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.

What about a lesbian couple, where one of the women use their eggs and fertilise their eggs with sperm donated by their gay best friend, with whom they have a life long friendship spanning decades? And then they carry the baby and give birth to the baby themselves.

The lesbian couple and their gay best friend (and his long term partner) all go to specialist counselling, both individually, as couples and as a group) to discuss and reflect on the process, it’s complexities (before, during and after the IVF and pregnancy) and ensure that all adults involved work together to prioritise the needs and best interests of the baby (who will become a child, teenager, young person, adult etc etc)

In this scenario, the child is raised in a two parent family (not co-parenting with the gay best friend and his partner). The child has and lives with/ is raised by two mothers.

However, their biological father is always known and present in their life. They are not considered a traditions ‘Dad’ but their identity is never hidden and the mothers arrange quality time for their family to spend time with their biological father and their extended families.

I’m interested what you would think of this scenario?

The child has access to all the significant adults in their life, nothing is cloak and dagger, and should anything happen to both their Mums, their biological father would be their legal guardian.

In this scenario, the child has additional family- connections with extended family from all three significant adults. They are able to access all their family medical history and they know exactly who they are and where they came from.

Clearly a lot of thought goes into an arrangement like this. So I’m wondering… if this is immoral, does it mean you don’t believe there are any ethical ways for same sex couples to have a family?

or what adjustments would you make to this scenario to make it ethical?

I don’t think having a baby is a ‘right’. I think the interests of the baby trumps the aspirations of the adults. But I’m curious where you draw the line? Would the scenario I’ve described be ethical in your view?

Genuine question how much are babies being sold for @BackDownSouth?

While the stories of surrogates wanting to give another woman the gift of life, who positively love being pregnant & completely happy with handing over the baby are lovely, are they really the majority?

It’s a financial service & to be able to do it means detaching from the process & literally incubating a baby for financial gain.

It just feels like another form of commodification of a woman’s body & horrible that women find themselves either having to do this other to survive financially or choose to do it as a career choice.

This isn’t just about surrogacy per se. It’s about infant needs from the outset. You’re posting about the ideal scenario.

My daughter had to go into NICU from birth and literally couldn’t be with me as she was hooked to machines, I was physically incapable of going to her due to surgery for many hours. She went on to be dependant on those machines for two weeks, which in NICU terms isn’t long, there will be babies in there for months.

Whats the purpose of this post? My daughter’s birth story is shit, but on the other hand could be counted as an extreme success because she is alive. Sometimes life isn’t ideal and you can’t lament it being so.

I’m reading this feeling sad about my daughter’s emotional needs not being met as a tiny baby. Other people will be reading it feeling sad their children’s births weren’t as they should be. Some will have gone the surrogacy route, have wonderful relationships with their children and will feel lesser because of this.

Why post it?

While the stories of surrogates wanting to give another woman the gift of life, who positively love being pregnant & completely happy with handing over the baby are lovely, are they really the majority?

There needs to be regulation to ensure - as far as possible - that this is the only scenario possible for surrogacy.

But as you well know a pregnant woman is simply not just a vessel.

And birth is highly risky in humans. Without medical intervention available it is 1 in 5 that die; you may recall some History that taught about the extraordinary change in maternal deaths following improved hygiene and the advent of other medical interventions such as aenestaethics to perform caesereans.

Surrogate mothers do die.

And children with «defects» are born and rejected by the people who commissioned them, and it seems those children have no rights to belong to anyone whatsoever.

The more I learn the more I think surrogacy should be outlawed.

Infertility isn't a good enough reason to buy a baby and cause trauma to him or her. If I had cancer, I couldn't buy a kidney so I could live- why should infertility excuse something much worse, removing a baby from his or her mother?
Also if I was to have an egg donor and be pregnant, I'd be seen as the mother - therefore a woman who is a surrogate is the mother. It's no different.
It's really alarming how there is new proposed legislation around surrogacy that seems to protect the commissioning parents and reduce the choices of the surrogate mother at birth to protect the investment from the commissioning parents - it didn't strike me as only thinking about the wellbeing of the child.

It's really alarming how there is new proposed legislation around surrogacy that seems to protect the commissioning parents and reduce the choices of the surrogate mother at birth to protect the investment from the commissioning parents

Agreed.

But the answer isn't to ban all surrogacy

amoobaa
I know a few gay and lesbian parents, all of whom have got there through different processes including adoption, IVF and different types of surrogacy.

The scenario you described sounds great and I wish this was the kind of thing being discussed by gay rights orgs. I have a friend who did consider this but couldn't find a way that felt watertight enough to proceed with. Another hetero friend would have been open to this when planning to conceive as a single woman. I think there needs to be legal framework focussing on the needs of the child. This could actually benefit all children because so many couples do end up splitting up anyway.

I think the outrage would come from men who feel entitled to their own child but aren't actually on good enough terms with any women to ever be in with a chance of this type of arrangement.

It could be made unlawful. As it is in most of Europe, rightly so.

I take it though that you did spend time with her after you could move due to surgery? No?

And during those two weeks, you talked to her and were there? No?

And then you took her home? You. The mother whose voice she knew, the mother who she spent months developing with. You were there and took her home? No?

In what way is this comparable to a surrogacy situation? Did you have your daughter created deliberately with the intention that she would be given to another family? Did you create your daughter to be carried by someone else who might have had their life shortened or limited, who might have lost their own fertility due to carrying your daughter, or who may have harmed their own children through losing their mother ?

No.

It is great to hear that your daughter received the care that she needed. It is not comparable at all.

Allowing surrogacy because your own daughter spent weeks in intensive care though isn’t a good enough reason to allow surrogacy.

But the answer isn't to ban all surrogacy

Why not?

There would be something terribly wrong with a society where a woman’s only means of feeding her children would be to have babies for the infertile rich.

@JackGrealishsLegs how could I make that call on paper without actually speaking to any of the women 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

No. That is your opinion and your opinion only.

There are different scenarios available. One of those is a total ban. As is the case in other countries.

And regulated? By whom? And what is that process going to look like again? Or are we all just back to ‘it should be regulated’ as if it is a magical phrase that will solve any ethical discomfort some people feel?

I would be a surrogate carrier for a couple! Do I not get a choice on what I want to do with my body?

Why would you choose to do this?

Because you love being pregnant? because you want to be valued by the couple? Because you want to experience pregnancy?

Why? What motivates you to do this?

As others have said throughout the thread, none of this puts the child first.

Just because you are prepared to do this doesn't mean it is ethical or in the child's best interests.

There are a whole load of things that some people might want to have a choice to do with their bodies which are also, rightly, unlawful because of the implications for society as a whole.

The mother is the person who becomes the mother of the baby once they are born. What you are talking about is primary caregiver. That is who the baby will actually attach to. Yes of course there will be an in initial attachment of sharing a placenta and the woman’s tastes in food, for example. And if the baby drinks the woman’s breast milk then there will be a connection too. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or cruel. Yes there has to be a lot of consideration with surrogacy but the demonising on here feels like thinly failed homophobia and self righteousness. Most of these women who supposedly can’t accept surrogacy will sleep train their babies, not breastfeed, do all these other things that you could ages are just as important to an infant and yet they don’t agree with surrogacy, when the parent who takes them home could be the best parent and give that baby an amazing life.

By your definition women should never drink donated breast milk as they won’t connect to the woman they’ve never met. Children should never be adopted. Children should never come from an egg or sperm donor because of the connection they will never know.

Yes it needs to be taken seriously but some of the posts on here are cruel and ridiculous.

Babies now women, argh

“but the demonising on here feels like thinly failed homophobia”

where is the homophobia in this thread? And in this discussion?

This is the argument that I really don't understand.

People who oppose surrogacy think no one has the right to a child. This isn't a homophobic position it applies to everyone equally.

Sorry the right to 'buy' or arrange a child through surrogacy is what I meant.

Yes it needs to be taken seriously but some of the posts on here are cruel and ridiculous.

Who are discussions on the ethics behind surrogacy cruel to?

Why is it ridiculous to point out ethical issues?

We were discussing these issues in Medical Ethics classes in law degrees 30 years ago, was that also ridiculous and cruel?

That’s a stupid statement. Yes currently you can be a surrogate legally. But no you don’t get to do what you want with your own body without exception, can you legally go and sell your organs? Not exactly lawful to be a prostitute or take heroin either.

A baby is traumatised when it is removed from its birth mother. It’s instincts are telling it to search for her smell and her sound, yet it is helpless to do so. No matter how loving the others they hold it, the baby doesn’t feel safe. Unlike us the baby lacks the ability to rationalise its emotions and physical sensations. It has no control or ability to self sooth/ask for help

This. It's not natural to remove a baby from its mother at birth imo.