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.

It is absolutely the answer. There is no other answer that works.

Nah. I live in the Netherlands, lots of regulation around prostitution. Still prostitutes everywhere, it's not decreased, just gives people the illusion that these women have protection and independence so they feel better about pretending abuse doesn't exist, or feel better about paying for these women. Still a massive amount of trafficking, coercion, abuse of women.

Making the abuse of women regulated is not what's needed. Stopping the abuse of women is what's needed, and if women won't fight for it and try to rationalize in all the many ways you have on this thread, then these poor women will keep being abused.

But keep sharing your pointless chat about kidneys, survivor siblings, loving adoption with no gaps if it makes you feel better about yourself.

The trauma associated with Surrogacy comes from children not understanding it, or society not making it easy for them to understand it, not due to some make belief epigenetic changes.

this article explains it in easy language for the neanderthals like you.

https://www.today.com/health/new-study-tracks-emotional-health-surrogate-kids-6c10366818

Oh I understand the argument alright.

It's a coercive one to try and smear someone who dislikes all surrogacy as being homophobic because that has social consequences.

Being reasonable and say you want a blanket ban on all surrogacy is harder to argue against due to the Hierarchy of Approved Liberal Moral Values.

Wow. Neanderthals, eh?

And you posted an article that is very clear that the study went to 10 years old and that that researcher and other professionals point out that the results are likely to be different in later years.

Not to mention that in all of those cases (solo, poor, disabled, thick, ugly), the babies are still with their birth mothers. Surrogate babies are removed from their birth mothers and given to someone else. As a previous poster said, the baby instinctively only knows the mother who carried it - he/she doesn't know the mother who provided the DNA.

Yep. Bloody depressing.

I wonder if they’ve actually spoken to anyone who’s been involved in the process.

I noticed the ‘homophobia’ accusations increased after that NY election campaign which declared that gay males had equal fertility rights to use surrogates. Because ‘equal opportunity’.

When society believes that anyone who wants a child should be able to exploit women’s reproductive capabilities to have a child created on demand, then this is logical. Because what is the difference between a male person exploiting two women to produce that child vs another woman exploiting two other women to produce that child.

What is the difference when a woman does it who has no fertility issues herself vs a man?

There is no difference.

However, it shouldn’t come down to whether someone is being discriminated against for their sexual orientation, their disability, their marital status or any reason. Surrogacy should be banned.

Women’s bodies and children should not be commodities that can be bought or sold (whether financial or otherwise).

Are you saying that knowing a surrogate make it easier to exploit them or harder?

Yes,imagine being against the exploitation of women and the trafficking of babies!
How fucking weird of us to have a problem with that. Tch.

There are positive stories as well as negative ones. If a woman come on here and told her story what would the reaction be from the majority of posters? Would they respect her choice or would they impose their beliefs/opinions on her?

Aside from homosexual male couples, what about ageism? Should a 70-year-old woman be entitled to have a baby via surrogate? A lone male?

The whole enterprise (and it is an enterprise) is fraught with potential problems - even disasters.

"Human trafficking is the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of people through force, fraud, coercion or deception, with the aim of exploiting them for profit." What is human trafficking? - Anti-Slavery International (antislavery.org)

It's not a form of human trafficking the surrogate has more rights than you think. Compared to young children, women and men are trafficked and forced into labour and prostitution.

Has that ever happened???

Tell us about the positive stories.

Can you explain what the motivation of the surrogate was? Why did they choose to significantly risk their health, their life and their future fertility?

Are you going to say they did it because they ‘love being pregnant’?

I believe a woman in her late sixties or seventies in Spain has or is about to use her dead son’s sperm to do this.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna78455

Spanish TV star says surrogate baby born in U.S. was conceived using her late son’s frozen sperm. She is 68.

I know a surrogate mother.

She did it in this country for expenses just after her children's father had left her.

I think it helped her keep her kids in the family home.

She was exploited.

You do realise women are allowed to love being pregnant. We do it pretty well actually.

Are those the questions you would put to them? No wonder there are no stories on here they fear interrogation. I will try to answer your questions:

Why did they choose to significantly risk their health, their life and their future fertility? Maybe they didn't want to add more children to their family and wanted to give another a chance to have a baby.

Can you explain what the motivation of the surrogate was? What answer would satisfy you? It could be for a variety of reasons. I would be a surrogate for a family member or friend if they couldn't conceive.

Are you going to say they did it because they ‘love being pregnant’? I loved being fucking pregnant eat what I want without guilt.

I forgot about her 68 and after another child. That is selfish because her risk of dying is higher at her age. Rod Stewart had a child in his 60's with Penny Lancaster.

My comment sounds sexist.

Enjoying eating what you want during in pregnancy is hardly a reason for creating a baby to sell.

Especially since you could just eat what you want anyway.

Yes. This.

I would do it for free for the people close to me.

When does a need to be pregnant, for whatever reason, translate into a healthy choice of being a surrogate?

How is it a mentally healthy choice to ‘need’ to be pregnant that you would commoditise your body and a child’s life to do so?

If you have that overwhelming need, how have you not been exploited for that need, and how have you as a woman not just exploited an infant by commoditising it so you can get whatever you need so much from
being pregnant.

And yes, I have been pregnant and yes, I love my child. And yes, some women ‘do’ pregnancy well.

And just a reminder again, carrying a foetus that you have not provided the egg for increases the risk to the foetus AND the woman who is pregnant. This is well documented. You have a much larger risk from doing this.