To think that a surrogate mother...

[BackDownSouth]

Is the biological mother of a surrogate baby that she delivers, even in cases where another egg was used? One thing I hate hearing in the surrogacy debate by pro-surrogacy folks (who like to minimise the connection between mother and child and the effect that separation at birth can have on both) is “the surrogate has no biological relation to the baby” in cases where an egg other than the surrogate’s own were used. Of course she has a biological connection to the baby. She doesn’t have a GENETIC link to the baby - no. But biological? She has about as much of a biological connection with it as she would her own genetic child. The baby is quite literally made of her. The genetic material of the egg may predetermine baby’s genetic make-up to match that of the intended mother’s egg but that is such a shallow link compared to the nurturing happening during the pregnancy. It's the surrogate mother’s body building and nurturing that child. The mother’s body will likely forever retain snippets of the child’s DNA - particularly traces of Y chromosome if she carries a boy. Everything the mother does or eats or feels will influence that child. The baby knows her smell and voice and as soon as they are born they seek her, and they will feel stress at being placed into a stranger’s arms rather than mum’s immediately after birth. It’s completely ridiculous to say there is no biological connection between surrogate and baby. What’s more of a connection, really, to a newborn baby who has no concept of themselves other than the birth mother who is all they have ever known? Is the baby bothered about a mother who makes up half of their DNA but who has been on the other side of the world since their conception and is going to lay claim to them through a financial transaction? Or is the baby instead going to crave the presence of the woman who has grown and nurtured them? The surrogate is mum and the baby is going to need her post-birth no matter how much people want to ignore that.

People like to say “DNA is nothing” in the context of the love between step-parents and their stepchildren, adoptive children etc, and that’s rightly so. A genetic link isn’t what makes a family. But in the case of surrogacies, this is all completely thrown out of the window and the idea of a surrogate mother bonding with her baby (because it is her baby…) is inconceivable because she ‘isn’t even related to them’ despite literally creating and birthing the child.

Why is it different?

Children are created to fulfil adult needs, let's face it. There is no rational reason to have a child in developed societies (in some societies children are needed for their labour).

Anyone choosing to have a baby does it to meet their emotional needs. Ideally (and in most cases) that results in the baby being well cared for.

But there is no reason for any baby to be conceived and brought to term, except the wants of the adults.

Let's just correct something right there.
Adopters are not "incredible". They are just normal parents who try to be good enough.
And while we're at it, adoptees are not "lucky". And yes (despite what some adopters say) they do miss being with their birth mums. It's not "lucky" to be fed drugs before or after birth nor to have a birth mum who can't care for you. It's incredibly unlucky. Adoption is the best solution to a horrible problem.

Surrogacy should be banned.
It actually makes me feel sick when I see the 'parents' with their new born child looking all smug and happy as if they have just bought a new car.
All I can think about is the feelings and the needs of the baby and the poor mother who has just given birth.
Even worse when it is celebrities who already have children such as Aida Williams, Kim and Khloe kardashian etc.

It was such a long time ago, I don't feel like I can. Perhaps I should. I find talking about it extremely difficult and still feel guilt and shame about it. If I tell, for example, a friend about what I did, the universal reaction is what a great thing I did, so it feels very difficult to say actually, I don't feel like it was a wonderful thing. And then I assume people will think 'well, you got a baby out of it' and think I'm a dick, so I keep it to myself. I probably should complain but it's something I usually try to avoid thinking about- just thought it was pertinent to this discussion.

Extrapolating a bit, if I feel the way I feel about donating an egg, a significant number of surrogates must feel traumatised by handing over an actual baby. We hear lots of stories about happy outcomes from surrogacy and women who were happy to give this gift- if the rhetoric is that surrogacy is beautiful, wonderful, an amazing gift to give to a family, I can imagine that makes it very difficult for women who were surrogates to say 'actually, I don't feel that way' when it seems like society wants them to be these amazing, altruistic gift givers.

Maybe I'm not explaining it very well.

@drspouse errrrr don't know where you got the idea I was in favour of drugging newborns?! For the record, I'm against that!! 😬

Very valid points.

DD is thriving without the biological/DNA connection.

Ideally her biological parents would have cared for her, but it has not been 'tremendously' damaging for that connection to be severed. It wasn't ideal, but there are plenty of other everyday factors that are equally damaging to children.

The life saving aspect of any organ donation is being minimised or handwaved away here.

As is the rights of the human being being transacted.

Donating a kidney has limited comparative value. Unless you are of the belief that surrogacy is life saving.

This is a 9 month process, where the mother contributes parts of her body to that child at a much higher risk than a child of her egg. This is not ‘donating a kidney’.

It is minimising how pregnancy works as well as the rights of a child being a transaction.

Sure, have a process. But the very high potential for emotional coercion around surrogacy is going to be adequately assessed how?

I think you have been very articulate.

There needs to be a far stricter regulatory framework.

no person has the right to exploit another person’s body in this way.

Because to commission a child through surrogacy, to achieve that legally, to negotiate contracted terms of possession prior to conception, is to reduce this child in law and in life to the status of a product.

I agree with you. The feelings became more intense when my own child was born and I saw bits of myself in him and thought 'there could be another one out there, and I have no way of finding them or even knowing how they're faring.' I'm infertile still but I would never do it again, but I didn't have that insight when I donated.

Thanks for the kind responses all- the whole thing makes me feel ridiculous because I got my child out of it but it still makes me feel really distressed. I don't talk about it much in real life because I assume people will think I'm being silly.

I know adult children who are happy with their adoptive family and wouldn't seek to find their birth parents. Although, for some, (not all) this is bourne out of a 'gratefulness' at being 'rescued' and not wanting to let the adoptive family down by searching for birth parents.

I have also witnessed devastation and adoptive relationships destroyed through the adult child seeking to find their birth parent and then rejecting adoptive family.

I think people who adopt are absolutely amazing, particularly when they are potentially taking on issues around previous abuse and neglect. 100 percent total respect. And these families can be very successful in providing a nurturing safe environment. It benefits the child and the adults.

But this does not detract from the fact that the genetic connection is very important. And severing that connection without good reason / balancing out the risk, is not going to be good for the child. It's hard enough when it is actually for the right reasons.

Well, that is what happens implicitly when a couple have a child without surrogacy.

Thanks for the kind responses all- the whole thing makes me feel ridiculous because I got my child out of it but it still makes me feel really distressed. I don't talk about it much in real life because I assume people will think I'm being silly.

I get that. I hope you find some peace now.

I don't necessarily think "selfishness" comes into it because apart from a minority of cases everyone has children to fulfil their own desires. A lot of people would say the way I had my own child (not surrogacy) was selfish, and would be surprised to know that I actually empathise with their viewpoint and very carefully considered the ethics. However with surrogacy, the risks to the surrogate are SO high, the long-term effects on the baby are completely unknown (all we have are analogs like adoption, and I just don't think conceiving a baby with the intent for them to be adopted is the same as making the best of bad circumstances you have all described are really the same at all) - of course the experience of having your own baby is amazing but with surrogacy the negatives massively outweigh the positives.

By that logic the same is done in divorce courts up and down the country every day.

But who gets custody of a child - whether in divorce, adoption, care agreements, or surrogacy - is not about ownership of a product but about parental responsibility.

No. They aren't. Don't talk bollocks. The vast majority of children are conceived outside of contract, beyond the language of consumerism and capitalism, outside of the reach of signed negotiations. No clauses are fought over. Money doesn't change hands for their possession. Their mother doesn't offer up her child as she hears the ping of her bank balance swelling.

The polarisation you are attempting here doesn’t work.

Making the statement ‘all children are born due to the selfish desires of an adult’, really doesn’t justify surrogacy which is exploitation of women’s bodies.

And surrogates that don't do it for money?

I think it varies wildly - some children seem completely uninterested in discovering bio relatives and others feel like there is always something missing.

I suspect (and I think studies seem to show?) that some available info is better for the child than none at all, which I expect is what’s now taught to prospective adoptive parents? Whereas a few decades ago adoption was much more secretive?

I’m admittedly lumping all kids who have a missing piece of bio info into one pot here (adopted, surrogate born, donor conceived, or one totally absent parent, either through bereavement or abandonment) and obvs the variables are impossible to control but I would imagine stranger-adopted kids are likely to have better informed parents (having gone through an involved process rather than ended up in a situation by accident) who are then able to mitigate negative effects?

Similar with lesbians I have spoken to who conceived via anon sperm donor are also keen to mitigate any ‘genealogical bewilderment’ (obvs you can’t be completely secretive about using a donor when two parents are the same sex!)

Ultimately children are born into non-ideal scenarios all the time but surrogacy is the one non-ideal situation that is a) deliberate and b) sold to the public as as either the ultimate unselfish gift (eg doing it for your sister) or the luxury lifestyle option (eg unseen surrogate mothers for hire producing perfect babies for millionaire celebs).

Anyway, FWIW I think adoptive (and foster) parents are heroes and while the situation can look superficially similar (removal from mother at birth) the reality is quite different, in terms of vetting and preparation of adoptive parents and acknowledgement that removal must be in the child’s best interest and that the act of removal is serious enough to require a multi step process and professional supervision.

I don't disagree entirely with your comment. Some women do decide to give up their babies for adoption instead of abortion. I think that's why the big organisations haven't condemned it. They could come across as hypocrites???

Are in the tiny minority of surrogates.

Are most likely doing it out of an emotional need. Just as powerful and just as exploitable.

Women should not be exploited for their bodies.

There are scenarios where women decide to become a surrogate for their own - non-exploitative - reasons.

There should be a strict regulatory framework to, as far as possible, prevent exploitation yet also allow women to make choices about their body. It should err on the side of preventing exploitation.

As per kidney donation, which also has medical risks.

Yes, it is very likely that very few women do that. As it should be.