To not consider surrogacy for SIL when I would for my sister?

[nervousnelly8]

DH's sister has longstanding fertility problems. She has been told surrogacy would be her best option. DH and I were discussing today whether I would consider acting as a surrogate in future (she hasn't asked me directly but has raised it with DH).

I came down pretty firmly on the no side. I'm currently very pregnant with DC2 and I do not enjoy pregnancy. I had bad birth injuries with DC1 and am very apprehensive about going through it again, but know it will be worth it if we get a healthy baby out at the end.

Selfishly, I just don't feel willing to but my body through a pregnancy/birth for SIL, with all the risks that it entails. We're not sure yet if we would like more children after DC2, so that plays a part too.

DH asked if I would be willing to do it for anyone else. And the honest answer was that I would do it for my own sister. I would do anything for my sister. DH understood but was visibly upset, and I now feel like a selfish cow. AIBU?

I don't have a sister but I have a brother that I'm close to. I'd be a surrogate for him and his wife of they needed one. However, I wouldn't for my husband's brother and his wife. I'm sure there are things that my husband would do for his brother and not mine - which is understandable.

I think I could possibly be a surrogate for my sister or my very best friend. I couldn't do it for anyone else.

It's your choice who, if anyone, you would offer to do it for

No, it's not. As I said upthread, The Medical Ethics will NOT allow a close sibling to surrogate for another.

The whole point is moot. It would not be allowed.

Donate a kidney, eye, blood, bone - yes. Not a child.

It is not selfish to be appalled at the thought! There are two people in the wrong her: your SiL for approaching her brother before she approached you; your DH for being reckless enough to ask the question of who you would be a surrogate for if not his sister.

If you aren't prepared for the honest answer, don't ask the probing question!

Here are some questions for your DH:

What would happen if you agreed to be surrogate for his sister and...

• you died in childbirth?
• you sustained life-changing childbirth injuries?
• his sister or her DP or both died while you were pregnant?
• his sister unexpectedly fell pregnant after you did?
• the baby was born with health issues and was rejected by his sister and her DP at birth?
• his sister and DP tried to dictate your diet or exercise regime while you were pregnant?

If there is an ideal surrogate, it's someone who adores being pregnant, sails through pregnancy and has babies as easily as shelling peas. You are clearly not that person.

You have a perfect right to ask your DH never to mention the topic again. It's not the same as a man donating sperm into a beaker.

Well said NewlyGranny

This. The anger is over the top.

It isn't. At all. Our whole society is completely namby-pamby (possibly emitting from our longstanding Christian bedrock) that anger is bad, anger is wrong, anger will corrode you, 'vengeance is mine' saith the Lord. And if you happen to be female, anger is nothing more than an outright taboo. Never show anger. Always #BeKind. And God forbid we ever be rude to anyone, even men who stampede over our asserted 'no' whilst we are encouraged to 'let him down gently'. It's the same kind of rhetoric that claims forgiveness is the only desirable response to a hideous atrocity committed against us.

No.

Anger as a temporary response to these kinds of injustices isn't only admissible, it's healthy. When this kind of thing happens to us, we have a right to be as thoroughly angry as we please. How much better is it than capitulating and rolling over when someone fails to recognise our own bodily autonomy, who takes what they want despite our protests, who puts us on the spot about it and dares to try putting us on a guilt-trip? What other response would be deemed more 'appropriate?' Incidentally there's a word for that kind of behaviour when it occurs in a sexual context, and that word is 'coercion'. And that also happens to be very much illegal.

The world can get to shit with its admonitions to swallow our anger and be kind, whether or not the situation merits it.

No. Ad no again. Why is it so hard to actually hear that word when it happens to be a woman who utters it?

ptumbi I know you were told you couldn't be a surrogate for your sister, but there are a number of sisters who've done so.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8478415/Mother-gives-birth-nephew-agreeing-surrogate-sister.html

www.kentonline.co.uk/tunbridge-wells/news/sisters-beautiful-offer-to-make-couples-parenthood-dream-a-reality-229348/

Hypothetical questions are great, until you are faced with reality and real life consequences - you can never be totally sure you would do anything.

That's true, but while things like termination and who is present at the birth are discussed before a surrogacy goes ahead, all parties know that the surrogate still has the final say. With parenting styles, the parents decide, as in any other family. Again this should be discussed beforehand.

I believe that surrogacy should be banned to protect the vulnerable and emotionally fragile.

I agree that vulnerable and emotionally fragile women should not be accepted as surrogates by the organisations or clinics. However I don't think that's a good reason to ban everyone else.

And none of this takes into consideration the long term lasting effects on a newborn baby

Usually the first people to hold the new baby are the parents, so the baby will bond with them straight away rather than the surrogate. The surrogate doesn't see the baby as their own.

A baby forms a bond with its mother before it is born. It knows her smell, her sounds, the rhythm of her heart.

And you cannot possibly say 'the surrogate doesn't see the baby as their own' because we know there have been several documented reports of mothers acting as surrogates refusing to give their baby up to the 'intended' parents.

@Auto

Hypothetical questions are great, until you are faced with reality and real life consequences - you can never be totally sure you would do anything.

That's true, but while things like termination and who is present at the birth are discussed before a surrogacy goes ahead, all parties know that the surrogate still has the final say. With parenting styles, the parents decide, as in any other family. Again this should be discussed beforehand.

I believe that surrogacy should be banned to protect the vulnerable and emotionally fragile.

I agree that vulnerable and emotionally fragile women should not be accepted as surrogates by the organisations or clinics. However I don't think that's a good reason to ban everyone else.

And none of this takes into consideration the long term lasting effects on a newborn baby

Usually the first people to hold the new baby are the parents, so the baby will bond with them straight away rather than the surrogate. The surrogate doesn't see the baby as their own.

There is no legal requirement to discuss parenting beforehand. Nor is there any way to resolve any disputes that might arise.

Being 'vulnerable and emotionally fragile' isnt something you can just define or identify easily. Nor is it merely a 'pre existing' condition. It is perfectly plausible that surrogacy could cause the problem. The way you phrase it, it makes it sound like everyone can pick out someone 'vulnerable or emotionally fragile' at twenty paces. Often women are good at concealing this from outsiders because they have been conditioned to do so.

Babies have a bond with their mothers before birth and are able to identify the voice of their mother. But the fourth trimester is something that is a bit inconvenient to surrogate evangelicals.

It is not selfish to be appalled at the thought! There are two people in the wrong her: your SiL for approaching her brother before she approached you; your DH for being reckless enough to ask the question of who you would be a surrogate for if not his sister.

OP said that despite not knowing what was exactly said it was a weighing of options not a direct request from SIL? As far as OP therefore any of us know, SIL could not only not have asked but doesn’t even know her brother asked his wife in the first place.

I bet what likely happened is SIL was simply talking to her brother about her struggles and the different options she was thinking about. He feels bad for his sister and thinks maybe if she chooses to go the surrogate route maybe she would want someone she knows vs a stranger. I’ll ask my wife if she would consider it, him completely blinded by his need to help his sister and not considering how ridiculous it is to ask that when his wife is already pregnant and had issues with their first.

@Auto

**“I agree that vulnerable and emotionally fragile women should not be accepted as surrogates by the organisations or clinics. However I don't think that's a good reason to ban everyone else.

**Usually the first people to hold the new baby are the parents, so the baby will bond with them straight away rather than the surrogate. The surrogate doesn't see the baby as their own.“

It’s not that simple and straightforward
You don’t just pick out who’s vulnerable like it’s an ID parade. This sort of thing is complex and complicated, most definitely non linear and at times highly difficult to categorise even with the individual’s volition.

I also disagree that a baby binds streiggt aqua with who are essentially strangers. That baby will have known only one person and there is a bond there thanks to nine months of gestation and of course the birth process. That isn’t obliterated because someone else gets to hold it first. To say otherwise is not only denigrating pregnancy but highly upsetting for mothers who’ve had to wait hours days weeks even before they can hold their own baby due to premature birth or complications.

I wouldn’t spit on my sil if she was on fire let alone carry a baby for her. But I wouldn’t do it for my sister either because I know she wouldn’t do the same for me. I would definitely consider it for some of my friends though.

Wtf? No of course you're not being unreasonable, and I wouldn't be feeling guilty about being "tactless" either. Your husband is entirely in the wrong and has a very disturbing mentality if he was genuinely hoping you would agree to this.

Your DH raised it with you. You said 'no' as is your right.

He shouldn't have tried to guilt trip you into it by asking if you would be a surrogate for your sister.

Didums if he is upset by the answer you gave him but he should have respected your initial 'no'.

You are not being selfish, you are not being unreasonable, your DH is.

You don’t just pick out who’s vulnerable like it’s an ID parade

Clinics require both couples and surrogates to undergo counselling before any treatment takes place. They also undergo detailed information sessions with the surrogacy organisation and have ongoing support from trained and experienced members. Hardly an 'identity parade'.

That baby will have known only one person

So you think fathers can't bond with the baby before birth?

Intended parents normally become close friends with their surrogate and her family before an offer of help is made. They visit regularly, attend appointments and scans, attend the birth, help look after the surrogates children, and keep in regular touch once the baby arrives.

When a baby is born through surrogacy, then like any other parents, the parents are the first to hold the baby. If there are complications they might not be able to at first. As with your example, it's obviously very hard for the new parents. However it isn't the same for the surrogate as she never considered herself to be the parent, but a friend.

Statistically children born this way are as happy and healthy as any other child. They normally know about their background from an early age and how much their parents wanted them. It doesn't have the negative effects that you fear, when done correctly. Clear guidelines and regulations are vital, of course.

No, no, no, no and, ummm, no. I would NOT do it for my sister in law. It's a huge undertaking anyway, even for your own sister, but I do understand that if it would completely change their life you might decide to go ahead with it.

The main thing I'd be worried about would be bonding too much with the baby - though I guess that would be an issue whoever you carried for.