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.

Oddboots i don't for one minute think surros should be barred from terminating, apologies if that came across. It was another example of just how much hold some surrogates can have over their IPs...the card from a terminated baby just further highlights how cruel it can be

No but if it is permissible for a straight couple to use a surrogate, then why not a gay one?

pengggwn and as i said, i disagree. I was asked what i would like to see change, that was one of those things. I didn't have to give permission for my IPs to register the baby with the GP for example; other surros had to attend with the baby to do this. To me that's nonsense

I'm not arguing whether or not it should be legal, I am making the point that a gay male couple will be cheered on for the sheer progressiveness of it all, while a woman would be criticised for exploiting another woman. Kim K didn't get floods of people defending her 'entitlement' to do this, did she?

Kim K used a social surrogate tho didn't she? So i can understand why the views might be slightly different tbh

Well luckily in the UK the woman who grew and gave birth is the mother, regardless of the genetic material used. I saw a great response to the idea that a surrogate isn't the biological mother on another thread-

This is a patriarchal reversal, an attempt to reduce the female reproductive role to the male one (gamete supply).

Gestating and birthing a baby is not only, by definition, a biological process, it is the primary process involved in reproducing the species, and is both physically and experientially not comparable to gamete supply.

When people claim that a woman who has gestated and birthed a baby isn't the child's biological parent, they are engaging in a reversal of reality, because motherhood (the female reproductive role) is biological to its roots, especially in mammals...

No but if it is permissible for a straight couple to use a surrogate, then why not a gay one? I don’t think either is ok tbh which is where the argument often divides according to how people feel.

So people will say that a same sex couple are entitled to want to have children and the only way they can achieve that is through surrogacy therefore one shouldn’t judge. But actually, if one’s view is based on who is using the surrogate then the argument becomes different to whether the surrogate should be used anyway, iyswim.

Also, the matter of termination is an interesting one. If, for instance, a surrogate wanted to terminate a pregnancy she could, but what if she didn’t and the IP’s wanted her to? Say due to disability? It’ the same thing to suggest that a woman loses rights over her own body due to having to carry out the express wishes of the IP’s. Where does that end?

I agree with much of what you have said WazFlimFlam Its all entitlement and there is a class issue here. You wont see poor infertile couples seeking out a surrogate for infertility its always wealthier couples. You rarely see wealthier women being surrogates but you do see a lot more poorer women being surrogates or donating their eggs to reduce their IVF fees or make a few extra quid.

Sometimes the choices we make in life mean that we can’t just have what we want when we want it. I'd add that sometimes the cards we are dealt means we just cant either.

You have summed it up for me and my thoughts on this too ChaosNeverRains

I fully support a child's right to know who it is. Where they are from. I don't know my father and there is this huge gap not only in my identity but in my medical history. I could be at high risk of certain cancers and never know. Egg and sperm donation, complicated surrogacies. They all remove a child's ability or right to know who they really are.

Plus for me, The way I see surrogacy in particular is why would I subject another woman (or even two with donating eggs) to a potential risk to their own fertility, their own ability to function in life/work/live without disability or even death because of my desire to have a child? thats whats not ethical. We're not only buying babies and body parts were outsourcing the risk of death/disabilty for a fee.

I think gay male couples are as entitled to be parents as anyone else, which is to say, they're not. No one is 'entitled'.

Practically, it is considerably easier for heterosexual couples to have children than homosexual ones, and it's easier for lesbians than gay men.

And that's potentially very sad in that it means groups of people may never have children, who might have been loving parents.

But, I think waz is spot on when she points out we're encouraged to celebrate gay men using surrogates, almost without mentioning the women whose bodies gestate the baby.

mustbemad That's awesome that you have the set up that way. I can see how that works for everyone. The problem is I don't how you legislate for that to happen each and every case.

teddy I have close friends who have tried to adopt in the U.K. They were turned down because they don't live in an area that is multicultural enough for an ethnic minority child to be placed with them. They are infertile and the social workers also took exception to them not having direct experience of raising DC. Honestly I think in this day and age these are unacceptable reasons to turn an adoptive family away. With the right support in place they could be successful.

Chaos usually a match is based on surrogate & IP agreeing re termination etc. I would never match with IPs who would terminate for Down's for example...but i would agree to terminate based on other life limiting illnesses. I would terminate based on the child not having quality of life, or if my health was at risk. I made this clear when i was searching & IPs who disagreed went elsewhere. It's also a massive thing on contracts which i would like to see legally binding tbh

Want2b i don't think you could legislate for that tbh. But maybe if things were agreed upon & set in stone before TTC began, the relationship would blossom in such a way that contact would be a natural progression? I think sometimes the uncertainties of 'what ifs' can potentially impact on a relationship - what if the surro keeps the baby? What if the IPs change their mind? Does that make sense?

Must did you encounter some IPs who wouldn't agree for you to terminate if your health was at risk?

I've finally downloaded the link that User kindly posted, and it was the case i suspected going from the subsequent posts about it.

I knew those IPs, & I knew that surrogate. I also knew the 'facilitator' - we watched that story play out in front of our eyes despite many of us attempting to intervene, even before they began TTC. It was pretty horrific but an example of sometimes how even outside voices with experience & knowledge can be ignored

stitched i never personally did. The IPs i met all accepted that if medical advice was that my health was at serious risk, that advice would be heeded. I met many who disagreed with my decision regarding Down's tho

That's interesting that you saw it all unfold. It's interesting how scathing the judgement is about the IPs.

Yes, I think there is a valid discussion, and the issues raised by surrogacy are far from straightforward. It is worth noting that Sweden, which I regard as a remarkably progressive country, has banned surrogacy.

I find a number of points troubling and, at the very least, worthy of deeper consideration than a knee jerk “but otherwise [couple name] can’t have a baby”:

• The human rights of the baby. Another poster mentioned on the previous thread the trauma faced by children who for whatever reason do not have a relationship with their birth mother. If you heard, for example, of a child whose birth mother had died in labour, you would I think feel sympathy even if you knew the child had a stable supportive father (and perhaps his new partner). You would feel that the child had lost something important. To deliberately create a human being in the knowledge that they will never have a mother bond is deeply troubling to me. Why do the rights of the intended parents trump those of the unborn child?

• There is obviously an issue of exploitation. There are also horrible questions about what happens if the birth mother changes her mind. The idea of having a baby taken away from you for a bargain you made before birth is such an horrendous one that it runs through our fairy stories along with all of society’s deepest fears - think of Rumplestiltskin. And yet now those bargains can be enforced by the courts - www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/06/high-court-orders-surrogate-mother-baby-gay-couple.

• There is I think a feminist issue here. The ability to birth children is central to our subjugation as a sex. It is also (as a class of women as a whole) our great power. If we commoditise that part of our human experience, what are we left with? It seems to me that it is not homophobic to say to two men that of course they can rightly have a relationship with all the rights and status afforded to a heterosexual relationship but they cannot have a biological child together not because they are gay but because neither of them is a woman, and womanhood is central to the creation of children.

The idea that a contract could exist over a woman's body makes me feel ill.

That the inalienable right to do as you wish with your body can be removed.
It's like legalised slavery.

Ethics about a lot of things involving conception and birth could be up for debate. Selective sexing of embryos, IVF, destruction of embryos, storing of embryos and so on. The whole thing is a minefield. IMHO.

stitched i'll be honest, the IPs in that case were bastards. They had treated their previous surrogate absolutely disgustingly & had been shunted by many. The 'facilitator' is also a bitch, there were whispers she was gaining financially for setting IPs up (again showing the hoops IPs can face).
The surrogate was lovely, but very naive & easily led. Despite being in contact with the previous surrogate from the start - and being in contact with over 100 surrogates & IPs that had watched the previous journey go tits up - she decided to go ahead. There actually were concerns raised prior to them travelling to Cyprus for IVF, several of us raised them as safeguarding issues with CAFCASS believe it or not.

The 'facilitator' illegal fixer was the one who advised the surrogate to tell the IPs she had lost both twins & keep the remaining baby. It was the 'facilitator' who then, upon the birth, told the IPs they did in fact have a baby. I can fully understand why the judge awarded custody here, because the surrogate went above & beyond to enable the IPs to get to know & have a relationship with the baby; the IPs wanted to cut her out of his life out of spite.

This stoy is used a lot to show how disgusting independent surrogacy is, but there is definitely more to it

I don’t understand how it can be optimal for a newborn baby to be removed from its birth mother so soon after birth to be given to someone with limited connections. Irrational, I know.

It breaks my heart that someone could say this and have to quality as “irrational I know”. Unless the mother is incapable of caring for a baby It is not in the interests of a newborn baby to be removed from its mother shortly after birth. In other spheres (social work? “Rooming in” in maternity hospitals?) this is taken as a given. Why do we doubt it in this context?

someone with limited connections

They're being cared for by someone biologically related to them. Their biological mother or father, or both.

mustbemad17 yes, agreed, sorry, that is part of NotAnotherJaffaCake’s original post above. But my point is not about who they’re being given to, it’s about who they are being taken away from.

Oh sorry, read it wrong apologies.

That's one view that differes magnificantly between those within the surrogacy world & those outside. None of us see ourselves as mum, & all of us choose IPs who we believe will be able to meet every need the child has. I guess it's one thing there will never be an agreement on

Surrogate here 👋🏻 I was a host surrogate 3yrs ago and am just about to hopefully repeat the process. I did/am doing it for my brother and his wife, and I'm definitely not being exploited. I was never asked to do it, I offered, and years of thought and preparation have gone in to it. The fertility clinic try as much as they can to ensure that I'm ok physically and mentally to go in to surrogacy, and I have access to counselling afterwards too. I'm very aware, as are my brother and his wife, of the toll pregnancy takes (I have DC's of my own), but that's my risk to take.

I can imagine lots of cases of exploitation in other countries, and am sure there are situations in this country too. I can only speak from my experience though, and find it hard to see how that could happen without it becoming apparent early on.