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.

@LiamGallagherIsHot But you could say the same for a mother who gives up her baby for adoption at birth.
At least the baby being given by a surrogate is going to loving parents as a much longed for child.

doing it purely for giving the gift of a baby to a family

But babies aren't gifts - commodities - to be given. It's wrong to create a life with the intention of taking it away from its mother.

OhGiveUp

That baby wasn’t created with the intention of taking it’s from it’s mother.

I’m not going to comment further, it’s always the same on here, I’ve seen too much to not end up getting deleted. It’s unethical and wrong.

As early as the second week of pregnancy, there is a two-way flow of cells and DNA between the fetus and the mother. Cells containing DNA from the fetus cross the placenta and enter the mother's blood circulation, while cells from the mother cross in the opposite direction and transfer into fetal circulation.
Birth mother and baby are very connected during pregnancy.

But I don't think trade in humans should be okay just because the person doesn't share dna.
It isn't legal to sell your step children after all.

Adoption happens because it is thought to be the best option for the child, in the UK no money changes hand at any point.

YANBU, I agree with every word you say. No one is entitled to a biological child and using another woman's womb for the need to have a biological child, is deeply, deeply misogynistic

My sister had fertility issues. I’d have been a surrogate for her in a heartbeat. But my husband and my mum were so against it. Husband was concerned about the health risks, the potential impact on our young children etc. My mum just thought it was all too close and too weird.

She’s pregnant now, finally, through IVF. But I feel like I could have saved her from that.

In England Wales the government are looking at/ consulting on changes the law in the UK to allow for a more commercial approach and with more security/ certainty for the commissioning parent/s

I find that chilling and sinister.

Not to mention separation anxiety a baby will feel when taken from the mother.

There's a right way to do surrogacy, which involves the birth mother sticking around and phasing herself out, and so few people follow this.

My friend was conceived via sperm donor, and has had a world of hell when she accidentally (through Ancestry DNA) found her bio dad's family. Of course back in the 70's people weren't to know this technology would be available, but nevertheless she's very vocal about how she wishes her parents would have considered how SHE felt one day about what they were doing. Because she feels totally shit about never truly knowing where she came from until she found out and had the trauma of her birth family rejecting her for various reasons.

That baby wasn’t created with the intention of taking it’s from it’s mother

So, it's staying with its birth mother then?

@IamanUltracrepidarian In that case then, we could say the same for most animals.

There is a difference in creating a world wide trade in babies
And
Removing a baby from its birth mother for their own safety.

Some babies removed at birth will in time in returned to their birth mother and others will be adopted.
It is acknowledged that the removal is a traumatic event for the baby.

The threshold for removal is very high.

[quote OhGiveUp]@IamanUltracrepidarian In that case then, we could say the same for most animals.[/quote]
I agree with that. I don’t eat meat, have adopted pets from animal homes and would never buy a puppy.

@YourFinestPantaloons The same could be said for a sperm donor. Women using the man to gain a baby.
If a woman chooses to become a surrogate, then it's not exploitative nor misogynistic.

Totally apart from the issues around the mother, I don't think it's in any way defensible in terms of children's rights.

Neither selling nor giving away children is acceptable, even if they are commission for the purpose.

It's amazing to me that with the real downsides of adoption more and more understood, and regulations and best practices being put into place to try and mitigate them, that we don't see that understanding transferred over to cases of surrogacy.

The same could be said for a sperm donor. Women using the man to gain a baby

I mean I’m generally in favour of surrogacy in a regulated and controlled environment.

But let’s not pretend that this is the same thing.

[quote OhGiveUp]@YourFinestPantaloons The same could be said for a sperm donor. Women using the man to gain a baby.
If a woman chooses to become a surrogate, then it's not exploitative nor misogynistic.[/quote]
That’s hardly the same thing as a woman basically renting her womb for 9 months and then giving up the baby she’s carried for that time. And the baby being taken away from everything it knows. (Not to mention the effects pregnancy and birth have on your body.

Ideally I don’t think women should use sperm donors and go it alone either. Children need two parents if at all possible and people who willingly choose to bring a baby into the world without a father are reckless. And not thinking in the best interests of the child. I know of two women that have done this and both of them have found being a single parent extremely difficult

[quote OhGiveUp]@YourFinestPantaloons The same could be said for a sperm donor. Women using the man to gain a baby.
If a woman chooses to become a surrogate, then it's not exploitative nor misogynistic.[/quote]
Not the same at all.

A man donating sperm does not carry a baby. Having a walk into a cup does not pose a serious health risk

@DontStepOnTheMomeRathz

My sister had fertility issues. I’d have been a surrogate for her in a heartbeat. But my husband and my mum were so against it. Husband was concerned about the health risks, the potential impact on our young children etc. My mum just thought it was all too close and too weird.

She’s pregnant now, finally, through IVF. But I feel like I could have saved her from that.

If you'd gone down the surrogacy route. How would the baby have been conceived if it wasn't ivf? Surely it's better she carries her own baby?

*having a wank into a cup

@ArtichokeAardvark

I'll put my head above the parapet. A friend of mine went down the surrogacy route to have her son. She's a cancer survivor but the chemo left her infertile and doctors advised that she shouldn't try carrying her own child even though she had her eggs frozen before starting treatment. She and her DH were desperate for a child and first looked at adopting, but you can't adopt in the UK if you've had cancer.

In the end, they found a surrogate in the US who'd done it once before already. The surrogate also has 3 kids of her own, and became a surrogate because she couldn't afford the extortionate fees to send her eldest to a private school. She enjoys being pregnant and finds pregnancy easy, and it's highly regulated in the US so safe.

I would also like to tell a positive tale. I was against until I met my DDs friend’s mum. They had five children who they loved dearly. Her mum was pregnant with her third surrogacy child a sibling for the first child. She told me that she couldn’t imagine what it would be like if she couldn’t have children and she wanted to help other couples. The one thing they had to agree to was that they would see the child two or three times a year just like an aunty would. Her own children were told at the start and all accepted it. Two of the children were not hers at all and I am not sure about the third I think it was the fathers. They met each year and had outings so all the children felt at ease. She kept photos and a book for each of them so they would be given it later. They’re photos were included with her children. She was only paid for essentials like trips to hospital etc she wasn’t making money out of it at all. As another poster said there are ways around it and some do. I think in the above case and the mum I met then it can work.

Sorry can't help breaking my own rule to say

Claiming equivalence between a man having a wank and a woman carrying and birthing a baby is serious mysogyny.

How many men die or experience long term injuries or ongoing MH issues every year from having a single wank.

I mean some men even generously donate semen to random women and girls in public transport! On their coat, in their hair.. So brave.

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

I don't think it'd harm them as they won't have known anything else.

I do think that there can be questions around whether the birth mum has any rights etc.

It's right that it's illegal here IMHO.

LiamGishot (he isn’t;) you obviously have awful taste in men but fair enough - I really agree with you on this other, and more important topic.

There are parallels with adoption but only in so much as the retro UK or American model see vulnerable women making choices they is usually wouldn’t if they were better resourced or supported. I am an old school birth parent and while I am confident my baby went to a loving home it wasn’t best for either of us. Adoption is second best for baby, a substitute for what should have happened.

I have a close friend who was a surrogate for her sibling. They were both happy with it but both acknowledge that they were naive. Outside of this kind of situation I find it unfathomable that anyone would want to risk the health of the surrogate for their baby. As has been said - when rich and powerful women decide to be a surrogate for strangers I will be more open to arguments of altruism.

@HermioneKipper

Is it a choice though if poor women are doing this to make money for their families?

By that logic, is it a choice that plenty of us are in soul-destroying jobs that crush our mental health just to make money for our families? Rarely anything that generates money is good for us, but we live in a capitalist society and need money.

I don't think surrogacy compares to selling an organ, because if the pregnancy goes well, no necessary body part is taken away that cannot regrow (unlike a kidney, for example).

Pregnancy is full of risks, sure, but we think it's acceptable for other women to get pregnant and carry to term, so clearly we have accepted as a society that pregnancy is full of acceptable risks.

If we're OK with egg donation and sperm donation, I don't see why it's OK to criticise surrogacy.

Personally, none of the above is OK with me, but I make my peace with it on the basis that if people are prepared to go to such extreme lengths to procreate, the odds are good that they really, really, really want the child, and that they'll look after the child.

@HermioneKipper

Yes I know you can’t pay someone in the UK, which is why he said he went to America to do it. The laws are also different there. Eg rights over the baby before it’s born etc

Not quite. There are any number of surrogates who have changed their minds once the baby is born. The prospective parents DO have the right to sue to have monies paid returned to them, but that's it.

This, again, comes down to choice. No one can coerce a woman into being a surrogate. It may feel as if circumstances do, but there are always choices. If it is something that you don't agree with, don't do it. Simple as that.