AIBU to wonder if surrogacy is a bit cruel?

[NRGR]

Firstly I'd like to say I think someone being able to give a couple the opportunity to be parents is a lovely thing! I don't mean this in a nasty way.

When a baby's born they say they instantly know who mum is, by the sound of her voice, her smell, heartbeat etc. So taking that into account, is it a bit mean to take that baby after it's born and pass it straight to someone else? One of the first things they say to you when you have a baby is have plenty of skin to skin because you are all the baby really knows.

Surely regardless of whether the surrogate used her own eggs or not, as far as the baby's conserned she is mum and she will be the one the baby wants.

"Cruel" is the wrong word I think but it just made me wonder.

Sorry, I meant to say that I realise my point is oversimplistic, but on a wider, societal scale, is seems weird that we are now creating and destroying life to order.

I know someone very slightly IRL whose child has 4 parents. A female couple and a male couple. I slightly know one of the women. The child lives with the women and spends most weekends with the men. Neither of the women have been in a relationship with either of the men. I thought it was probably a better outcome than a divorced hetero couple but I'm not sure what i think about deliberately making children in such complicated circumstances.

MsLucy adoption from overseas can be a payment thing so that doesn’t stack up. My surrogacy journey took over 2 years on both sides due to checks and matching, so not a monetary thing at all.

Thigh my children have 3 parents, all gay and they see their father regularly. They are both very happy with their setup and in fact many of their friends have said they would also like 3 parents! But carry on judging people if it gives you pleasure, I will just continue with my life as it stands. 🙂

The way some posters on here want to condemn and stigmatise women with fertility problems is really unpleasant. Particularly given that there is at least one post on here doing that which is obviously made up, and made up by someone who clearly has fuck all knowledge and experience of the issues too.

The way some posters on here want to condemn and stigmatise women with fertility problems is really unpleasant

I don't see this on this thread. Perhaps you could specify what you mean?

I don't think being against surrogacy is necessarily being condemning of those with fertility problems. No one is arguing surrogacy is wrong because of how deserving women with fertility issues are but because of concern for the mothers and babies involved in the process.

Surely if adoption was as common as it used to be, there would be more babies to adopt and therefore less need for surrogacy and IVF?

I'd rather be made through surrogacy and IVF & raised by my genetic parents than be given away by then to adopters.

From your list, adoptive couples have to be really committed to the process and the child, because they are accountable to the approval of others.

See, this is the problem when you get people who know fuck all about adoption commenting on this stuff.

Let me explain something about adoption to you which a lot of people with no knowledge of it don’t understand.

Adoption is not a service for childless people to go and get a baby. It hasn’t been for a long, long time. The way adoption works now is that the best parents who can meet a child’s need are selected, not the most deserving (eg childless) parent. More often that not, that means experienced parents who already have children of their own and are equipped to deal with children with problems better.

Babies are incredibly scarce for adoption and even where found frequently have disabilities and health problems. Older children have usually been through very traumatic issues and have complex problems. Couples who have wanted their own tiny baby from birth are frequently the worst possible match as parents. Could you imagine how a woman who couldn’t get pregnant would feel bringing up a child with complex problems because their mother had drunk heavily and taken drugs throughout her pregnancy? Plus there’s the ethnicity problem where the race of adopters doesn’t match those of the children waiting for adoption which frequently stops adoption.

Add on to that the difficulty of adopting: the chief executive of Barnardos said that most natural parents would be shocked to know if they had to go through the same process for giving birth as adopters do, most of them wouldn’t be allowed to give birth.

Renting privately, a case of mild depression several years ago, being self employed. All of these count against potential adopters along with countless other minor issues.

Surely if adoption was as common as it used to be, there would be more babies to adopt and therefore less need for surrogacy and IVF?

So your solution is to make women go through with unwanted pregnancies so that childless women have a supply of ready made babies to pick up. Right. That’s a bit twatty really isn’t it?

But I see the carry through of your logic. You basically want the state to have control over women’s bodies and what happens to their offspring. Fortunately, you are in a tiny minority.

In some ways old school baby scoop adoption and
commercial surrogacy in poor countries is the same thing, it's poorer, younger, "less deserving" women bearing children for the wealthy "deserving" women. Very Handmaid's Tale.

However those cases are few and far between. In the UK the rights of the child are paramount: the surrogate mother can change her mind after birth, and this has been established in case law

And that's wrong imo. If the baby is not genetically linked to the surrogate than she should not be legally allowed to keep something that isn't hers, unless in the cases of donor gametes and IVF etc where the genetic parents don't want to be involved.

If the baby is not genetically linked to the surrogate than she should not be legally allowed to keep something that isn't hers,

And this is part of my issue with surrogacy - the view that children are a commodity to be bought and sold, through the medium of a woman's body. The whole set up feels very misogynistic.

And this is part of my issue with surrogacy - the view that children are a commodity to be bought and sold, through the medium of a woman's body. The whole set up feels very misogynistic.

Pretty sure it's illegal to pay a surrogate to carry your baby, so they aren't being "bought and sold". Why would I want to be raised by a woman who isn't my mother?

Pretty sure everybody with a child refers to them as theirs? Does that make us all mysogynists?

I'm really pleased someone has explained adoption, because i get sick to the back teeth of seeing people be told 'oh go & adopt'

Illegal where? Everywhere?

And yeah in the UK it's illegal to pay someone. Expenses only & CAFCASS can & do ask for a breakdown. I was told mine were too low & heavily questioned whether i was being exploited...I know another whose were higher than normal because she ended up on bed rest through complications & needed additional childcare. All has to be explained. So here at least it isn't buying & selling...more extreme babysitting

"Extreme babysitting" - with the risk of the mother dying ...

I'm still not in favour of it in principle. There are questionable ethics at play here, especially with people who wish to circumvent the more stringent laws (eh in the UK) and travel elsewhere for a surrogate. It is still treating humans as a product and I don't think it's right.

'With the risk of the mother dying'

Assuming you mean surrogate dying. Okay in that case, once a woman has responsibility for a child she must never again be allowed to fall pregnant. I mean, what if she dies?

Oh do stop the straw man argument. I am allowed to acknowledge that this isn't a risk free situation for the woman who is carrying the child. (Yes, the mother - I refuse to use a dehumanising term such as gestional carrier - and of course the woman whose egg is implanted is the mother)

I don't think anyone should be made to go through with pregnancy simply to provide babies for infertile couples @Augusta2012.

Which is why I feel really uncomfortable with people using financially vulnerable surrogates abroad.

And I do know fuck all about adoption, you are quite right. I was talking on a huge, societal scale, that is seems weird that we are making and destroying life to order.

That obviously isn't always going to be a bad thing. Noone should have to go through a pregnancy they don't want. But if a woman would prefer to relinquish her child for adoption, then there shouldn't be the stigma on her that there currently is, is pretty much what I mean.

And if the adoption system rules out childless couples, then that seems really harsh. Yes the child's interests should be paramount, but it seems unfair that childless couples arent allowed to adopt in the same way parents with children are. I have known quite a few childless couples adopt babies, in this country and elsewhere, so didn't know they were disadvantaged.

RedemptiveCrocodile if you don't like folk responding to your comments, don't comment. Simple. Pregnancy is risky regardless of who you are...if women shouldn't carry for someone else because they might die, then that argument carries across the board.

and of course the woman whose egg is implanted is the mother

That is an interesting phrase. In my case, it was my egg & i carried & gave birth to her. However in a gestational situation, the surrogate simply carries the pregnancy without being genetically linked. So from your statement, in GS the pregnant woman isn't the mother, the woman who donated the egg is...

You really need to stop twisting my words. It is tiresome.

I'm not twisting anything. They are your words as you wrote them. Nothing twisted at all.

I never call myself the ‘mother’ - I am not biologically related to this child and I am carrying him for his parents. Thanks for reminding me I could die in childbirth - it’s my biggest fear at the moment and I am due any day!

I find it a bit odd when arguments that "surrogacy is wrong because the fetus in the womb is already emotionally aware and is bonding to its gestational mother even before birth" come from people who are also pro-choice on abortion right up to full term....

(I have nuanced views on abortion, by the way, like most women. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here.)