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.

I don't think fertile women should be able to moralise on something that doesn't affect them.

AppleBlossom - As it is most likely a fertile woman carrying the baby, I think a healthy discussion about the impact on the child is more than adequate.

(Unless you know of some scientific advance to solve the problems of surrogacy / fertility??.)

YANBU.
And of course it’s not just surrogate babies who might be separated from their mothers at birth, but that’s not what’s under discussion here so no need for posters to make this about themselves.

I must admit I didn't think about the potential ramifications for surrogates in developing countries. I assumed it was a method legitimized by society as making money, had no idea that a woman would have to pretend that it was her baby

I think it’s the ultimate gift & haven’t got a problem with it in families but I am uneasy about the ‘womb for hire’ scenarios. I’m sure I read somewhere that babies in the womb can be genetically influenced by RNA (a relative of DNA) which I found fascinating & I assume this could happen with surrogacy?

I assumed it was a method legitimized by society as making money, had no idea that a woman would have to pretend that it was her baby
In many cases it is her baby, many surrogates are straight surrogates (i.e. biological mothers of children they carry). And there are very few cultures where selling babies for money, even if legal, is thought of as OK.

@Hedgehogblues do you have any links? It would be interesting to read about.

Nobody questions the fathers bond, but fathers are seemingly capable of walking away leaving children with their mothers, mothers rarely do that.

Skin to skin being done by fathers is better than nothing if the mother is unwell, but second best for baby as they should be with their mother if at all possible.

Most women didn't die in childbirth, or the population would never have expanded this much.

I feel very uneasy about commercial surrogacy it seems just another way for the rich to exploit the poor. I’d imagine it’s something quite difficult for the surrogate baby to come to terms with psychological when they grow up.

One of the worst things I have ever seen was a video on YouTube where a newborn is given up for adoption in America. The newborn is in NICU and the mother just leaves her with the adoptive parents. I just think how can that not be damaging. The baby has just been born, isn’t well and doesn’t have the comfort from the one person it recognizes.

I don’t agree with OP. I think your over thinking it. Most babies are handed to the parent straight after birth and skin on skin contact is encouraged, I don’t think the baby knows that this isn’t their birth mother? I also don’t see that there’s any long term damage taking a child from their birth mother straight after birth and handing it to their real parents. Many children are adopted as babies and form a bond with their adoptive parent, most have no memory of their birth parent.

I think it’s an amazing thing and gives people the opertunity to have a child when they can’t carry one themselves.

I am against commercial surrogacy. It reduces women to walking rent-a-wombs and makes pregnancy and birth a wholly capitalist enterprise. It's one short hop to compelling unemployed women to undertake surrogacy as a form of employment.

If commercial surrogacy had no adverse impact then why are various countries banning it? The impact on poor women is horrendous. Pregnancy and childbirth are not without physical and mental risks. No woman should feel so desperate that she rents her body out as a host for 9 months, so that she can keep a roof over her head and food on the table.

There are always going to be things in life that we cannot have or do. Nobody has an entitlement to have a child. And I say that as someone who is irreparably infertile and childless.

I think there's times when it's an amazing gift and there's times when it seems exploitative and even greedy. It's complex. Kim Kardashian's latest announcement seems of the latter. They have 3 healthy children, surely enough?
I know of a friend's friend who was a surrogate for her sister who ended up losing her first baby at birth because of placenta previa and then had a full hysterectomy to stop the bleeding. That seems of the former. It's really difficult to know where the line is drawn. All these poverty stricken women in India being surrogates for westerners leaves me uncomfortable but these people must be desperate. Who knows all their stories?

As a person who was deliberately denied access to my father, I have very mixed feelings about this.

I imagine surrogacy is an amazing gift, especially where the surrogate is known.

However, With particular reference to same sex couples using a surrogate - there’s something about deliberately creating a scenario where a child will grow up without knowing one of their parents that makes me feel uneasy. It reflects my experience. I’m especially not sure how I feel about two men removing a baby from the mother.

If a woman died in childbirth and the baby never knew it’s mother, never had ‘a mother’ most people would think that was tragic. As a woman And a mother myself, I’d find that sad. So I don’t understand How it’s ok to deliberately create the same scenario.

It’s done for the wishes and ‘rights’ of the parents, with no thought for the feelings of the child later as an adult. My mother erased my father from my life because it suited her needs to do so. It didn’t suit mine. I didn’t get a say.

I'm not necessarily against surrogacy, but there are moral issues with it that trouble me.

Is it right to put another woman through the (far from risk less) process of pregnancy and birth?

How should financial incentives be handled?

What about the impact on the child?

I understand that infertile women have a tough time of it and that surrogacy can be an amazing opportunity for them, but that doesn't give them or anyone else the right to shut down the difficult questions that it raises.

Of course the baby will know the woman it is handed to is not their mother. It has spent 9 months inside its mothers body growing, hearing her heartbeat, hearing her voice. We try and pretend this does not matter by using another woman's egg, and by calling the woman who grew the baby a surrogate. But we know that newborn babies recognise and respond to the voice of the woman/mother whose body has carried and grew it for 9 months.
We just ignore any possible impact because children can not remember how they felt or what they experienced being babies.

I am vehemently against commercial surrogacy. The exploitation of women in poorer countries is wrong.

I agree entirely and my concerns are deeper than the impact of separating a child from its birth mother at birth. Of course, that is traumatic.

My concerns are also about a society that sees the right to have a ‘perfect’ child as an absolute right with little thought for the rights of the child or the impact on those who cannot afford or physically can’t have a child. The pressure on women is huge. There is no acceptance that some women are infertile and little support for them to accept that situation. It’s the pressure to go through the huge enormous roller coaster of infertility testing and treatment rather than accept the situation that can be damaging. Then the pressure a “very special” baby puts on a couple with the need to be eternally grateful, to never get cross or feel irritated because they’ve “been so lucky”.

Babies are not a right. They are not a trading commodity or fashion accessory. I personally think surrogacy for gay men is wrong, I think surrogacy for trans women is wrong (a man cannot be a mother) but understand that’s not a modern view.

Isn't skin to skin to calm the baby and so they can get to know you, and to encourage milk production for breastfeeding. Not because they "already know you". Dad could also do skin to skin.

I think there can be issues with surrogacy but they are with the birth mother and whether she is being exploited, not with the baby.

We would accept that a baby removed from its mother at birth and adopted, will experience trauma from that removal. Just because we call it surrogacy, does not eliminate any trauma.
Also for those babies who are bought, it must feel pretty awful to grow up and find out that your parents bought you from your impoverished mother.

Babies are not a right.

^ This.

We need to think about our actions and our responsibility towards out children. They are not a commodity.

I thought skin-to-skin contact is encouraged to establish bonding and get the newborn familiar with your smells ect? Anyone could do that. A newborn doesn't have any perception or higher knowledge that one person is its mother and not another, surely?

it must feel awful growing up and finding out your parents bought you from a improvised mother

First of all I’m pretty sure buying babies is illegal? Most surrogacies do not involve money at all. Also some children are raised knowing that their mother was not the woman that gave birth to them, some have contact with the women that did give birth to them, the same as many children are aware that they have been adopted.

Of course a newborn baby knows its mother! It’s been living inside her for 9 months. She is literally all the newborn baby knows.

I agree with you OP.

Skin to skin is important because babies recognise their Mum's heartbeat and voice, having spent 9 months in the womb next to it. It's not just to establish a bond; it's also hormone driven and can help promote successful breastfeeding.

lovemusic People buy babies from abroad. You really think an impoverished woman in India is giving away her baby to help a well off western couple? She is doing it for the money. Usually to feed her other children. I know it gets called surrogacy, but the truth is a baby is being bought.

I think there are more checks on adoption which safeguard child and birth mother, and possibly the receiving parents. There may be more attachment issues because adoption takes time and children may have been damaged beforehand.
Of course anyone who has working parts can be a parent however unsuitable, and lots of men abandon children before birth, there is something strange about just giving a baby up to strangers because somebody else wants it or can pay.
Adoptions fail for many reasons, are figures available for surrogacy?