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?

@Thornethorn absolutely right, and not just some discussion of what happens if things go wrong but compensation to cover as many eventualities as possible, in most agreements anyway. I kept saying upthread that it's not just men who use surrogates and not all "birth mothers" are in anyway linked to the child

Millionaire wants to be able to use a woman as a breeding commodity even cheaper. Under his eye. Ffs.

Was going to try and write something intelligent but really all I want to say is - What. A. Twat.

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.

But we do this all the time. Why aren't women allowed to sell their organs. It's their body, their choice, no?

The issue is that poor, vulnerable women sometimes make decisions that civilised society should not be facilitating. Having a child isn't a right and I absolutely do not think we should be encouraging twats like this guy to reduce women to the status of rent-a-womb.

I was always in support of surrogacy until MN made me see things differently. The frigging cheek of this guy saying it should be cheaper!

I am still in support of altruistic surrogacy but only under certain circumstances for instance a sister carrying a baby for a siblling. You should never, ever be able to buy a baby. It's actually a gross practice and honestly I think if people were to come on here and read some of the stuff, they'd agree even it they had no issues with it before.

Keating I can see where you're coming from - it's well meaning, patronising and utterly out of touch with UK surrogates at least. They're not poor, (or not any poorer than anyone else anyway), they're not necessarily working class (though often stay at home mums who enjoyed their own pregnancies) and they're not what anyone would define as vulnerable. Psychological screening would filter out the kind of person you're describing and they would not be passed by the clinic or the major UK agencies. There's a whole social scene around it and they have each other's backs. They choose carefully who to help based on who they form a friendship with and feel comfortable with. They genuinely get huge satisfaction from seeing couples become parents, many of whom have emerged infertile from long periods of cancer, endometriosis or disability. Your reading of the situation is only one view; it's poorly informed and not definitive.

I understand your concerns but you also clearly know nothing about the situation and have never spoken to a surrogate. But as I've said, the surrogates I know are far from vulnerable, extremely strong minded and would dismiss your views without a second thought.

I understand your concerns but you also clearly know nothing about the situation and have never spoken to a surrogate. But as I've said, the surrogates I know are far from vulnerable, extremely strong minded and would dismiss your views without a second thought.

Gosh, are you trying to win the most patronising poster on MN award. You're doing a great job if so.

Are you talking about commercial or altruistic surrogates when talking about the U.K.? My understanding is the former isn't legal.

The issues are different, but I have very significant concerns about altruistic surrogates also. How do you handle the possibility of a friend or family member dying or becoming disabled carrying your baby? The moral consequences are quite something.

I’m given the impression mark feehily went abroad for his surrogate. People generally do that because so few women want to be surrogates here - they’re much more likely to find one in a more deprived country where they will accept cash to do it. Plus it’s easier to sever the ties between mum and baby, fly off abroad and never see her again.

A poster speaking with actual knowledge of the type of people who engage in surrogacy in the UK, and because that profile doesn't fit the narrative, the poster must be patronising.

A general rule of thumb - if someone knows more about an issue than you, listen to them rather than dismiss them as being patronising. This idea that we all have an equally valid perspective on an issue is nonsense - some people have more direct knowledge of issues than others, and their contributions deserve to be taken more seriously as a result. If people feel patronised by that, tough.

A poster speaking with actual knowledge of the type of people who engage in surrogacy in the UK, and because that profile doesn't fit the narrative, the poster must be patronising.

A general rule of thumb - if someone knows more about an issue than you, listen to them rather than dismiss them as being patronising.

I don't agree with the poster.

Her tone is immensely patronising.

I'll listen to whatever sources I like, cheers.

I've heard a lot of stories from women who have been surrogates and children who have been conceived via surrogates. Trying to browbeat me out of views isn't going to work.

try engaging with points being raised instead.

I don’t doubt that there are some women who outwardly seem informed and happy with their decision. But, like donating a major organ, I don’t think it’s something you can consent to. And I don’t ever find their reasons (usually that they love being pregnant, or they love seeing the happy faces of the surrogate parents after the baby is born etc) to ever be justification for severing a newborn from who it sees as its mother. It’s cruel, commodifying and basically distasteful on every level.

But, like donating a major organ, I don’t think it’s something you can consent to.

And I don’t ever find their reasons (usually that they love being pregnant, or they love seeing the happy faces of the surrogate parents after the baby is born etc) to ever be justification for severing a newborn from who it sees as its mother. It’s cruel, commodifying and basically distasteful on every level.

I agree with all of this.

You genuinely don't understand why commodifying womens bodies, and taking babies away from a mother's breast is 'wrong'? Have you really not read any of the posts on here that states it CLEARLY why? @TakemedowntoPotatoCity

Keating

Let's not bother having a row about who is more patronising. It's clear that we both find each other patronising, for different reasons.

You hold a different view, clearly cannot conceive that what I'm relating could be meaningfully true and think your views should be imposed upon other women who don't agree with you. You also know very little about surrogacy in the UK (technically altruistic, yes) versus surrogacy overseas (the UK surrogacy community does not feel comfortable with this either on the whole). Fair enough.

You're not just disagreeing with me. You're also disagreeing with the group of women you profess to be concerned about and furthermore, you disapprove of and invalidate their choices. It's your right to do so but IMO you should be doing so from a more informed position that wouldn't have the surrogacy community raising their eyebrows at the out-of-touch way you're describing them.

You're not going to outlaw surrogacy in the UK so to have any influence you may as well develop a vocabulary and attitude that isn't generally offensive to the surrogates you would apparently like to rescue. As for the children...I can personally assure you that the kids are alright.

I can personally assure you that the kids are alright.

How?

Plus they’re kids, I doubt they even understand the complexities of it at the moment.

When rich women do it for poor childless people, I'll believe it's a choice.

Exactly. As was said by Whitehead's lawyer in the Baby M case; it will always be the wife of the garbage man, who will bear the child for the biochemist and paediatrician.

You're also disagreeing with the group of women you profess to be concerned about and furthermore, you disapprove of and invalidate their choices. It's your right to do so but IMO you should be doing so from a more informed position that wouldn't have the surrogacy community raising their eyebrows at the out-of-touch way you're describing them.

As I've said, I've heard lots of stories and views from women. I do not believe, based on that, that you have the handle on them you think you have. Quite the opposite in fact.

I can personally assure you that the kids are alright.

Honestly this is ridiculous. You don't have the authority to say this. Again, I've heard heart breaking stories that totally contradict that.

I understand that some posters are very invested, for whatever reason, on the ethics and morality of this practice not to be questioned. I do not agree and will say so every time this topic is raised.

When rich women do it for poor childless people, I'll believe it's a choice.

A million times this

Adopted children still have 'biological parents', they just aren't being raised by them, that's all. No one needs to have a biological child. Adoption is better than creating babies deliberately made to order to buy.

What a sad and accurate quote.
I'm struck by the total absence of the word "mother" in the article and the truly awful sense of entitlement.

The thing is, so many people really undervalue women’s labour - even women. So often I’ve heard people (on here and elsewhere) complaining about the cost of childcare / nursery (almost entirely carried out by women) and say that “something should be done” to make it cheaper. So it’s either subsidies from the state or requiring women to give their labour for even less.

My Mum knows someone who couldn't have children (I think premature ovarian failure)) and asked her two nieces to donate their eggs. She was fuming when they both refused. Can you imagine being that entitled? I do hope that they went NC after that.

Another poster who doesn't seem to understand adoption.

Not all couples are suited to adoption. If they were, then it would be morally indefensible for anyone to choose to have biological children when they could provide a home for a child in the care system instead and since, as you say, no one has a right to have a biological child?

Why don't most couples or individuals wanting to have a family do that?

Because it takes a particular set of skills, and a particular approach to parenting that some people are comfortable with and able to offer, but many (most!) are not.

I presume you do not know enough about Mark Feehily and his partner to know whether or not they have the rights skills and approach to be adoptive parents, so please stop with the blanket approach that suggests anyone can 'just adopt'.

I doubt you'd find a woman that agrees with abortion up to full term. You are using a false equivalence.

I know far more about adoption than you know, it is you that doesn't understand. If you are not suitable to adopt, then you are not suitable to buy a child. It really is that simple.