To feel sorry for this lady?

[Spanglylycra]

Two of my male friends are having a baby via surrogate due later this year.I know they will make great parents and this isn't an anti-gay thread at all. The baby is via donor egg implanted into the surrogate who has no biological relationship. However (my AIBU) I can't help feeling sad for the surrogate. I know she is a grown woman capable of making her own decision and has gone into this willingly but she doesn't know them and doesn't owe them anything and despite payment being illegal in the UK there is still a very large "expenses" payment made which is well into 5 figures. So despite the fact they will be amazing parents I just feel sad/uncomfortable about the woman's role in this. On one hand they talk positively about her being amazing and selfless and on the other hand refer to her "just carrying it" which makes me sad for women being used as a vessel - it's a bit Handmaid-esque. Their social media posts are also starting to be covered in #dontforgetaboutdads and I just feel like the woman's role is being cut out. Just wondered what others may think am I over thinking this?!

That is good, bananafish. I am definitely not against it completely. I think that when links are maintained, it can be a beneficial experience for everyone. Obviously there need to be ways to safeguard against exploitation but the research tends to show that kids born by surrogates are stable and adjusted on the whole.

YANBU. Surrogacy is immoral. Adoption is bad enough but with surrogacy you are deliberately creating a child to be separated from its mother. Most of these "parents" as you've seen are straight up buying a child and often buying rights over the mother for the duration of the pregnancy - this is human trafficking, not becoming a parent.

There's no excuse and it's never justified. This is nothing to do with homophobia. It's not homophobic that men can't bear children, it's reality. Women and children don't have to suffer so that men can pretend they can have children. When women are treated as incubators for men's children and children are nothing more than male property, yes it's wrong, yes it's very Handmaid's Tale.

I actually don't care if the surrogate "consents", not only because consent is a meaningless term at the best of times, but because the baby certainly doesn't agree to being bought and sold. People saying it will be looked after so it's fine, as if it's the result of a tragedy or unfortunate circumstances and not deliberately created to be sold, according to a contract? Ugh

I can't support surrogacy, except in the case of very close family members.

It's the commoditisation of a woman's body that concerns me not who the parents become so I feel equally appalled by the ideas of a het couple using a surrogate.

Um rina with adoption you do realise that the birth parents have usually abused or neglected their child and the adoptive parents are giving them a stable home? I think to describe it as ‘bad enough’ is pretty imbecilic. Presumably it’s better in your eyes to leave a child to be starved or beaten, just as long as it lives with someone who shares its DNA. Idiot.

Overall, I think paid surrogacy carries too much potential for exploitation and therefore I believe it needs to be very strictly regulated. Close family only, perhaps. Certainly a rigorous physical and MH screening should be involved, so you cannot act as a surrogate if there is a squeak of concern.

That doesn't make it wrong, though. It is just risky.

I think the point about adoption is that it is sometimes necessary in order to safeguard already existing children but that doesn't mean that the children aren't damaged by it. But nobody would support the deliberate creation of a child to be given up for adoption so why is surrogacy so acceptable?

Adoption is “bad enough”? Is that a joke?

Adoption should be a last resort. We've moved on from taking away babies of unmarried women for a reason. Separation of mums and babies is never a good thing but is sometimes necessary.

That is certainly not the case in all adoptions, Peaky. I'm not even sure that rina was alluding to adoptions due to those circumstances either.

Sometimes a mother is in a new relationship and the biological father has no interest or agrees for some other reason. Remember Seal adopted Heidi Klum's daughter. There are a multitude of other reasons for adoption.

Twisted yet we seem to support the creation of children by biological parents who are wildly unsuitable and irresponsible. Basically a kid doesn’t care whether their caregiver is related to them. They just want love and stability. They might care later in life because society keeps hammering home that biology is so cruicial.

Cailleach nearly all adoptions in this country are where kids have been removed from their birth family by the state. Step parent adoptions are different because the bio parent remains a parent- the child just gets an extra parent. It only really happens where the non resident birth parent is not involved in the child’s life.

Snuggy I would say it’s a very good thing if the mum is abusing or neglecting the child.

In hindsight, I suppose that example could be parental failure and Flavio Briatore could be described as neglectful to not be interested in his biological daughter. So to decide to deliberately create this situation may be questionable. If one were to just look at it objectively.

I am wholly against surrogacy too. When one looks more closely there is so much potential for harm. A baby being taken from it's mother isn't good for the baby amongst other things. I feel for gay couples who desperately want a child but I still don't see surrogacy as ethical.

I have opted not to have children because I have a medical condition which would have a hugely negative impact on any I had. It has caused me enormous distress but I am basically trying to do the unselfish thing. I don't doubt some disabled people make wonderful parents, but I wouldn't manage to be. Sometimes life is extremely sad but that doesn't mean you put yourself first. Children or any potential children come first. Thesame thing applies to surrogacy.

Basically a kid doesn't care whether their caregiver is related to them

I think that is a very glib statement and you will find that there are many people who weren't raised by their biological parents who feel differently.

What is the law on this?if she bonds with the baby and decided to keep it ,could she?

They're happy, so why are you projecting onto this lady? My friend was a surrogate for her sister. I didn't get one hint from her that she felt she was losing anything or that I should be sad for her!

I actually think it is pretty depressing that it is legal to pay someone 'expenses' which is obviously payment by another name for the loan of their womb.

The lady doesn't work so there is no loss of earnings to be made up for. And again I'm not saying she shouldn't be paid but don't wrap it up and pretend otherwise

So what. She doesn't have much freedom for that year and their are potential risks to her health. She should be paid for it. Not just limited expenses. Personally I wouldn't do it at all. But if I was hypothetically going to do it, I'd want quite a bit of money for it too.

Would you feel the same way if she was donating a kidney?

Basically a kid doesn’t care whether their caregiver is related to them. They just want love and stability. They might care later in life because society keeps hammering home that biology is so cruicial.

What rubbish- a baby has known its mum for 9 months- they know their voice, smell, heartbeat. Biology isnt something you can debate- my mother died when I was young, I have very few memories of her but there are character traits of her in me, thats biology!

The whole concept of using a surrogate makes me feel very uncomfortable. When you boil it down, it's about people buying a baby. It's bringing a child into the world specifically for the purpose of "selling" it.

I suppose I do understand that to adopt through the normal channels would be time consuming and that it is very, very unlikely nowadays, due to the processes involved, that anyone could adopt a tiny baby. But I still think, why not adopt instead of using a surrogate.

What happens if the baby is disabled? Would the couple still want it? What if it's twins and they only want one child?

Surrogacy has never sat right with me and I have never really been able to put my finger on why. I think it's because fostering and adoption are services for the child, yes it's lovely if childless people are able to become parents, but the point of these services is to find a child a loving home. But as a pp said, You are deliberately creating a child to be separated from it's mother that nails it for me I think.

Only Fools, what about fathers? And we aren’t talking about inherited characteristics, we are talking about what a child needs to have it’s needs met. Love and stability and consistency- yes. A DNA match- not so much. This is proved by much of the psychological research and which is why courts prioritise actual de facto care and parenting over genetic links.

Peak, I don't think it is good, it's the least worst option.