from a woman who has given birth to the baby, unless she is an unfit mother.

Honestly the whole surrogate thing simply treats women as incubators instead of human beings that grow and give birth to a baby.

Will have to agree to disagree on that one crunchy. Personally being a surrogate has been one of the best experiences of my life, & seeing my surro daughter with her dads confirms to me it was a good decision. And i definitely don't feel exploited, abused, vulnerable or like i was simply viewed as an incubator 🙂