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.

And again with the 'you can't naturally have kids so adopt' rhetoric 🙄 i wonder how many people who say that to or about infertile people have kids of their own that they didn't adopt

I think many still believe we are in the days of mostly healthy, reasonably functional young women giving up babies due to being unmarried.

I would be utterly bereft if i had not been able to have children, i really would. It must be so sad to not be able to have something you want so badly.

For that reason I would be a host for my sister. If one of my DC wanted me to do something re surrogacy i would do whatever was needed. For others no , for me, it's too much.

Pissed you mention cafcass etc. If it's a private arrangement, ie bff, sister, gay friends can't they just do the turkey baster and do whatever they like?

thigh, if they want to use the eggs of the mother or a donor rather than the surrogate IVF will be needed.

If they are doing it with a family member, friend etc, it’s generally responsible to go via a reputable clinic that can screen for disease and deal with the legal side of things.

You can do it as you suggest, but there are issues which could come up (STDs, HIV) medically and legally. If you haven’t taken care of the legal side a sperm donor could potentially at some point apply for PR, access, even custody. It would also leave the sperm donor open to claims for maintenance etc.

Some people do it, it’s not wise though.

thighofrelief nope. We didn't us a clinic as I was a traditional using my egg. But by law birth mum is mum, must go on birth certificate, has unequivocal say just as she would if carrying for herself. In order to transfer responsibility of the baby to the IPs you have to apply for a parental order - ours was granted roughly a year after she was born. The process for that involves CAFCASS, can involve social services, & a hearing before a judge. We also had social services notified whilst i was pregnant as it is our hopsital's policy.

If you simply use an egg donor or a sperm donor & carry yourself, you don't have to do any of that

Surrogate & IPs are supposed to do STI checks prior to insems even if you do home inseminations. If you go via an agency you do that plus DBS checks etc. We did all of that ourselves as it was cheaper for the IPs - the only thing we didn't do was counselling but I had had a session myself prior to deciding to be a surrogate.

I'm not saying if you are infertilie you shouldn't go through IVF/using a surrogate.

I'm just struggling to get my head around using a surrogate to create an unrelated child to both parents where you would have to effectively adopt the baby as neither parent would have PR naturally to the child.

I think many still believe we are in the days of mostly healthy, reasonably functional young women giving up babies due to being unmarried.

In the US unmarried women do still give up babies for adoption - but via private adoptions, where a pregnant woman chooses prospective adopters to adopt her baby straight from birth. The cost of private adoption is much more than fertility treatment, it's in the region of £30-40,000. The women choose homes for their baby, and essentially adopters pay for doing so.

Adoption from the foster care system does exist obvs, with the same challenges as the UK (older children removed from the birth family's care, often additional trauma of abuse or neglect, drugs / alcohol during pregnant, and varying lengths of time in foster care between leaving their birth family and being adopted) - but with the added dynamic of race, with many more cross-racial adoptions.

David Miliband and his wife adopted their sons via private adoption in the US - they were present at their births and I believe they took the babies home from hospital. So very similar to surrogacy in many ways, in other ways very much not.

Babies leave their birth mother at birth to go home with their intended parents, large sums of money change hands, there may or may not be contact between the child and birth mother (although it's strongly encouraged but can't be enforced in both cases). In other ways the dynamic is of course very different

Does raise the question of 'buying babies' -

Private adoption (US), agreement made between adopters and birth mother before birth, birth mother retains the rights at birth to keep the baby, if she doesn't change her mind then the baby goes home with the adoptive parents. Baby isn't related to adoptive parents. Large sums of money change hands.

Altruistic surrogacy (UK), agreement made between intended parents and surrogate, surrogate retains the rights at birth to keep the baby, if she doesn't change her mind then the baby goes home with the intended parents. Baby is related to at least one intended parent. Expenses only.

They are still very very different, but adoption in the US can be very different to the UK. I don't know how often private adoption in the US is accused of facilitating baby buying.

I'm not a fan of private adoption either and remember being pretty disgusted by David Miliband at the time.

KPO58 unless the surrogate is single, neither IP goes on the birth certificate anyway. If the surrogate is married, her husband has to go on the BC with her. So even if genetics say the baby is linked to one parent, the law says otherwise

Sorry pressed send too soon.

In many US states there is a legally binding pre-birth agreement made when a surrogate is used. So regardless of genetics, the IPs get the final say & get responsibility from birth. It is something many surrogates in the UK wish we could implement here tbh; our agreements, whilst they show intent, are not legally binding

In the US unmarried women do still give up babies for adoption - but via private adoptions, where a pregnant woman chooses prospective adopters to adopt her baby straight from birth.

The US has very poor welfare and health systems which mean this is frequently the only choice many women in the US have.

This was actually the case in the UK for many years too. In the 70s about 50% of adoptions were actually born to married parents who just couldn’t afford to keep them. I don’t really think suggesting that is a reasonable option is a great idea.

Mothers don’t ‘sell’ their babies either. Pregnancy related expenses including health and delivery costs are covered but it’s certainly not a get rich quick scheme. Your suggestion that it’s effectively buying babies just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I’m not sure why some of you feel you have the right to judge David Miliband. Perhaps he should come around to rifle through your bank statements and medical records and gossip to your friends and relations about your relationship and judge what he thinks of your reproductive choices eh?

It’s just another excuse for a really nasty subset of fertile women to give infertile women a damn good kicking.

And do you know why I think they do it? Because they’ve done and achieved very little in their lives apart from having perfectly average and unremarkable children and they’re determined to fetishise that into some sort of huge achievement. Even though cats and squirrels can do it. And they generally choose to do that by obsessing over the infertile and tut tutting about how it shouldn’t be allowed and how in the interests of the species only they and their perfect naturally selected offspring should be allowed to contribute to the gene pool. Even though everything from central heating to intensive farming to welfare benefits to internet dating interferes with natural selection.

Sorry. You’re not that special. Every person out of the billions on this planet has a mother whose done it.

Maybe you should try excelling in sport or a career or something instead?

Not nice to be judged is it?

Augusta I think we may be speaking at cross purposes. I'm infertile, I can't have children and the only way we can have a biological child is through surrogacy. 3 of my friends have offered to be a surrogate for us. I don't know how we will proceed. I struggle with being judged as a selfish baby stealer if we do proceed as a team of 3 with one of my friends.

I don't judge David Miliband at all. I think it's wonderful that a loving family was created.

My point was that the simple narrative of adoption = good and surrogacy = bad is reductive.

If you'd read my previous posts you might see the wider context.

*o58

I don't understand why people would use both sperm donor and egg donor rather than adopt. Having one or the other donor, I can understand as the baby is genetically related to one parent, but when the baby isn't related to either it seems more like using a catalogue for choosing traits to try and make the perfect baby, which makes me feel uneasy.*

I Don't think it is about that all. It's about wanting to be physically involved in the creation of a child, in other words procreation. Which is understandable. I'm still uneasy about surrogacy though.

The US is not unlike 1950s/1960s Ireland in respect of unmarried mothers giving children up for adoption.

Many young people in the US do not get access to sex education. Contraceptives are limited because most girls are on their parents health insurance and their parents get to see any drugs their children are prescribed and can veto pill prescriptions. Abortion is limited - and many young girls from religiously conservative families will conceal/deny the pregnancy for so long it makes abortion impossible. Costs of ante natal and delivery are high. Social pressures/lack of post natal support make it hard for a woman to keep her child without sinking into abject poverty. State benefits are far less generous than those in UK.

But this system, like the Irish system before it, guarantees a supply of healthy, white infants for adoption by infertile wealthy couples. These couples can then congratulate themselves on having “rescued” a baby. The middle man role played by the churches in the past has been taken over to some extent by commercial intermediaries. If they cannot source a healthy white baby in the US these families usually try to buy one from abroad.

The children that are produced in this way often grow up with psychological problems.

Meanwhile those children in the care system - older, needy, traumatised, disabled - are left to languish. These families are not interested in rescueing damaged goods.

Ah, okay bananafish, I get you. It was actually the poster after you who said how much they disapproved of Miliband’s adoption that a lot of that was addressed to anyway so that was my fault for not being clearer about that too.

And in terms of trying to excel at a career, I'm now a writer about infertility and pregnancy loss.

Since I started in Sept:

I've written for the Guardian about my experience of miscarriage for baby loss awareness week, and infertility and female identity for infertility week

I've written for Metro's Fertility Month series, about how to support someone with fertility problems; how inadequate care for male infertility is failing men & women; why adoption isn't the answer to infertility ; the craziest things I've done in the name of infertility and have an article on egg freezing forthcoming

I've written for world childless week

I've been on the fertility podcast to talk about my experience and will be guest hosting some episodes of the podcast this year

I've spoken at events about infertility

I've been invited on to bbc woman's hour to talk about struggling with infertility with Jane Garvey

I'm working on a book about real women's stories about infertility

I'm writer in residence for this year's fertility fest, this year to be held at the Barbican, press launch is next week

I may not be able to bear children but I'm trying to turn my experience into something positive. I've done all this in under 4 months so I think I am rather excelling at a new career if I do say so myself.

Apols, cross post! Thanks

Meanwhile those children in the care system - older, needy, traumatised, disabled - are left to languish. These families are not interested in rescueing damaged goods.

Have you adopted a child from the care system in the UK?

@bananafish

what relevance does that question have to my description of the US breed to order system?

These families are not interested in rescuing damaged goods

Or don't have the ability to meet the criteria needed?

Or just want a perfect, white off the shelf infant?

I understand exactly how difficult it is to parent an adopted child from the care system. I have every admiration for those people who take on that job.

My point is that in the US now, as in the UK in the 50s, 60s and 70s, there are many families who argue that they are “rescuing” a child - but they are very particular about the kind of child they “rescue”. And most of them support political, educational and health care regimes which contribute towards young women getting pregnant, stopping them accessing a termination and making it impossible for them to keep their child.

The criticism of families who don't want damaged goods. You can outlaw private adoption as we do here, and the same families will still either not meet the criteria for adoption, or still feel unable to meet the needs of a child languishing in care. You can disagree with private adoption or surrogacy, and criticise their decision to pursue this, but it doesn't follow that these couples have any more responsibility to adopt children languishing in care than anyone else

Infertile couples are called selfish for pursuing ivf and going against natural selection, instead of adopting a child from the care system (as on this thread)

So if poor children are left languishing in care because infertile couples won't adopt them, and infertile couples are worthy of criticism for this, why not fertile couples? After all, they're choosing a biological child over 'damaged goods', leaving a child languishing in care.

Adoption isn't a solution for childlessness -It's about finding homes for children, not children for infertile couples.

Augusta it is perfectly possible to be a mother, have a career and excel at a sport. I am doing all 3 (well, in a fallow patch sporting wise, but have represented my country post having children). So I have no reason to use my fertility to feel superior to anyone, but like many have severe reservations about surrogacy. I am sorry, this is obviously really raw and horrible for you, but I think there are genuine feminist concerns to be articulated around commercial surrogacy. Vulnerable, poor and desperate women may be exploited and have no recourse to support and counselling to help them process having to give away the child they have carried - regardless of whether it is their egg or not.