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.

But you grew the baby and gave birth to it and are not seen by many people as the babies mother. When in reality you are partly the biological mother.

Because i'm not her mother. I share genes with her, but i am not her mother & have no legal connection whatsoever with her.
It also doesn't bother me one iota that nobody sees me as her mother...i gave up caring what the rest of the world thought a long time ago!! Her family & my family know the important aspects, she will grow up knowing the full story. What anybody outside that circle thinks is pretty irrelevant to her life tbh

I know you have no legal connection. But you are partly her biological mother. That is a fact whether you view yourself as that or not.

I'm pretty sure the surrogate who had the child removed by the court used to post on here. In that specific case the IPs being given eventual custody had nothing to do with the fact that she was a surrogate but concerns about the welfare of the child and her refusal to allow the Dad contact.

Independent surrogacy is very risky IMO. I have to say must that from seeing some of your other posts I struggle with your case. There are only a couple of years between your eldest and surrogate baby and you were a single Mum who had been suffering from PND. I don't know why any IP would think it in your best interests or healthy to use you as a surrogate and not be concerned for your mental health. You might feel good about how things have gone but there might be other women in your situation who are exploited and their health impacted. And that is before you look at the impact of a child on being given away by its biological mother whilst siblings before and after are kept.

The law should always say that the woman who give birth are the mother because forced removal of a baby for any other reason than safeguarding is barbaric. Changing this law in any way would be encouraging the idea that women are incubators and babies are commodities.

Yes if there were concerns about the welfare of the child, then the child would be removed.
But generally in the UK surrogate mothers are allowed to change their mind and keep their baby.

A) being an experienced surrogate mother doesn't imbue you with a greater understanding of the law than anyone else.

B) it is possible to be an agent in one's own subjugation.

And of course SS will take any baby into care that a mother does not want. When they refuse to take a child in to care is when parents ask for their kids to be taken in to care so they can go on holiday or have a break. But taking kids into permanent care is not refused unless SS think that the mother/parents simply need more support and put that in place.
And yes some parents do ask SS to take kids into care temporarily so they can go on holiday alone.

The attempt to argue that you are not the mother of a child you grew from your egg and gave birth to is a denial of reality. Calling it 'surrobub' doesn't change biology. This reminds me of the TRA claims that men are women. It is just not true.

Yes that case was simply a custody case between a mother who was quite unstable and if I recall had other children not living with her so maybe not a great choice for a surrogate anyway. It shouldn't be used as an example of IP's rights but of a rotten mess that a surrogacy agreement created.

Boots i don't profess to have a greater knowledge of the law, i have an inside knowledge of how those involved would like it to change. Big difference i think!!

Stitched there have been two cases of argued custody for surrogate babies in the time i have been involved whereby both sides could have equally been capable of caring for the child. In the one User posted previously for example, the surrogate was deemed more capable because she explicitly put the welfare of the child first, wanting to keep contact stable between the IPs for the sake of the child etc. In other cases it has been brought down to intent & personal judgement rather than on any welfare reports or concerns. In both cases i know of the IPs were awarded full custody; one surrogate was biologically related to the baby they had to hand over. It's not one size fits all & cases of custody have swung both ways so far for various reasons.

I did have PND, which was why I engaged with my GP team prior to starting. I had all the backing of people involved in mine & my own daughter's lives from that perspective; had even one said they thought i was being premature it would have been put on hold. My IPs were fully engaged with that process too.

I adore how people are trying to tell me i am somehow removed from reality because i do not call myself her mother 😂 I acknowledge without question that i am genetically related to her, i gave birth to her. But i am not her mother in any other sense.

This is why surrogacy tends to happen quietly imho. Because when surrogates & IPs are open about it they are told they must somehow be detached from reality, or vulnerable women being exploited, or big bad meanies for wanting help creating a family. It won't ever become something talked about until the name calling & quite frankly levels of abuse stop. Which is a massive shame imo

But you are her biological mother. That is reality. Whatever you call yourself.

PND is a complication of pregnancy. Any IP who would pick a surrogate who has had any health problems resulting from pregnancy, either mental or physical, strikes me as not considering the best interests of that woman. And I would suggest that wanting to be a surrogate to the extent that you are seeking out couples when you are the sole carer of an existing child and your mental health has been compromised should have raised red flags.

But questioning the attitudes and motivations of people involved in surrogacy isn't being abusive. Neither is expressing disapproval or ethical concerns.

Because i'm not her mother. I share genes with her, but i am not her mother & have no legal connection whatsoever with her

This is truly one of the saddest statements I've ever read on here.

I think must defines mother as the primary female caregiver whereas others are (correctly) pointing out that as the egg doner she is the biological mother to the child and that this is a very important role and may be viewed differently by the child once they have grown up.

I see a lot of references to the needs of the surrogates and the needs of the IP's. I am loathe to be 'won't someone think of the children' but if ever there was a case for it being completely apt this is it! The child's needs should take primacy, but I don't see much of that in any of the discussions.

*donor

And I would suggest that wanting to be a surrogate to the extent that you are seeking out couples when you are the sole carer of an existing child and your mental health has been compromised should have raised red flags

I would also have grave concerns over someone with previous mental health issues connected to pregnancy becoming a surrogate. I think it would be very irresponsible of the IPs to seek to use a surrogate who'd been through that previously and I'm not being unsympathetic, I have my own experiences in that area.

Yes adult children's responses to donor insemination suggest strongly that children born to surrogate mothers will have a different view of this.

(A)being an experienced surrogate mother doesn't imbue you with a greater understanding of the law than anyone else.

Yeah, this.

Those quotes bananafish posted upthread were interesting. Several of them also showed no understanding whatsoever of the legal landscape.

The lady who wants prebirth agreements to made enforceable to stop IPs from leaving the surrogate holding the baby, for example, is in cloud cuckoo land. Because all parents who hold parental responsibility can still give it up. We're not going to force people to look after children they've been clear they don't want, because that's a fucking terrible idea.

And whether the gestational mother sees herself as a mother or not, if the IPs don't want the parent and SS then get involved, of course they're going to check if she wants the child. They have to ascertain if there are any family members willing to put themselves forward, when a child is removed or voluntarily surrendered. This isn't going to change either. And it means the gestational mother will be placed in a position where she has to refuse to take the child, basically, whatever was signed and not signed.

They're basically saying that the normal rules relating to child welfare shouldn't apply to children born through surrogacy. So, you know, what the actual fuck?!

In musts case there is no other mother/female caregiver in the picture. I do wonder how that child may feel as she grows up.

I don't think a child should ever be deliberately denied its mother.

I think the mother can be the owner of the egg or the birth mother. If the ip are neither then surrogacy shouldn't be allowed; it's just buying a baby. Using surrogacy because you don't want to risk your own body like Kim K should also not be allowed.

I would absolutely support a total ban. I don't think it will happen though because the gay lobby would say it was anti-gay as this is their only way of obtaining a child. Our leaders are happy to be considered anti-women but anti-gay? Perish the thought.

For me the UK has the wrong approach. You can certainly buy a baby from a woman in this country - it costs £15k. Not a penny more.

Imo all a child needs is a loving parent/parents biological or otherwise. If a woman chooses to carry a baby with another womans eggs then it’s not her biological baby anyway. If she chooses to carry it with her own eggs because the mother is unable to use hers or for a male couple then yes it’s a trickier scenario but the father also holds biological rights.

Choosing to donate your eggs or sperm is a wonderful thing, as is donating your blood, marrow, kidney etc it’s a gift but you don’t hold rights over that gift, the recipient does.

justaswell A woman who carries a baby without her egg is not a biological mother?
Yes she is partly the biological mother. She grew the baby and gave birth to the baby. It takes far more than an egg and a sperm to create a baby.

Without the egg there would be no baby. I think carrying a child for another woman is a wonderful thing and of course the body is used to nourish and grow the baby but it’s not her baby, not in the eyes of the surrogate either.

Many women get pregnant to men they don’t know or will never be in the picture. Many men get women pregnant and are never heard of again. Why shouldn’t a gay couple be able to have a child of their own?
A child needs parents who want it, love it and care for it, there is no need to be so hung up on DNA.