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.

Isn't it?? I cannot believe that I have had to tell my DH that if something horrific were to happen and I were declared brain dead that I do NOT want my body used to grow a baby for someone else. Sometimes there must be a line, surely?!

A baby is not a kidney. This is where we end up when we dehumanise women and children.

Well, none of us can know how our children will feel about any of our decisions in the future. There are a couple of decisions my (biological) parents made which have had a major, negative, impact on my life. I understand the reasons, but the consequences were pretty bad for a number of years.

Funnily enough we have just had a specialist assessment of need through post-adoption, which concluded that she has a secure attachment to me. But she does have complex PTSD from her early life in her birth family.

There is more to bringing up a child than pushing it out that's only the start and then there is the rest. Don't get me wrong I have enjoyed bringing up my children but it's been fucking hard work emotionally and mentally and children is not easy when they are ready. It takes a mother to bring up a child and that title doesn't belong to all parents who am I to deny another woman that joy?

The fact that adopted children often have attachment disorders is also no coincidence.

Also, those attachment disorders in adopted children are often because of the reasons - abuse and neglect - that they had to be removed from their birth families! NOT because they were then placed with adoptive parents.

If a woman is choosing to do this, willingly and fully knowing the process and / or implications, I have no problem with it. Her body, her choice. Whatever her reasons or gains are, it doesn't bother me, be they monetary, wanting to experience a pregnancy but not wanting a child, or to help a couple, or whatever other reasons they choose.

Obviously anybody being forced into it, or doing it unknowingly (in the wild scenario of being brain dead that I see being discussed) then obviously it is extremely wrong, as it would be if anybody was forced into anything they did not want to do or didn't know they were doing!

There are a couple of decisions my (biological) parents made which have had a major, negative, impact on my life. I understand the reasons, but the consequences were pretty bad for a number of years.

But this is not comparable to the yearning that many adopted people have to know their roots.

My friend doesn't know her medical history, doesn't know why she was abandoned (as she sees it), doesn't know if she has any genetic family. She has no other family left apart from distant cousins in the States. She hasn't had children because of the fact that she was worried she would be genetically disposed to child abandonment, I think she's wrong about that but it's how she feels. Her whole life is impacted.

It's very simplistic to say that a child conceived from a commercial arrangement would not have those kind of feelings, or that that might not resent the IPs if they felt the arrangement was born of a power imbalance. Humans are complex but the situations arising from this are nothing like bad decisions made by parents per se.

My friend was adopted at birth, there was no bad treatment by the birthing mother.

That is the only fact she has.

Genuine question, are there any studies/medical research that show that children born from surrogate mothers suffer?

I am not aware of any.

I'm not sure.

They only tend to be commissioned if there is a financial interest.

Giving that the main financial interest is in commercial surrogacy being available there is unlikely to be a report to the downsides commissioned.

That's not a study thats really possible.

But there are lots of studies about attachment and biology and many other aspects that can be extrapolated from.

I don't think that's true at all. Very few people use surrogates, lots of people struggle to conceive. Most people can hold a moral stance that includes their own behaviour.

And just repeating ‘it is just like kidney donation’.

It doesn’t make it any more convincing as a comparison.

Adoption is about finding a workable and hopefully healthy environment for a child in need. It also is not a good comparison at all.

Surrogacy is about the deliberate creation of a human being exploiting (I suggest that posters go and see the definition of exploitation of a resource if they think it doesn’t apply here) at least one woman’s reproductive capability.

Surrogacy is always a transaction, whether it is financial or emotional or another consideration. A child is designed specifically to be transacted. Usually to never have contact with the women who contributed to that transaction again.

Posters can try to dress this up with euphemism and false comparisons but the truth remains. At least one woman’s body is being exploited as a resource to grow a human being who is to be sold through some kind of payment.

I find it really interesting to see how people have tried to justify this to themselves and how they attempt to convince others.

You could listen to the children born of surrogacy and donor conception. The first generation are now adults and are now speaking about their experiences about being created in this way.

Posters can try to dress this up with euphemism and false comparisons but the truth remains. At least one woman’s body is being exploited as a resource to grow a human being who is to be sold through some kind of payment.

Are these women being educated on their legal rights before they agree to be a surrogate? If not why and how do we as a society change that?

Money does have to be exchanged because the woman carrying the child has to be well looked after. If this basic need is not met then the couple who are desperate for a child should not have any children. It's these surrogate women that need protection and education before making this possible life changing decision.

I too have a friend who had so much pain associated with being adopted. They have their birth parents names but have nothing else. They have struggled badly with it for decades.

I have a family member who was adopted within the family, who still had contact with their dad (their mum died when they were 4) until their dad died too. But it was never hidden that they were adopted, that they were still part of the family. Of course, there is sadness, but ultimately they have been well supported.

I have other fiends with other very different stories. All are unique.

You could listen to the children born of surrogacy and donor conception. The first generation are now adults and are now speaking about their experiences about being created in this way.

May I ask where you found their stories it will make for interesting reading, especially on a topic like this.

@Baabaa75 thats not been the experience of our family.

Or just ban it. Much easier, no loopholes,no problems.
How about lets not legislate for better buying of babies, but say no to buying of babies at all?

Of course it's possible to do research on the effects of surrogacy. Take a quick look on pubmed or google scholar. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed studies. Most of it is about the effects on the surrogate mother or the genetic parents, some is on young children/babies. I guess this kind of surrogacy was until recently quite rare - possibly there aren't enough adults that were conceived through this route to do research on them. There are also probably difficulties in finding them for research purposes

This kind of research is often funded by government - there doesn't have to be a profit motive for research. In the UK, government funded research is the majority of what takes place in universities - sometimes with industrial partners or charities paying part of the cost.

On other surrogacy threads I have followed the links. I have to admit that I have none to offer.

I remember one woman who was in her 20s speaking at a conference about her experience as a donor conceived child and how hard it was for her to come to terms with it. It was an Australian conference but I have never found that one again. But there are others to be found as a growing body of evidence.

I am sorry to not have them to hand.

No problem.

Let's ban IVF as well. It needs money, so is in effect 'buying babies'

Anything that involves a cost to have a child should be banned. It is buying babies

I mean, there's a lot else going on in this thread but that was a standout for me. That someone sat and thought "how can we get round this tricksy problem with surrogacy?"

And the answer they came up with was "Use clinically dead women as greenhouses and then switch off life support when the baby is harvested, also, make it OPT OUT rather than opt in!".

It's like the fucking Matrix.

Buying babies is wrong - honestly I struggle to need more justification than that (although there is plenty)

I couldn't ask another woman to risk her life, risk orphaning her children or permanently injuring herself so that I could buy her baby.

It's that black and white to me.

No it isn't. Your reasoning is at the level of a 5 year old child.

Surrogacy is actually buying babies. It cost a fair whack in tequila to get me knocked up with one of mine, that doesn't mean I bought a baby.

You know this, you;re not that dumb,