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.

I think surrogacy outside of money is objectionable for the particular child but it doesn't have the same cascade of unintended legal consequences about how society regards mothers, their bodies and their children within a framework of consumerism.

also those that do it for no money at all often have other deep seated issues that make the whole thing murky at best.

People like to pretend surrogacy is a friend doing it for no other reason than kindness and altruism and everyone is happy and there is no downside, for anyone. But that is one in 10,000 surrogacies. It's not anything like the real picture.

So because I was poorly after birth, but son is stressed because my husband did skin to skin rather than me? That for his first 45 minutes he only really had medical professionals looking after him? What utter bloody tosh

Surrogacy is all about the parents and not about the child, it's very wrong. If the live donor kidney process was used (we have been through this as a family, its very careful and thorough) then altruistic surrogacy could be considered as ethical but other than that its pretty much rich people renting poorer womens bodies with no thought for the impact on the child.

It's not bullshit. The gestational mother is not a vessel. Several previous posters have explained the process that happens as her body grows and creates the baby and protects it within her body, how the baby becomes profoundly bonded with her well before birth and how the rupturing of this bond causes the most deep seated trauma possible to the baby. The genetic origin of the egg or sperm have no bearing on this process.

The primary focus here should be the best interests of the baby. Purposely setting out to create a profoundly traumatised baby is not in their best interests and just makes the wants of the parents paying the surrogate the primary focus. I have great sympathy for the pain of infertility but that can't be allowed to trump the needs of that baby.

I think you did a lovely thing. I wouldn’t have been able to do this. When I was younger, I did think I could donate eggs. Then I grew older and went through ivf. At 12, your ds has probably not yet hit puberty. He may feel differently as he grows and wish to seek out a potential sibling.

That isn’t what people have said.

Er, yes, the OP did

" 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"

And you continue to minimise the child in this process.

And your repeating of ‘just like a kidney donation’ is not convincing to anyone who has thought deep enough about this issue. It is only superficially comparable.

And can you tell me the depth of the process to establish whether there is emotional coercion on either side of the ‘emotional’ transaction of your scenario of altruism.

To be blunt , not one surrogacy is not exploiting a female body. Not one.

The difference is purely whether that woman choosing to carry the child, to grow that child with her body is doing it without any degree of coercive force. Whether that is to please their family or friend, in any way at all. Or whether that woman is also trying to fill their own ‘love of pregnancy’ to do this and ignore the risks to their own family situation in pursuit of that ‘feeling’ they are seeking.

To be clear, all surrogacy is exploiting a woman’s body. You are arguing that her accepting that exploitation makes the exploitation disappear.

My problem with destigmatising or legalising of surrogacy is the slippery slope. If anyone can rent a womb, who knows what some people would want babies/children for. Not just abusers but people wanting body parts etc. The latter is particularly the case with egg donation, where the baby would be genetically suitable.

I think in reality the number of truly altruistic surrogacies are vanishingly small.

I often here the argument that surrogate mothers are not paid in the UK, as it is supposedly limited to 'expenses' but the reality is that 'expenses' are very creatively defined.

I know a surrogate mother who carried two babies and the financial aspect was most definitely a factor.

Choosing to abort a foetus and adoption (both scenarios are issues my family has first hand experience of) are different from surrogacy.

Abortions and adoptions also often feature trauma, but that trauma was not commissioned and planned and paid for by wealthy people.

Abortions and adoptions may be for the wellbeing of the mother or child or both but they are a reaction to a set of circumstances. Surrogacy is, mostly, where you get to in a capitalist society which cares more about the desires of wealthy adults than the needs of the humans more vulnerable and routinely exploited.

Altruistic surrogacy may have less concerning implications but, sadly (I know a lovely couple who did this), it is still ignorant of the trauma inflicted on the baby.

I'm am genuinely worried so many people cannot see the difference between humans coping with traumatic events (adoption and abortion) and humans commissioning traumatic events to happen to more vulnerable humans.

That’s so exploitative 😕 the practice of offering cheaper IVF in return of asking a desperate woman to ‘donate’ her eggs should be banned. You’re battling the trauma of fertility issues and IVF is not guaranteed to work. However, your biological children could be out there as other women have used your eggs.

We'll have to agree to disagree

I'm am genuinely worried so many people cannot see the difference between humans coping with traumatic events (adoption and abortion) and humans commissioning traumatic events to happen to more vulnerable humans.

I think the media has a lot to answer for.

The right to a child in all and every circumstances has been sold as a human rights issue, it is even suggested it is homophobic to say otherwise.

I know most people on this thread aren’t actually advocating for commercial surrogacy but just putting this down because it’s truly eye opening bit of investigative journalism that hasn’t had the global audience it deserves (although the journalist, Naipanoi Lepapa, won Journalist of the Year in Kenya along with some other accolades).

“Naipanoi Lepapa spent 18 months delving into the largely unregulated Kenyan surrogacy industry, revealing numerous allegations ranging from: coercion, exploitation & intimidation of surrogates, human trafficking, forced abortions & identity forgery and fraud.
This investigation exposes rogue agents that have been taking advantage of the existing legal loopholes to deceive desperate commissioning parents and vulnerable surrogates.”

Part One (mostly about the surrogate mothers, Lepapa interviewed 5 former surrogate mothers directly, those 5 relayed the stories of many more who were too afraid to make contact themselves)

https://www.theelephant.info/long-reads/2021/05/28/hard-labour-the-surrogacy-industry-in-kenya-part-i/

Part Two (mostly about the legal quagmire around surrogacy in Kenya and the ‘fixers’ who exploit both hopeful-parents-to-be and the surrogate mothers):

https://www.theelephant.info/long-reads/2021/05/29/hard-labour-the-surrogacy-industry-in-kenya-part-ii/

Lepapa’s Twitter

https://twitter.com/naipanoilepapa

YouTube video with narration by Lepapa:

More about the journalist:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/how-freelancer-broke-major-scandal-surrogacy-and-won-top-award-kenya

(can you imagine the headfuckery of discovering your wealthy western parents exploited a vulnerable woman in a developing country and you were the physical product that came from that exploitation?)

Yes, it is also a worry that parents will go on to have more babies when their first child has a genetic condition which might need a tissue/organ donation from a good match, which will most likely come from a subsequent child. We had better ban them from having more children.

Are you disagreeing that all surrogacy is exploiting a female body for its reproductive purpose?

What do you think exploiting means?

I’ve seen fertility clinics refer to women who become pregnant using donor eggs as the biological mothers.

It’s interesting how the definition of “mother” and “biological mother” can be changed depending on what the adults involved want. Who a newborn baby sees as his/her mother isn’t taken into account.

Stop using daft anecdotes to justify rich people buying or renting women's bodies. It's never okay.

I am uncomfortable about so called saviour siblings but I understand why parents would wish to pursue it.

I don’t think anyone has the right to having a child. Surrogacy practises are unethical & exploitative & horribly becoming normalised as an acceptable way to maintain a career & still become a parent (celebrities, performers, actresses etc. Women should not be exploited into becoming breeders, harvesters or incubators for people who could easily become parents by adopting. Selfishness dictates wanting the child to have their own DNA. At the expense of the genetic (& biological imo) birth mother & the child. I find it grim & sad.

I just don't get the glamorisation of the biological link.

Maybe because I am an adoptive parent.

But - DD is my daughter. There's no qualification of 'sort of like' my daughter. She just is my daughter. With a mild interest in biological relations, but I have never stood in the way of contact with them and the biological relatives she does care about are those who have been a constant presence in her life.

I have a half-sister I have never met (I'm not adopted) and don't feel any gap in my life.

DD has three half sisters, the one she was brought up with who matters very much (and is her sister, no half measures), the other two she has never met, and aren't a gap in her life.

I have said over and over again there needs to be strict regulation. Just as there is to stop rich people exploiting others by buying a kidney.

I understand why parents would wish to pursue it. But is it ethical?