Mark Feehily wants surrogacy to be cheaper and accessible for everyone

[Wouldloveanother]

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11141771/Westlifes-Mark-Feehily-discusses-privileged-expensive-surrogacy-journey-welcome-daughter.html

Why are men so entitled?

Pretending that adoption is an interchangeable option for starting a family with having a child biologically are talking nonsense

It's obviously not.
But then, surrogacy isn't equal to having a child biologically either. It involves several strangers including the woman carrying the child.

It involves medical procedures / hormone treatments.
It involves severing all ties with the birth mother.

Of course.

But I haven’t seen anyone here saying that surrogacy is the same as having a child biologically without assistance. Several posters however have both claims that Mark Feehily should ‘just adopt’ and others have cited the difficulties faced by adopted children as an argument against surrogacy.

I find it instructive to compare the attitudes of certain celebrities to those of one of our greatest ever Paralympians, Sir Lee Pearson, who became a parent by fostering a teenager in 2020.

A single disabled man taking on a teenager out of the care system is a lot less photogenic than pretty bloke from a boy band and new baby though.

Surrogacy in Ireland has badly needed updated legislation. It's been a minefield with no direct way to formally acknowledge parental responsibility for the intended parents. Various complicated legal work arounds have been in use, benefiting lawyers who are called in to spin the plates, while the children involved have required clarity and stability for a long time. He's speaking from that starting point.

Altruistic surrogacy will be more affordable than commercial surrogacy. If you don't want it to be affordable and want the women involved to be able to claim significant financial compensation, that means it will be commercial. It's a bit of a paradox to prefer altruistic surrogacy while also wanting it not to be affordable.

The direction it's moving is towards commercial surrogacy (compensation sums are edging up to 20 000) but without legal protection for surrogates to protect that fee. If you're not willing or able to outlaw surrogacy altogether then it needs to be legislated for realistically. At the moment the status quo is not thought through and we have kind of fallen into the position we're currently in without anyone taking stock of where we're headed or developing clear policy around it. There are also collateral damages where laws which were brought into existence to protect babies born through IVF are now affecting children born through surrogacy in ways that weren't anticipated or weighed up.

Altruistic surrogacy will be more affordable than commercial surrogacy. If you don't want it to be affordable and want the women involved to be able to claim significant financial compensation, that means it will be commercial. It's a bit of a paradox to prefer altruistic surrogacy while also wanting it not to be affordable.

I do think something in the area of a million pounds is the minimum a surrogate should receive for the considerable risks and trauma involved. And not funded by the NHS either. So, I think I must be against altruistic surrogacy.

He wants surrogacy to be cheaper at whose expense? Has he actually thought about the women involved here or does he just not give a shit?

The sense of entitlement to another human being's body is staggering.

I imagine it could be cheaper at the expense of lawyers for one thing!

When I read about the psychological damage caused to a newborn baby by being cared for by people other than its mother, I find myself wanting to ask how that works for all the babies who have been cared for in a family group setting where mothers often sadly were very ill following childbirth, those who found themselves in hospital nurseries for similar reasons, NICU for months, aristocratic homes where nanny was waiting in the nursery...

It's thought that we developed an evolutionary advantage by spreading care of our young around a female family group and it's hard to believe that babies don't have flexibility and resilience to reflect that. I think they do.

A lot of research into the primal bond is done from the point of view of adopted children but there have been many differences in the lives of those children, the experience in early childhood being only the first of many. I've read the books and still I wonder if the physical separation from their mother at birth is not in and of itself the cause of deep psychic shock but a powerful metaphor that explains perfectly the trauma of knowing at a later stage that they were given up/relinquished. I think this because we're not seeing similar outcomes in comparable situations where mum and baby were separated - for babies in NICU or indeed children born through surrogacy as far as I'm aware.

In my view there are usually processing tasks in any childhood involving issues of identity (eg., why are we a different colour/why can't we afford that/why don't I see dad/why do the police pull us over more often/why do I get teased about my appearance). Surrogacy as a processing task is considerably easier than adoption because you were always planned for and wanted, often look like both parents and many times are able to meet the birth mother who is often happy to explain that they carried you for loving intended parents.

Being an adoptive parent is just a hundred times harder in every way and it's a hundred times harder for the child too. There's no comparison.

So, I think I must be against altruistic surrogacy.

I think it does sound that way! In that case you're options are to make it illegal altogether or hold your nose and legalise commercial surrogacy within your framework. Disliking surrogacy in general while holding out against commercial surrogacy only leads to a scenario where women are being compensated peanuts and can't ask for more. That doesn't benefit anyone but the intended parents.

When your pregnant that baby hears, your voice, learns your smell, you pass on your antibodies etc. it doesn’t matter if biologically the child isn’t yours when the baby is born the mother is their whole world. Their safe space in an unfamiliar world. Gradually the babies world world expands to include others.
As a mother I know so many women who have things like birth trauma, birth injuries, many had complications during the pregnancy. Pregnancy has a huge impact on the health of many many women. I never knew the extent of this until I had my own child because we don’t tell childless women on the toll pregnancy takes on us.
Commercial surrogacy usually involves people with money using the body of a woman with limited means.
Even being a surrogate for a family member can be problematic for the woman depending on the family dynamics. At end of day baby is still being taken away from the only person they know.
Surrogacy is very much about fulfilling the wants and desires of adults.

@TeaKlaxon I imagine it could be cheaper at the expense of lawyers for one thing!

i don’t think less legal framework is in the interest of mother or child.

Surrogacy is very much about fulfilling the wants and desires of adults.

Procreation always is.

Procreation always is.

Usually you don't have to rent another woman's body to do it however.

Or take a helpless baby from the only body they've ever known right after birth.

You should ask some UK surrogates if they consider their bodies rented. I think you'd find the answer was a resounding no and they should know.

Surrogates are often extremely strong women who know exactly what they are doing and why they want to do it. The intended parents who might wish to interfere with their lives would never be chosen.

You should ask some UK surrogates if they consider their bodies rented. I think you'd find the answer was a resounding no and they should know.

Whether you or they care to admit it or not, that's exactly what they're doing.

I often wonder if, in altruistic surrogacy, there are discussions about what happens if the mother does or is renders disabled by the birth. I suspect in most cases not. Yet birth carries those risks and those hiring surrogates are asking others to take those risks.

@TheKeatingFive yes it's definitely covered.

@Thornethorn I agree

@TeaKlaxon lawyers aren't involved

@TeaKlaxon in the UK anyway

Go the whole way and create baby farms? Women could be accommodated in boarding school style facilities and fire a baby out every 10-12 months or so until they are worn out and can be discarded for younger models.

If you're the kind of feminist who feels in a position to define terms for other women regarding what they choose to do with their bodies, we don't have much to talk about. I don't think you're in an elevated position to define it and find the attitude quite patriarchal and misogynistic but there you go. I certainly didn't cast off mansplaining to be womansplained at and surrogates don't listen to views that don't reflect their lived experience.

I often wonder if, in altruistic surrogacy, there are discussions about what happens if the mother does or is renders disabled by the birth.

Yes they do. Clinics require a copy of the contract which isn't legally binding (it would be if commercial surrogacy was legal-another way the law is failing surrogates) and within that there is a commitment to pay life insurance for a number of years and some discussion of what will happen in the event of a medical emergency. Although it doesn't remove some risk, surrogates with any increased risk of complications, or with an unknown level of risk, are not accepted and this happens often.

Or just let women decide what to do with their own bodies, and focus on creating the economic conditions in society in which no one is compelled by economic necessity to do things with their bodies that they don’t really want to do?

It is generally the case that a lump sum for a certain number of years of life insurance is transferred to the surrogate before transfer so she is in control of that money.

@TeaKlaxon precisely. I think the whole subject is horrific, and My post was simply to say - where does this all end?

I’m not sure you understood my post. I don’t think surrogacy is ‘horrific’.

I think it is complex - ethically complex, legally complex and complex in terms of the child’s well-being - but that fundamentally the key issue here is choice and consent.

Let women make their own choices about their bodies.

Male entitlement

I want I shall have with no concern for anyone else

it’s so prevalent in our society

You know that women use surrogacy to become mothers too, right?