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.

People wanting to be parents shouldn't adopt unless they're genuinely ready and willing to take on a host of additional needs. Adoptive parents are not the rest of us. What they do for high needs children is astounding. But we can't all be like them as much as we might want to and shouldn't always even try because the children are let down in those circumstances.

You'd be a fool to think people were arranging surrogacy in the same spirit as those adopting troubled children. There's nothing wrong with just wanting to be a parent and love your child, without being willing or able to be a Messiah like hero which is how I'd genuinely describe an adoptive parent. It is of course about the parents and when you had your child it was about you too.

None of that makes it acceptable to describe children in the same terms as rescue puppies.

Well because you have no chance of achieving that now, for a start. Zero appetite for it at government level. Lots of appetite to legislate for it and make it easier/cleaner.

Of course it's possible! Why wouldn't it be?

There are lots of things that aren’t ‘natural’. It doesn’t mean they should be illegal.

Perhaps not this thread but a lot of the discussion in general. It is homophobic if a poster is basically stating any way to have a child that doesn’t involve a biological man and woman is wrong. It particularly disadvantages those who are not in heterosexual relationships.

No, because it's not about you. It's about the baby you would give birth to, and it's also about your existing children (pregnancy with a donor egg is more risky than with your own eggs, for a start).

None of that makes it acceptable to describe children in the same terms as rescue puppies.

Please tell me where I did that?

I didn't.

Any pregnancy comes with the risk of a child having additional needs, there are a whole raft of issues around babies conceived in surrogacy arrangements being rejected because of disabilities. Babies are also put up for adoption for those reasons.

Of course there can be known issues with adopted children, I know this because I know adoptive parents and I know a situation where the adoption failed.

I have the right to think badly of anyone involved in a surrogacy arrangement because I think it is unethical. I do think that there is a risk that the baby conceived of a surrogacy may not be born perfect, and that they might be rejected.

I don't think babies should ever form the part of a commercial arrangement for any reason, not even for so called expenses. I also have doubts that any surrogacy arrangement doesn't involve a degree of emotional coercion.

I

I would be a surrogate carrier for a couple!

Even knowing the effects on the baby that will be removed at birth?

No it doesn't, It's anyone who can't or doesn't want to have a baby naturally.

The fact that some of those people are homosexual doesn't make it a homophobic position.

Gosh

And none of what you have just stated makes it acceptable to exploit at least one woman’s body to create a human being on order.

I had no idea there was so much hate for surrogacy.

People really will kick off about anything won’t they.

I'm sure someone else will have mentioned it, but there is a small transfer of DNA that can happen between a gestational mother and in-utero fetus, it's not true there is absolutely no DNA. Furthermore, epigenetics tells us that the womb environment is one of the things that allows gene expression, so if the womb environment of the gestational mother is optimal, then the gene expression will be different (e.g. if there is poverty of the womb environment, this can then affect things like heart disease risk 50 years later). It's called the Parker hypothesis and is reasonably well-supported.

Again I raise the point this could be said about any pregnancy!

I don’t believe anyone has stated that a child needs to be born to a heterosexual couple. If they have, please quote it.

However, the human race relies on gametes from one male and one female to procreate. And not one person on this planet has the right to have a child. That is not homophobic.

People on this thread have mentioned ways same sex families have been created without exploiting any woman’s body bar the woman whose egg has created that child and is carrying that child.

Yes. It does disadvantage same sex couples. That is a fact. It also disadvantages single people who don’t want to be in a relationship. Other groups of people are also disadvantaged by the biological necessity of having one male and one female human being to create another.

No person has the right to exploit the productive resources of a woman to create a child. Not egg donor nor surrogate.

And if a male donor is being used, then I certainly believe that the male donor’s identity should be known to the child, it would be preferable that if the child is old enough that the child has to opportunity to get to know that donor. I don’t agree that a child doesn’t need to have that information at the very least.

And again, you are using a polarisation tactic to try to support your argument for exploiting women’s bodies to produce babies to order.

So, no. Just because there is a certain degree of selfishness in having a child without resorting to surrogacy doesn’t support the exploitation of a female human body to be an incubator for a deliberately created human to fulfill someone’s wish for a child.

a Messiah like hero which is how I'd genuinely describe an adoptive parent.

Thanks but... we're not, really we're not! We're people who want to be parents, and this is the avenue to become a parent for whatever reason. Just as heterosexual couples with no fertility issues can choose to become parents for their own reasons.

Thanks for mentioning this!

Epigenetics is absolutely fascinating and is another thing I have learnt about from being in therapy. This is another reason I'm concerned about the silence from Bacp and ukcp. Not everyone seemingly supporting surrogacy can be said to be ignorant of trauma and babies' experience in utero. Which raises worrying questions.

So if I was asked to be surrogate for someone, and I fully agreed, in the full of my health both mentally and physically, how would that be exploration of me, a woman?

Exploitation *

It is homophobic if a poster is basically stating any way to have a child that doesn’t involve a biological man and woman is wrong.

It is absolutely not homophobic. NOBODY has a right to have a child, regardless of their sexual preference.

Humans rely on gametes from one male and one female to procreate. That's just a biological fact. And a newborn baby should continue to bond with the mother who's carried it for 9 months.

Is this the best response you have for the thoughtful responses and evidence supplied by posters in this thread?

"Hate"

There is also evidence to support that the Parker Hypothesis can be overridden genetically by a good upbringing. People don’t realise that people’s environments, the things they eat, the ways they play, the people they touch - it ALL causes genetic changes. So to highlight one and them ignore the others is rubbish.

Surrogacy isn't about the needs or best interests of the baby

Clearly not! It's about grown adults who feel they deserve a child.

Any utilisation of another person’s body to achieve something you want is exploitation. It is using someone to achieve your goal.

And you didn’t answer my questions as to why you would be doing this?

What is in it for you?

Feeling good about yourself? Wanting to have that pregnancy experience? Feeling like you are needed? Why? Why are you doing it?

Why are you putting your self at risk of death over a nine month period for someone in this way?

I think one of my kids may be gay and I honestly used to think "by the time he's grown up surrogacy will be normal" and feel happy about it.

Yeah selfish desires to be a grandma one day I guess.

But I looked into it and found out so much more about infancy and trauma through having therapy myself.

Lots of things we really desire but choose not to have or do when we find out more information about the effects. Cocaine, wearing fur, eating too much junk, eating meat, fast fashion etc. Yes having kids is another level to those examples but so are the potential implications for human harm.