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.

Vessel?! A vessel that uses its blood, tissues, energy, cells, immune system to turn the DNA into a living being. These women aren't boats carrying a passenger from A to B, they're creating the passengers, often at significant risk to themselves. To be regarded as a vessel then discarded as a useless entity. Vessel my ass!

The woman carrying the baby is feeding the foetus biologically, through her blood. If she wasn't needed biologically the baby would be grown in a lab.

And of course surrogacy is more selfish, it requires a third party to put their life, physical and mental health at risk.
Egg donation requires a third party to reduce her own fertility, and put themselves at risk of multiple complications.

Do you only ever discuss matters that directly affect you?

A great many people care about the innocent babies in surrogacy transactions. Why don't you engage with some of the arguments put forth by posters in this thread and have a think about the points they are making?

Surrogacy is in the interest of the adults, not the child being created.

I think surrogacy is wrong where the baby is essentially being bought. I have met several people who have had a baby through a Ukrainian surrogate. The lack of regard for their surrogate was breathtakingly awful, and once the baby had arrived and had been handed over, the surrogate was despatched back to a country at war without a second thought. I have less issue with a relative being a surrogate for someone who can’t have children.

’just a vessel’ is really dismissive of the process of pregnancy.
So when you implant a blastocyst made up of perhaps a hundred cells into a surrogate mother, then every single cell that is made after that point is made of matter from the surrogate mother’s body. She isn’t just carrying a baby, her body is constructing it according to whatever genetic instructions that embryo has.
And then yes, nurture is extremely important, but nurture begins before birth. The baby can hear and see light weeks before birth and is listening to its gestational mother all day every day. Babies recognize their (gestational) mothers at birth because of this and also because her smell is familiar - they can taste amniotic fluid in the womb.
I think most people who are considering using a surrogate mother are just not really in a position to understand what they are asking.

Epigenetics is the effect of the environment on the wrapping and expression of DNA. During pregnancy, the mother's body can affect the baby's DNA through exposure to nutrients , drugs, stress etc. My friend had a baby using donated eggs and we were discussing the effect of her body on her unborn baby. I'd love to read some research into this area. The pregnant woman isn't just a 'vessel'.

What’s nasty is exploiting women for their bodies in order to have a baby at the end.

What’s nasty is buying a baby like it’s a commodity.

The whole “it doesn’t affect you” is a weak and frankly invalid argument. People put themselves and are put at risk by the selfishness of those wanting a baby, at any price, and the sooner it is banned the better.

If someone needs a kidney transplant should it be ok to go and buy a kidney from another person who is prepared to give them one and who needs the money to feed their children?

What about a liver?

Surrogacy is IMO no better than buying organs on the black market, except that people believe it should be above reproach because “you don’t know what it’s like.”

Sometimes it just isn’t meant to be.

Surrogacy is IMO no better than buying organs on the black market

or going to a developing country with a wad of cash and buying a baby from someone you see on the street.

For me, a biological mother shares the same DNA as the baby so I disagree. I am generally speaking not as outraged about surrogacy as others as I think it is something I would consider doing for someone I know! (I have a child so have been pregnant before).

Agree with PP I'm not really sure what outcome you are expecting from this thread.

But they are not biologically connected? Do you know what biological means?

@ChienChatCheval I'll decide what to do with MY eggs, thanks very much!

For me, I can see both sides of the surrogacy debate. When talking about a completely ALIVE surrogate who has given permission (all moral debate aside, obvs).

This fresh circle of hell, however: https://www.womenshealthmag.com/uk/health/a42773281/brain-stem-dead-women-surrogates-backlash/

So….is using a brain dead woman for her womb the natural next step for surrogacy???

The bottom line is every single one of those arguing womens rights around surrogacy, wouldn't be against it, IF they couldn't conceive themselves, because their own desire will far outweigh any desire for women's rights, and women's bodies not being "purchased".

All I care about is the child in question, nobody ever considers them.

Andbwhy does nobody ever argue about donated eggs?? That's is acceptable it seems but when you throw a "vessel" into the mixture it them becomes problematic. Its bullshit!

There are clearly many issues with surrogacy, especially commercial surrogacy. I'm not against surrogacy in all situations, and it's completely possible for babies born this way to be perfectly happy. But I'm very wary of those people who are involved in the surrogacy process and who want to shut down all/any discussion.

The baby has to be the number one priority. Everyone involved has to go out of their way to research the potential negative impacts on the baby, which includes listening to adults who were born via surrogacy. These issues are not insurmountable, but they must at least be acknowledged and addressed as the baby grows up. (Fwiw I think donor conception is more problematic for the child than surrogacy)

The birth mother should be the second priority. And the intended parents come last place I'm afraid.

They implant an egg, not a baby. So the woman isn't carrying a baby, she makes, grows etc the baby. Her hormones have clicked into that pregnancy. The baby listens/responds to her every movement/word/breathing, there isn't a more intimate relationship. Conveniently the fourth trimester is ignored. As is the ability to love and attach to a child who you haven't got DNA in common with. That's before we get into biological sex suddenly mattering.

Maybe start a thread about it and see what people think rather than assuming everyone thinks it's acceptable while we happen to be debating something else?

I for one don't agree with donor gametes either.

It's not like the human race is under any threat of extinction, no need for this billion dollar industry exploiting women and desperate parents to pump more babies into the world. Babies who will be traumatised, and often genetically predisposed to being infertile themselves.

There's really good documentaries etc on what's happened to birth mother's in poorer countries who had birth injuries, PND, or their families if they've died because of the birth/pregnancy. Then there's the disabled babies, who the purchasers have refused to collect and who the poor (in money) surrogate can't support.

I find IVF distasteful as well in countries/states that are anti abortion/contraception. When IVF is relied on, suddenly a dead foetus doesn't matter.

To me, the biological parent is the one who produced the egg. If the resulting baby is asked the question at his/her doctor at some point later in life “what is your family medical history”, then the genetics can’t be ignored. Biology matters here.

Of course ‘mothering’, the verb, is different. That is what matters, in surrogacy, egg donation, adoption, etc.

Ftr, I’m generally against surrogacy.

Sorry, my first sentence should read ‘produced the egg or the sperm.

I can see an argument for being against surrogacy because its a form of 'prostitution' and are women truly making a free choice etc but l dont understand how being born to a surrogate can be so 'bad' for a baby/child. The argument seems to be that if circumstances arent perfect its wrong to bring a child into the world. Would those rules also apply to solo mums, poor mothers, disabled mothers, thick mothers, ugly mothers....you get my drift. How is it so bad to be born to a surrogate?
Im not being goady...i really want to know.

I think the true reality is that you can only really know how much your own child needs YOU (the birth mother) once you have a baby. So anyone wanting to go through surrogacy will never really understand how much a baby needs their birth mother. I fully agree with you. But I don't think I truly understood it until I'd had my own baby. Then I realised that mothers and fathers are not in fact equal parents and never can be. Babies just need their mums. End of.

Again, I will decide what I do with MY eggs.

You see it when the midwives lift your baby off you to clean them, weigh them & dress them. The baby is literally reaching out, flailing, crying for their mother because she is all they know. She is the only thing familiar and comforting. It's pure animal instinct, it's importance musn't be underestimated.