Surrogacy article in the guardian

[HermioneKipper]

amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/oct/01/how-gay-parenthood-through-surrogacy-became-a-battleground

this has made me furious! The entitlement of these men is just unbelievable. How dare they demand the use of a woman’s body.

Whilst I find it genuinely sad that there will be gay couples who would make EXCELLENT parents, who long for their own children, I cannot in any way shape or form support rent-a-womb culture.

It’s a very sad situation all round. But biology is biology, I know heterosexual couples who are genuinely infertile (the couples use of that word in the article is ridiculous) who cannot have their own biological children either. It is what it is.

Ah ok my mistake then.

I’d read on Twitter that surrogacy isn’t offered for anyone.

Although they’re not infertile though are they?

Surrogacy SHOULDN’T be permitted for anyone though. I can’t believe health insurance would pay for this 😡😡

What happens if the woman then has serious health problems as a result of pregnancy or birth. I bet the insurance doesn’t cover that!

Where does that position cross a line, though, with dictating to women about what they can and can’t do with their own bodies?

(I know it’s a tricky area and that is something of a rhetorical question, to be fair.)

I don’t like surrogacy either, especially commercial surrogacy. But my response to that is that I personally will never enter into a surrogacy arrangement. Anything else feels like an overreach, to me anyway.

The argument is ridiculous - they aren’t being discriminated against for being men because that would be like me, a woman, being discriminated against for not being able to get my prostate checked. And saying ‘we’ll it’s clearly because im a woman’. Health insurance is about insuring your body - they don’t have the body to carry a baby so what would they be insured for?!

What happens if the woman then has serious health problems as a result of pregnancy or birth. I bet the insurance doesn’t cover that!

My understanding is that this is exactly what the health insurance covers.

To be fair, the article isn’t 100% clear on some of the finer points.

And early on it elides fertility treatment and surrogacy, and treats them both as part of a single ‘package’, which I think is a bit wafty. Unless of course that’s how the health insurance package treats them. The Guardian is, on occasion, as happy to stoke culture war flames as the Mail or Express, if it gets page views.

Those who have read the article should know that the issue was not about surrogacy. Given that surrogacy exists as a legal option, the issue was whether they should have the same right to have it paid for by employer health insurance as an infertile woman does.

Obviously, people can hang a surrogacy argument on this if they want to, but they are not asking for surrogacy to exist where it otherwise wouldn't, they are asking for equal access to it, given it exists.

The people who think they are entitled twats for wanting equal access to the legally available option of surrogacy are not equally condemning the older woman mentioned in the article who has already benefited from that.

I mean it’s a fair argument, there is 100% an issue with body autonomy. Whilst there will be women who enter into surrogacy happily, who have good pregnancies and easy deliveries with no complications, no long term resulting health issues and no PND or emotional / mental well being issued following birth… there will be plenty of women who suffer from one or more of those issues.

There are some issues in life that can only be solved to the fairest degree by the use of a blanket policy, where we have to concede that the black and white of a situation overrides the grey areas. That’s just my view, of course.

It’s about protecting the vulnerable though isn’t it?

protecting poor and vulnerable women from being forced to sell their bodies and their health for the benefit of rich people.

It’s also about protecting the babies from being ripped from their mothers the instant they’re born. The damage this will do to them is untold

I can only liken it to someone with house insurance who’s house burned down claiming on their insurance and having a new house built.

Then the neighbour, who doesn’t own the house, whose house hasn’t burned down, attempting to say because they have renters insurance they should be given a house. They never had a house to replace. (Look it’s early, I haven’t had my coffee yet and I’m working on 2 hours sleep, don’t come at me for me dubious analogies ok? 🤣)

But as I said earlier, the shit’s been shat on that already. New York State allows commercial surrogacy.

This case is about access to an employee benefit. That’s the (alleged) discrimination.

Broader issues around commercial surrogacy — which I share, by the way — are not the question here.

If you don’t think surrogacy should be a thing, campaign for that. I’ll probably join you. But in this case, I think these guys are not totally without a valid point. I feel they should have the same access to benefits as anyone else working for that organisation.

If one of them was infertile, he would presumably be covered and there wouldn't be an issue. The reason they're not covered is that they could have a child, by getting over being gay, and having sex with a woman. I'm not saying that's my point of view, that's in effect the point of view of the health insurance policy. That's what they're challenging, I suppose.

But they are asking for access to a bodily function neither of them possess?

This is why sex matters! Why biological fact matters. Why a male bodied person has access to prostate exams and women don’t, why women have access to smear tests and women don’t.

And why men don’t…. Sorry, my typo!

I wonder to a degree if this is somewhat a result of todays degree of entitlement so many seem to have? “Be kind” accept what I’m telling you regardless of fact, give me what I’m demanding because you have to be fair, life has to be fair, I’m entitled to have what I want from life. Just a thought

I found the article quite balanced, considering it is the Guardian. I expected much worse. The author is quite clear on how much one of the surrogates suffered after the C section, and how she clearly did not receive enough information about this happening beforehand.
I was also shocked to find out that a woman who suffered from pre-eclampsia was allowed to become a surrogate. This clearly shows how little the agencies care about the women. Women who have had pre-eclampsia once are at a higher risk of getting it again, even if they had uneventful pregnancies in between, and the risk increases with age.

I also felt that the first surrogate saying she didn't bond with the baby, she bonded with the gay couple instead and that she felt very sad when they disappeared out of her life after the baby's birth, showed that there is often a bereft mother at the end of the process. I think she actually bonded with the baby but projected her feelings onto the gay couple.

The article shows quite clearly (though presumably this was unintentional) how risky pregnancy and therefore surrogacy is for women, both physically and emotionally.

I also really liked how many quotes there were from the men who filed the lawsuit, because they come away terribly badly and make a perfect case against surrogacy.

Hmm, I'll be honest and say that one of my best friends who is gay recently had a baby via surrogacy. He became very annoyed with me a few years ago when we were discussing options for having children etc as he was going through the adoption process at the time and trying to think about other ways to do it if adoption was unsuccessful (which is was).

I pointed out the reality of the pregnancy going wrong, birth problems, potential issues with disabilities, etc and he became very shirty. I have to say that I bit my tongue a bit after that, and even after the birth of his daughter a couple of months ago, I've never been totally honest with him about how I feel that he was a bit entitled to go with the surrogacy route, just because his social worker pointed out many things to work on with their family set up etc in order to have a successful adoption.

Of course, they took great offence, opted for the surrogacy funded by one of their parents, then the rest is history.

Obviously, if the adoption had been unsuccessful they'd be childless. If surrogacy wasn't an option, they would have been childless too. I'm biased as I'm adopted myself but I think the fact they were really close to not having a child should have told them to stop then.

The people who think they are entitled twats for wanting equal access to the legally available option of surrogacy are not equally condemning the older woman mentioned in the article who has already benefited from that.

I’ll happy condemn anyone who hires wombs. More than happy to condemn this woman

There is such entitlement about having children; I kind of get their point that if women are able to pay for surrogates through their insurance then so should they but I think it’s wrong on both counts where surrogacy comes in. Their entitlement to children without a care about the suffering to women is hard to read.

I think I've bitten my tongue with my gay friend regarding his surrogacy and my true feelings as I've not wanted to fall out with him. We've been friends for about 5 years so it's a good friendship and not just a recent one, and I'd feel comfortable telling him if I had to. But I do worry what he might think of me if I did.

Personally I don't think the insurance should cover the surrogacy part in any situation, any couple should have to pay for that themselves (I would be annoyed about my insurance premiums paying towards something I fundamentally disagree with whether it is a heterosexual or homosexual couple).

I don't think surrogacy should be allowed in any circumstance, as even if the woman consents fully I don't think the consent is ever fully informed, in that just because previous pregnancies have been OK, it doesn't mean that subsequent ones will be.

I think people accept the risks of pregnancy are worth it for their own child but can't ever be worth it for either money or doing anyone a favour. It's the same reason why it is illegal to sell organs.

The glib, selfish attitude these men have towards another (female) human disgusts me. So they wouldn't feel terrible if that woman dies or is injured to cater for their desires?

I say this as someone who had two straightforward pregncies but left with permanent (seemingly unsolvable) painful issues after my third. The idea of being left with this kind of injury because of a surrogacy is awful but probably happens quite frequently.

The reason they aren’t covered is because it requires a third party to make a baby.

No one is entitled to parenthood.

Adoption in a great alternative.

Theae are just two misogynists who resent the thought of buying a surrogate maternity clothes and think their sperm is so very special that they need to use it to create humans.

Insurance pays out in the event of accident or misfortune.

Two men unable to conceive and gestate a baby is the epitome of an ‘existing condition’.

Would the company would cover surrogacy for a straight couple / single woman?

I see your point. To a point. (!)

But I don't agree that comparing fertility treatment to cancer screening is quite right. They're different things. One is an illness that needs treatment, the other isn't. Unless we liken pregnancy to a cancer, which I certainly don't and I hope you don't either!

Second — you could make that argument about any couple, or indeed individual, who already does have access to that employee benefit. That's why it's discriminatory (or could be argued as such, anyway). I think the discussion is around what constitutes fertility and infertility, and whether surrogacy should be considered a fertility treatment or not.

It's like this: Jane and John both work for Steele's Pots and Pans Ltd. They can't have kids. Jane has a medical issue and John has shit sperm. The fact that their biological archetypes can get pregnant via PIV sex doesn't impact the fact that Jane can't, through no fault of hers or John's. At that level, John and Jane are at the same status as Adam and Pete, a gay couple who also both work at the same company. But at Steele's Pots and Pans Ltd, Jane and John get health insurance cover for fertility treatment and (it would seem) surrogacy, and Adam and Pete don't.

I don't think you can differentiate between heterosexual and gay couples in that way, based on what women in general can do (i.e. conceive). Because policies like this exist for very specific purposes; to help people who do not conceive via PIV sex.

I was appalled. I couldn’t finish reading it.

Typical that The biggest price tickets don’t go to the women providing the eggs or gestating and giving birth.

Women really are treated as cash cows in this process.