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.

A lesbian couple can have a baby. A gay male couple can not biologically have a baby unless they take it from its mother.

There is a gay actor, Charlie Condou, who has 2 children with his close female friend. They happily share care. That struck me as a good arrangement, no attempt to erase the mother out of existence.

So a lesbian couple can have a baby with sperm assistance but a male couple can’t use a woman’s assistance? Yes in the case of a male couple there is a ‘biological mother’ but there doesn’t need to be a mother in the child’s life, there is 2 fathers instead.

Sperm donation and the use of a woman's body to grow and birth a baby are not equivalent.

Why shouldn’t a gay couple be able to have a child of their own?

Because they only possess one part of the reproductive components.

Do you really need this explaining to you? Year 7 biology surely.

Lesbians can have babies using donor sperm. Gay men can only have babies by taking one from its mother. It's biological reality.

And sperm donors can no longer legally be anonymous.

And biologically to create a baby you need an egg, a sperm and for the baby to grow in its mothers womb. Children born to surrogates using a different egg I think biologically have two biological mothers.

The idea that babies can just be removed from their mothers without issue because of the wants of adults is awful. Mothers are not disposable or easily replaceable to their babies. There is a reason why SS try desperately to keep mother and baby together.

I think they have a biological mother and a genetic mother. Biological mother should always have the legal rights IMO.

Of course for a male couple there will be a biological ‘mother’ involved. That woman has chosen to create a baby for a male couple using one part of that couples sperm, as the surrogates have commented on this very thread they do not consider themselves as the mother, the child is raised by its biological father, I really don’t see a problem with that.

Sperms, eggs and wombs are not what matters, love and care and wanting that child does.

Except that is not true for many children when they grow up. The law was changed on anonymous sperm donors because it did matter a lot to many children born of sperm donors, who the sperm donor was.

There is a wealth of evidence to show that even babies who are adopted at birth suffer from attachment difficulties. The dismissal of biology and attempts to paint mothers as irrelevant or unimportant to their newborns in the name of equality is damaging to babies.

I was raised by a 'non biological' mother. How lovely she was does not prevent the profound impact losing my real mother has had on me. It benefits those engaged in surrogacy to ignore the potential damage to the children involved.

I wonder if that’s more because once upon a time, donation and adoption was very hushed and children were naturally shocked when they found out. These days it’s completely normal for families to come in all shapes and sizes. Mum and dad, two mums, two dads, single parents, step families... as long as everyone is honest from the beginning

When you have a surrogate on these pages jovially saying that she has no attachment to her biological baby who she created to give away to two men, but she does for the biological children who she created to keep both before and after, do you not see the potential for damage to that child, their emotional health and their self esteem?

just I used to think that, but what happened around anonymous sperm donation does not support that.

i think women are so conditioned to want to help others and get such massive kudos for doing something like this, they will ignore or downplay the very serious risks in order to do this and in return, her part in it is completely erased. Thats in the UK.

In many other parts of the world, women are forced into it through poverty or in slavery and westerners or richer people are more than happy to exploit this too

The donor conception boards are full of het couples using donor gametes who have no intention of telling their children they're donor conceived. All the evidence is that this is not in the best interests of the children.

It is only in the best interests of the couple to pretend there is no one else involved in the creation of their baby.

There is a wealth of research from Cambridge University’s Centre for Family Research to show that the children born through surrogacy (either traditional or gestational) have as strong bonds with their parents (the ones raising them) as those not born through surrogacy. There is no sign of attachment disorders in these children.

That study did show emotional difficulties amongst children born to surrogates.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2344362/Surrogate-born-children-likely-suffer-depression-carried-real-mother.html

And the study hasn't yet followed these children through adolescense and into adulthood.

Not RTFT but i thought the media coverage (Guardian, BBC) of Tom Daley and his husband about them expecting their baby was very disrespectful to women in not even mentioning that there is a surrogate that they are using. It’s a shame that the couple themselves didn’t seem to mention or thank her in their quotes but of course they may have done this and this may have been left out by the news outlets for some reason.

Whether they did or not it feels insulting for the news writers putting the story together not to mention they are using a surrogate. It’s like the woman that is making a baby happen is not even worth a mention. The couple are holding up a scan pic for goodness sake. Why is their surrogates’ massive contribution to this made invisible or has been erased in the media report?

If you compare that to how the Kardashian/West recent surrogacy arrangement was reported (and they were also quoted expressing gratitude towards their surrogate, talking about having some kind of ongoing relationship with her over the course of the pregnancy) it all seems very different.

I am trying to think why- is it seen as different by the media when a woman is part of the couple making the arrangement with the surrogate, then there is a story about why the woman isn’t carrying the pregnancy herself?

Is it because women are expected to be nice and be friendly with their surrogate?

Is it maybe because (Kim Kardashian said..) KK and KW made sure that their surrogate was aware who the couple was, that she would be carrying the embryo for?

Anyway I am struggling to put my finger on it but it’s definitely the case that there are better and worse ways of media reporting on surrogacy arrangements and as a bottom line I think that simply not mentioning the surrogate at all should be unacceptable.

It’s a shame that the couple themselves didn’t seem to mention or thank her in their quotes but of course they may have done this and this may have been left out by the news outlets for some reason.

Perhaps but the subsequent interview in which there was a complaint made that the UK wasn't as 'progressive' as the US in not allowing commercial surrogacy was quite telling I think.

The view that it should be just another commercial transaction freely available to all who want (and can presumably pay) is a troubling one to me. Where is the real life woman in all this, it's a much more profound act than just hiring a womb for a few months, easy peasy, everyone is happy sort of thing.