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?!

@heartsease68

I love the fact you think I am a bright spark, bit not sure why!

My son was not relinquished, very few children are relinquished in the UK (I am in the UK).

I've had treatment (unsuccessful) with donor eggs. I really can't imagine feeling any different about the possible pregnancy then if it had been my own eggs (but of course I was doing it to try and have a baby for our family, not as a surrogate)

Just for the record I have a birth child and I don't feel any differently about my adopted child. In the end biology and genes are not everything to s parent; but they are/can be something to a child.

The birth mother in the case is the biological mother, not the genetic mother, but a biological relationship none the less. How can you think them unrelated when her body is brining baby to birth?

How do you know the biological or birth mother in this case feels nothing? In some ways it may be better if she doesn't. For her. I remember a film about a famous US case where the surrogate changed her mind. I am pretty sure it was based on real events. It was early on in surrogacy.

loopdeloo yes, i guess I am thinking of the child really. Children get no choice in any birth process, and generally little in any parenting situations. For a child it may be quite important to know who their birth parents are, even if they do not live with them.

I have no biological children of my own and have never had any desire to do so. I would without question act as surrogate for a female friend if I felt they would be an amazing parent and I could help. I wouldn't even dream of asking to be paid to do so. The idea of doing it for financial gain is bizarre.

The birth mother in the case is the biological mother, not the genetic mother, but a biological relationship none the less

I think it's just you (and the out-of-date law which was written for IVF) who thinks of biological mother as the person who bears the child regardless of genetics. Surely a biological parent is related to the child and this is how the term is understood? Or do you think a child can have two biological mothers? Because that is what it would mean.

heartsease68 is it just me who thinks the women who gives birth to the child is the biological mother? I very much doubt that.

It's only since donation of eggs it's been possible to separate the genetic mother and the one who gives birth. For men it is more simple, you provide the sperm, you are genetic and biological parent.

But for the mum it is now possible to split the role. So do I think both are biological parents, both mums? Yes I do.

And if a third women is involved to provide mitochondrial DNA then are three biological mums? I don't know, my head will explode. Maybe legally two donors and a biological/birth mum. Legally, in the UK the one who gives birth is the mum.

And I find your comments on out-of-date law written for IVF rather rude and unpleasant. As someone who has had a lot of fertility treatment, I am speaking of what I know. Maybe you have too, and are speaking from a position of experience, or maybe you are not.

The biological mother is the woman who grew and gave birth to the child. You cannot erase the term biology from the process of pregnancy when it is the very biological process by which reproduction occurs. By claiming that the woman who has undergone the fundamentally biological act of pregnancy and childbirth is not the biological parent you are attempting to reduce the role of the woman to that of the man- gamete supply. A woman whose egg was used is the genetic mother. The woman who has created the baby with her own body, developed a symbiotic relationship and given birth to it is the biological mother, however inconvenient proponents of surrogacy might find that fact.

heartsease68 I think evidence points towards the best outcfor children being achieved in stable homes with married parents - undoubtedly something about the people who choose to marry and raise children within the realm of a marriage but nevertheless it is the optimal situation statistically. That may offend some who chose another path but it happens to be factually accurate. It’s not particularly bigoted, plenty of lovely gay parents and plenty old fairly dreadful straight parents. It’s nothing to do with their sexuality and sensibilities. It should always be what is best for a child.

That's TwistedStitch for proving I am not the only person to call such a woman the biological mother.

The film I mentioned was based on a real situation, which changed the law in the US on surrogacy. However, it was a traditional surrogc, where the woman uses her own egg; so not like the case here, so maybe not relevant.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_M

Sorry - Thanks, not that's...

You certainly aren't the only person who thinks that Italian. On the spate of surrogacy threads in the aftermath of the birth of Tom Daley's child it was a pretty prevalent view. I have to say 'the woman who gives birth to a baby is its biological mother' ought to be a pretty uncontroversial statement.

That's not true Cherry. Children of lesbian parents - either single or in relationships- have better outcomes: content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

Children raised by unexpectedly single mothers (the vast majority) do worse because of poverty and the myriad stresses when families break down, not because there is anything inherently better for children in being raised in a heterosexual family

Thanks for your response Italian. Yes I'm speaking of what I know. I didn't mean to offend. I think the policy markers agree that the law was created to enshrine the rights of those using a donor via IVF. They wanted to make sure the lady going through IVF was legally the child's mother, even if she wasn't genetically related. Now surrogates and parents alike want to down play that connection.

@heartsease68 I agree that policy makers may have wanted to do that, probably because if the birth mother was not recognized as a biological parent then there could be issues with donors coming back, perhaps years later, and claiming a child was 'their child'. The child is their genetic child (and genes are biological) but the law needs to be clear in order to ensure children have parents.

I think the risks of egg or sperm donors regretting their actions are probably much smaller than surrogates perhaps regretting the situation. But whatever fertility arrangements are made the law needs to be clear who is who to the child.

As far as I am aware prior to 2005 there was no right in the UK for a child to trace a donor.

Now there is that right, which I support, which is why we chose to use a British fertility clinic for our (unsuccessful) treatment.

Obviously, it is not possible to have donor egg treatment without the use of a clinic, so it is something reserved for that 'area'. But I still cannot imagine any situation where a woman giving birth to a child would not be the biological mother.

It's fine, I'm not offended I just found your terms a little strange. Like I would be the only person to think something!

Our treatment was unsuccessful, I've got a biological/genetic/birth daughter! And an adopted son. I am fine but I do remember that fertility treatment (six plus years between dd and ds) as all quite stressful, so maybe I am reacting to that.

As a surrogate I absolutely do not see myself as the biological mother in any way! I am providing a duty of care, and I doubt that the egg donor sees herself as the bio mum either.
I know people are uncomfortable with a child not having a mother but many children don’t, via lots of different circumstances, just as many children don’t have a known bio Dad.

I don't agree with two men or two women raising a baby tbh

I'm looking at it from the babies POV and it's something I could not deliberately do to a baby of mine. It isn't my place to tell others what to do.

Sisgal I don’t agree with the way lots of people parent but stats show that children of same sex parents grow up happier than mixed sex parents so your bias doesn’t translate well

I'm looking at it from the babies POV and it's something I could not deliberately do to a baby of mine.

The baby in question, who was in SCBU, is now, a few years on, a very happy and well adjusted child.

Research shows that the psychological well-being of children born via surrogacy between 5 and 15 years earlier was found to be good (no studies at the point of this meta analysis in 2016 had been conducted on children born via cross border surrogacy or raised by same sex fathers, I'm guessing they probably do exist now), with no evidence of any harm to the children born as a result of surrogacy.

Well peachmelba seen as im 35 and well educated, I am capable of having my own opinion. I just happen to belive and support naturally biology that a woman and a man make a baby. It's that simple for me. You don't like it?? That's fine, we are each entitled to our opinion. Maybe you should try and understand and appreciate that everyone is different and has different opinions instead of trying to insult me just because I have a different opinion to you.

And yes the law does not discriminate between any of these situations

A baby born to a woman using her own egg

A baby born to a woman using a donor egg

A baby born to a surrogate mother using the intended mother's egg (gestational surrogacy)

A baby born to a surrogate mother using a donor egg (gestational surrogacy)

A baby born to a surrogate mother using the surrogate's egg (traditional surrogacy)

In all cases the woman who gives birth is the legal mother and goes on the birth certificate

In the surrogacy cases, she can relinquish parental responsibility and transfer to the intended parents through the parental order process, and once a PO is granted, she will no longer be the legal mother, the intended parents will be the child's legal parents

Sisgal I’m not trying to insult you, you disagree with me and my parenting and life choices, fine. Just stating that statistically I am not damaging my kids, more the opposite.
But I’m not here as a same sex parent, more as a surrogate in this debate

I just happen to belive and support naturally biology that a woman and a man make a baby. It's that simple for me.

Obviously it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. There are many ways to make that happen now though.

However, it doesn’t take a man and a woman to raise a child.

Isn’t this just the same as prostitution? Except rather than for the purpose of sexual gratification it’s for the purpose of familial gratification.

If it’s true that prostitution is immoral because it’s not possible to consent to be used in that way, because a woman is not an object to be used, then surely it follows that surrogacy is also using a woman as an object, and is immoral also?

And all these comments about how it’s a lovely thing to do for someone, isn’t that just the first step? If it can be normalised that with consent a woman can put herself up for sale (sexually or reproductively) then surely the fact that consent can be purchased by those in unfortunate circumstances just means that women are once again being used for men’s purposes in circumstances that globally are already becoming abusive.

How long till there’s a man who brokers surrogates and charges wealthy westerners £50,000 and pays some poor Chinese or Thai girl £500 and pockets the change? But it’s ok because it’s a lovely thing to do for people and anyway she’s getting paid?

I’m sorry but the parallels between this and the sex trade and pornography are just...stark. If women are not to be treated as people deserving of care and respect then using them is ok. I don’t think you can have it halfway. It’s either/or.

Sisgal I don't see any insult

I see a statistical point being raised that your opinions aren't backed by evidence

You're entitled to your opinions, but it's not insulting to state that the evidence indicates otherwise

It's a simple statement of fact

You say you "support naturally biology" - I'm wondering what you make of assisted conception, where, yes, even a woman and a man, can use science to help them have a baby. Is a woman and a man having IVF with their own gametes OK? What about a woman and a man having IVF with donor egg or donor sperm? What about a woman and a man having IVF with adopted embryos? Is it the sex of the parents that bothers you? Or the 'naturally biology' of conceiving via intercourse that matters to you?

What about a child who is adopted by same sex parents. Is that OK because they were made by "naturally biology that a woman and a man make a baby", even if their birth parents neglected and abused them? And they were then raised by loving and caring same sex adopted parents?

So now I’m a prostitute! The mind boggles

@PeachMelba78 there's a lovely thread in AMA from a woman whose daughter was born via TS to a traditional surrogate, a friend of the OP who saw her go through failed fertility treatment and wanted to help. Her DD is 19 and very well adjusted, and the surro has been involved throughout her DD's life. All are happy and healthy, nearly 20 years on.