Surrogacy makes me very uncomfortable

[HermioneKipper]

I was listening to Giovanna Fletcher’s podcast with H from Steps and hearing them talk about him using a surrogate for his twins made me feel very uncomfortable.

It’s essentially renting a woman’s body to buy a baby.

I understand the woman must’ve consented but she was paid and it doesn’t take into account the risk she was putting her body through. Pregnancy and childbirth is a huge strain on a woman’s body and she risks serious injury giving birth that she’ll have for life.

Even more so as she had twins which is even more dangerous.

And the babies taken away from their birth mother immediately. Who knows what harm it does to them.

It feels akin to the black market of buying and selling organs.

I know I have children so perhaps don’t have the right to comment but it doesn’t sit right with me.

[quote Babyghirl]@spicedappledonuts
Human trafficking is stealing girls of the street and selling to sex rings, but I'm not doing that nor will I be paying for the baby either.

@Mickarooni
I'm on waiting list for ivf and if that fails I will then go down the surrogacy is my last option.

@TakeMe2insanity
I agree with you, must be nice to not have that problem, and I'm sure alot on this thread have not had problems so can't walk in them shoes.[/quote]
@Babyghirl No, that is SEX trafficking. Human Trafficking is Surrogacy.

Your option should be adoption. Not surrogacy.

Being infertile does not mean you have a right to have a baby, or a right to a designer baby to purchase.

@Babyghirl

I really hope for all the ladies on this thread that is ambushing ladies for wanting a baby and it's the only root left to go and have daughters of your own they don't have fertility issues.

The only person 'ambushing' anyone on this thread is you, because you don't like being told no one has a right to have a baby and infertility will NEVER justify child trafficking. ADOPTION and fostering exist for that very reason, so surrogacy doesn't need to exist.

@EL8888

No offence but it’s hard to comment when you don’t have severe fertility issues or barriers to having children

Exactly. It’s all very well if you have had a child naturally but I can’t imagine the feeling of knowing you can’t have children when it’s all you ever wanted.

Where payments are allowed, it's pure exploitation.

Really? Always? I don’t think it’s that black and white, particularly if people have done it multiple times. Also, why shouldn’t someone be paid? At the very least, medical costs?

@DebbieHarrysCheekbones Without meaning to be harsh some might say that likewise those saying surrogacy is not morally wrong because it’s their only route to motherhood have zero idea of what women who’ve given birth are sharing.

THIS! That is the slam dunk reply to the smug pro surrogacy supporters who have never given birth and therefore have no clue the effects of childbirth. It's narcissistic.

I agree absolutely with the previous poster who said that adoption is for the benefit of the child, surrogacy is for the benefit of the adult.

I was adopted as a baby. My birth mother willingly put me up for adoption which was quite unusual for time I was born. I have had a happy childhood with my adopted family, have been successful at school and in my career. Obviously, however, my early life is not ideal, it's making the best of a bad situation. It hurts immensely to know that my mother- the very first person who was supposed to love me and look after me- gave me up. She had a child before me, went on to have more children after me, all of whom she kept and, as far as I can see, looked after reasonably well.

The hurt and rejection I feel and had to come to grips with as a child might not be wholly rational- logically, I know that what my mother did is no reflection on me- but they are there. When I opted to meet my birth mother, what made the whole thing worse was seeing the apparent indifference she felt to the entire situation. I hadn't been taken from her. She- someone who has been able to bring up multiple other children- gave me up for no obvious reason.

One thing that could have made this all worse is learning that not only was I given away voluntarily, but that I was conceived FOR THAT PURPOSE. Oh, and also finding out that my adoptive parents- the people who have provided me with a loving and happy childhood- were apparently the sort of people who thought that causing that sort of situation was a perfectly acceptable thing to do, just because they wanted a baby.

I'm sorry for people who can't conceive but this isn't the answer to it.

@EL8888 No offence but it’s hard to comment when you don’t have severe fertility issues or barriers to having children

No offence but it's hard to comment when you've never gone through childbirth so don't know what you are asking of other women who have done so. Women who have, and no the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, are the ones who should be commenting.

*know

[quote bookh]@TakeMe2Insanity why is secondary infertility worse than infertility. [/quote]
It's her opinion. Let's not get into a bunfight

I think that future generations will find it abhorrent that surrogacy was allowed to go on in this era. I also wonder how many surrogate babies will grow up understanding that the practice of surrogacy is highly unethical and how that will affect their views of their parents. It’s a scandal just waiting to unfold. I take a very dim view of anyone who thinks surrogacy is in any way acceptable. If I found out that’s how my parents had me I would be appalled and devastated.

@TheGirlCat
Hold on adoption is where a child was removed from the parent prop through god knows how many forster families and homes but this child is not damaged prop 100 more times damaged than a child removed through surrogacy.
I say a child removed because the mother did not want it or could not look after it would be worse than a child who was born through surrogacy because that child is born to be loved 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

Babyghirl

You just don't want to hear it, do you. Adoption is born out of a necessity. Surrogacy is not a necessity. That baby is being created in the full knowledge it will be removed from its mother at birth. You are purposely creating trauma because you want a baby.

I think all surrogacy is morally suspect and we should make the practice illegal in this country.

@TheGirlCat lm not sure where to start with your slew of assumptions! Firstly l wouldn’t ask women to do it, surrogacy and adoption aren’t for me actually. How do you know l haven’t given birth? For all you know I have but the child was stillborn / taken by social services etc etc. Guessing you’re one of those women who mindlessly recreates and then is judgey / smug / tactless about women who can’t do that

[quote Babyghirl]@TheGirlCat
Hold on adoption is where a child was removed from the parent prop through god knows how many forster families and homes but this child is not damaged prop 100 more times damaged than a child removed through surrogacy.
I say a child removed because the mother did not want it or could not look after it would be worse than a child who was born through surrogacy because that child is born to be loved 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️[/quote]
@Babyghirl You comments about children in foster homes and adoptions are absolutely disgusting. So you admit you want a perfect baby, you are not prepared to give love to a child that has more need for it, you are not interested in 'damaged' babies, only perfect ones. That to me, is the indicator of someone who is not ready to be a parent. You prove my point that to you, surrogacy is about a designer baby, as long as it is not 'damaged'. Selfish and cruel. And what is with all these ' 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️ '? Are you 12 years old? One is unnecessary but 5? You seem quite immature.

[quote Babyghirl]@TheGirlCat
Hold on adoption is where a child was removed from the parent prop through god knows how many forster families and homes but this child is not damaged prop 100 more times damaged than a child removed through surrogacy.
I say a child removed because the mother did not want it or could not look after it would be worse than a child who was born through surrogacy because that child is born to be loved 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️[/quote]
No. The mother gives birth either for cash to rich parents or gives birth for her sister / friend / other person in order to fulfill guilt trip.

Its no-liberalism, privilege and indeed often racism at its finest, with the PR tag of 'for love'.

You can almost see the adverts for it now - like perfume ad - big budget and glossy with some scheleb whispering 'for love'. Then some crap about high quality breeding stock who are certified as 'clean' through regular drug testing.

[quote EL8888]@TheGirlCat lm not sure where to start with your slew of assumptions! Firstly l wouldn’t ask women to do it, surrogacy and adoption aren’t for me actually. How do you know l haven’t given birth? For all you know I have but the child was stillborn / taken by social services etc etc. Guessing you’re one of those women who mindlessly recreates and then is judgey / smug / tactless about women who can’t do that[/quote]
No @EL8888 You're the one making assumptions. You specifically said it’s hard to comment when you don’t have severe fertility issues or barriers to having children . It is not 'hard' to comment on an issue about something as serious, life changing and life threatening as pregnancy and childbirth. That you think it is, is smug and quite frankly narcissistic. I venture to suggest women who know what pregnancy and childbirth involves have more right to comment than not. You remind me of when a male has such disregard for pregnancy and childbirth, because he'll never have to go through it. It's those that have gone through it that have the most right to comment.

TheGirlCat is blithely refusing to respond to most posts because she knows she is in the wrong.

@Thesandmanishere

TheGirlCat is blithely refusing to respond to most posts because she knows she is in the wrong.

@Thesandmanishere Lol what? I only started commenting and reading an hour ago and have responded to those who replied to me and most people on here are on the same side as me. Did you get me confused with and mean to reply to Babyghirl?

Did you get me confused with and mean to reply toBabyghirl?

Yes I did. I'm so sorry!!!

@RedToothBrush You can almost see the adverts for it now - like perfume ad - big budget and glossy with some scheleb whispering 'for love'. Then some crap about high quality breeding stock who are certified as 'clean' through regular drug testing.

Yes, and 'non-damaged', too.

@Thesandmanishere

Did you get me confused with and mean to reply toBabyghirl?

Yes I did. I'm so sorry!!!

Cool. :)

Also I found it interesting that the term 'reproductive rights' is now being conflated with a right to a child through surrogacy when it originated from laws around abortion and a woman's right to choose. It's almost as if it's a deliberate distraction.

It's the same old same old, no wonder we leave the lobbying of law reform to those who can focus, the surrogacy agencies aren't in the least bit interested in abortion or women's rights, I agree with Jan who said there's big business behind this, it's all about the money. I'm glad to see these two women doing something, someone has to.

YY, OhHolyJesus exactly.

[quote Babyghirl]@TheGirlCat
Hold on adoption is where a child was removed from the parent prop through god knows how many forster families and homes but this child is not damaged prop 100 more times damaged than a child removed through surrogacy.
I say a child removed because the mother did not want it or could not look after it would be worse than a child who was born through surrogacy because that child is born to be loved 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️[/quote]
Jesus this is such a hideous hideous post

@Babyghirl so these ‘damaged’ children in foster homes and the care system weren’t born to be loved then? You’re really not coming across well here at all and I say that mildly. Your posts are repulsive.