To ask for your views on surrogacy?

[consortiar]

Is it ok a surrogate?

Is it ever ok to use a surrogate?

In what circumstance is it not ok?

In what circumstance is it ok?

Kardashians are an example and other celebs that have lots of money and no time or possibly inclination to be pregnant?

Lesbians presumably can carry their own baby with the use of a sperm donor.

What about gay couple that would like to use their sperm and an egg donor?

If it's not ok. What is it specifically that is wrong?

Couples that cannot have children due to the woman not being able to carry a baby, do they lose their entitlement to have a biological child due to the perceived wrong in using a surrogate?

Surrogates are women. I'm not surprised that a person defending calling children "loin fruit" and calling other posters "turds" on another thread likes using dehumanising language elsewhere, but we're learning a lot tonight about you. Still, you haven't answered mu question. If a child considers the woman who carried and birthed them to be their mother, why is that invalidated because you don't?

I wont answer because it doesnt matter, especially to one who thinks calling children "screaming loin fruit" is fine and anyone who disagrees is a "turd". But you answer mine. If a child considers that person to be their mother, why is your opinion more important?

If anyone wonders what I'm talking about, over on the "newborn on a plane" thread, someone called babies on planes "screaming loin fruit". I asked why a person who hates children would be on Mumsnet and Alpineyog responded by defending them and calling me a turd. Here.

And now Alpine is here calling surrogate mothers "gestational carriers" and dictating to surrogate-born children that they can't consider surrogates their mothers.

A very sincere poster, I'm sure you'll all agree, with dazzling articulacy. Certainly a very important voice in this debate, if only as a reason for some people not to procreate at all.

@ReneBumsWombats

My opinion is backed up with facts - hence why you can't find many if any example of children born via surrogate who consider their gestational carrier their mother

There is also limited to no evidence of long term harm. The only studies that do show this are when surrogate children are lumped in with adoptees which obviously clouds the results

In the link I provided earlier. Someone complained that babies on planes are "screaming loin fruit". I asked them why they were on Mumsnet if they hate kids and you jumped in saying they could find kids annoying if they wanted and called me a turd. It's right there for anyone who needs any further evidence of what kind of contribution you have to make on here.

You can declare "show me!" as if I haven't, to try to imply that it's not there, but it plainly is. It's as good an argument as your claim that you are "backed up with facts" when it's obvious to anyone reading that you're backed up with nothing but insulting and dehumanising language. I can type here that I've linked to a 500 page dossier that conclusively proves XYZ about surrogacy. Everyone can plainly see that I haven't, so why would I say that?

The only person you're fooling is yourself. Nobody else.

"Gestational carrier" is dehumanising and ignores the fact that every single cell of the baby is created from the mothers body and bodily resources. In the UK when the baby is born, the woman who birthed the baby is the only definite legal parent of that child.

You have to be dehumanising to make the case for surrogacy. It's the only way to make it palatable. Our old friend Alpine still hasn't explained why a child can't consider the surrogate to be their mother and why Alpine's view on what the child should think overrules all...including, as PPs have pointed out, the law itself. That's because the defenders think the surrogate and the child don't matter. The commissioning customers matter and that's all.

So a child with two gay men as fathers has no mother?🤨

Is there anything more dehumanising than erasing a woman from existence and pretending she doesn’t exist?

It’s human trafficking.

It’s a wicked, immoral thing to separate a mother and child. To then hand a baby to strangers who have bought it as though it were a product in a supermarket is obscene.

It commodifies babies.

It’s misogynistic and pays no heed to the awful toll pregnancy and childbirth takes on a mother’s body.

I could not remain friends with someone who ever did this to a mother and child.

It's big business full of exploitation.

Scouting for poorer women.

I think of the surrogate women in Ukraine who probably believed 3 years ago that all their worries would be gone if they put themselves through the emotional roller coaster of pregnancy to give the baby away, now any material things they had are gone.

It was all for nothing and not something that you can easily forget.

The amount of babies born through surrogate mothers every year is shameful.

Surrogates are gestational carriers, unless they're using their own egg (unlikely these days) in which case they'd be the child birth mother.
It takes two women to create the baby, I doubt they make very much.

In Ireland the woman that gave birth through surrogacy is the legal mother, a law unlikely to be changed any time soon despite certain celebrity activists.

^At our Agency we have our big database of surrogate mothers and egg donors. All candidates are physically and mentally healthy, their age is between 20 and 30 years old, their medical records show no miscarriages in the past for surrogate mothers and no chronic or genetic diseases in the family tree of egg donors, each surrogate mother and egg donor have at least one healthy child of their own. We also pay huge attention to the personal characteristics of our egg donors, all ladies possess regular features, good figure and well educated. We are sure that you will easily find the egg donor and surrogate mother according to your preferences, in our database.^
Disgusting advertisement.

What about Brian Dowling with his sister?

What about Brian dowling with his sister?

What about them?

The baby will be forever heartbroken about being torn from their mother. Doesn't matter about the scientific terminology. A baby who grew in a woman's womb, is connected to that mother and wants her body for comfort and milk. Jesus, we have enough angry kids now.

Gay men can adopt. If they really care about children, they can take a child out of the care system and give them a good home. Or is it about genetic lineage?

My gay friend recently had his first baby using a surrogate, whom he found on the Internet via a general search (she wasn't part of an agency). She's has 5 pregnancies; 3 were surrogate babies and 2 her own. I remember making various comments about how things might go wrong with the pregnancy, the surrogate's heaidh, the baby etc when he was thinking of the idea a couple of years before, and he really didn't like me pointing these things out. He was very off with me for a week and I really didn't think he liked to hear me pointing out the reasons why I didn't think it was a good idea

While he is very comfortable and his partner has a good career, I can't help thinking that they weren't putting the child's needs first. They went through the adoption process before using a surrogate but were told by the social worker that they should work on their family setup as she had an issue with the relationship between the mother In law and her son. I get the impression that they were willing to do anything to have a baby. Rather than be told their fan set up was less than ideal, they went ahead and put their own needs first.

I'm still one of his best friends but as an adopted person myself, I have reservations about what he did. I won't ever say anything now as it would ruin our friendship but I often wonder how he might have been if he had no other choice than adoption which might have been unsuccessful. He "bought" his child but that didn't make it his right. Children are a privilege and I don't think he has really realised that yet.

Sorry for the typos 😅

I think it is wrong always, we don't remove a puppy / kitten from its mother at birth but we remove a baby from its mother. It's exploitative - you don't often hear of rich women offering to do it for a poor couple. A baby is not a right, slightly more controversially, I believe anyone who are feels so desperate for a baby they would consider this, are not mentally fit to be parents

I don't agree with surrogacy, I believe it's wrong.

However I can also see how if it was a close family member or friend that was struggling with infertility you might want to 'help' them. If it was my sister for example I can see that I may consider it in a way that I never would for a stranger.

Given I nearly died giving birth to my dd in reality it would never happen even in that specific set of circumstances.

I think paying poor women to carry babies for rich families is morally repugnant and should be illegal.

What about Brian Dowling with his sister? What about them?

Surrogate babies will have a connection bond with their mother even if they never see them again, the connection is there, the bond is created in the womb.

I am also against egg harvesting. It’s usually young women desperate for cash. It’s not a donation because the young women are paid pittance for the gruelling process just so that older women can have babies when their own eggs are old. That’s your body saying it is too late to be a mum of a baby.

However, I think surrogacy could be okay if the woman offers to help you without any financial gain. This prevents young poor women offering up their bodies for money. This means only women who are willing to help another woman will offer to be a surrogate (the other woman’s egg implanted into the surrogate so it’s not the surrogate’s biological child).