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.

Always the kidney, never an eyeball or a bit of liver. It's like a script.

There’s something called a middle ground.

Wrong in your eyes. It’s not a fact, it’s opinion which of course you’re entitled to.
I’m assuming you judge me for going through ivf?

Weird assumption.

No, unless you bought eggs from another woman. Then yes.

I’ve noticed some pro surrogacy supporters say they agree - in all circumstances or a ‘regulated’ version of it? And what does ‘regulated’ look like? I can’t think how you’d ever mitigate some risks that are fair to all parties. Here’s some examples - what are your takes on these?

Baby is born disabled. Intended parents didn’t want a disabled baby. Surrogate mother didn’t want a child at all. Who is responsible for the baby?

Due to any reason whatsoever the surrogate wants an abortion. Can she have one? Can she have one if she’s already been paid and no longer has the money to pay back to the intended parents?

Intended parents split up and no longer want to continue. Can they force an abortion? If the surrogate won’t have an abortion, has this baby been commissioned to be adopted?

Surrogate is in a war zone and left with the baby for months/ years. Should the intended parents still have ‘rights’ over the baby at some point in the future? Surrogate also can’t afford to feed their existing child let alone a new one. What should happen?

All of these aren’t ‘gotchas’. They are perfectly reasonable things that could/have happened. In all of those scenarios mothers would be responsible to make the right decisions for their family but you have extras throwing money around and being able to pick up and drop other human beings at their whim.

I’d be interested particularly in the friend who didn’t want children but wanted to ‘experience’ pregnancy.

My point is, how would you react in these scenarios?

You are focused on the outcome. I am looking at the process and the potential issues over 9 months.

The whole ‘kidney’ thing is a poor comparator. I have repeatedly said this on this thread.

A kidney transplant is a life saving treatment for an existing human being.

What part of having a child by surrogacy is life saving? Or would you also just give a kidney to someone who didn’t need a life saving kidney transplant?

And again. No kidney is a sentient being. A human who is deliberately created for the purpose of pleasing an adult where a woman’s body is
exploited as a resource makes that human a transaction. Just another resource to be achieved using another person’s body.

I think there is a reason that women have evolved to become pregnant with their own babies!

what is the ‘middle ground’ that you envision?

Because it is possible, and happens, that people can donate a kidney and carry on living normal lives, perhaps?

But the potential for exploitation is high, and there are potential health impacts for the donor, and therefore there is a rigorous process in this country for accepting a living donor.

Haven't read the full thread, but on the basis of the OP, when talking about surrogacy, the term biological is referring to the genetic mother. Because the biological father isn't carrying the child either. But it's still the term "biological father". Of all the issues regarding surrogacy, nitpicking over a word, that you know full well is a term used to mean the genetic parent, but trying to argue the definition, is just being pedantic and gains nothing.

trying to argue the definition, is just being pedantic and gains nothing.

Having clear terms and knowing what they mean are really important during a period of scientific advance with serious ethical implications, (especially when those advances are combined with market forces), which have led to the meanings of clearly understood words changing.

You can’t really get more ethically serious than when interfering with human reproduction.

So tell us how the process should work? How long is the process, who should involved, what questions should be covered in depth, and what checks should be done.

I’m saying that in this situation the outcome was positive.

as I’ve said all along, surrogacy as a whole is morally fraught.

I think it's good that there's a robust debate about this. I can quite believe that there are some arrangements where things work out ok for all involved.

The problem is, the potential for things to go wrong is huge. It could be the scenarios that a PP described, or it could be a case of the woman who acted as the surrogate feeling miserable about it for the rest of her life (because, to me it's common sense that you can't be certain you'll be able to cope with handing over a baby you've grown and birthed until it actually happens), or the child grows up feeling distressed about their origins, or any number of things.

It seems to me that the chances of at least one of these things happening is quite high. I can't see how you can tell which are the cases that will work out one way or the other without a crystal ball, especially as each case involves a person who doesn't exist yet.

Then there's the question of how you regulate to reduce these risks. First, there's how you provide counselling to the surrogate mother to ensure she knows her legal rights and isn't being coerced. Who provides that? It can't be anyone with any skin in the game like a clinic- I think my story upthread demonstrates the pitfalls of entrusting that job to someone who stands to make money from the arrangement.

And then how do you ensure that the woman really is in a position to change her mind if she wants to without any emotional pressure from the person/people she's giving the baby to? To ensure that, you'd have to have someone independently monitoring the situation constantly to ensure that there was no pressure applied- even inadvertently. I can easily imagine a woman changing her mind but feeling obligated to go through with it if the person/people are excited, expressing their joy at the prospect of the birth...

And then who is responsible for the woman's care if she struggles to cope with her decision after the birth, or even years down the line as things sink in? Is she entitled to ongoing support if, for example, she suffers birth injuries and ends up incontinent/infertile?

And that's only the things I can think of. How could you possibly regulate for all these outcomes? To me the risk of harm is just too high.

But you are essentially saying that the perfectly happy 20 something in my example shouldn’t exist because you disagree with their origin… that’s a big thing to say about a human being.

Yes I agree you are saying it is a positive outcome. I am pointing out that you are ignoring the ethics of the situation using the hindsight of what you consider a positive outcome with the intention that there should be no blanket ban on surrogacy.

I understand what you are saying. I disagree that it was free from exploitation and I think that laws should reflect all aspects of exploitation as some countries have recognised.

You seem to have also tried to portray my and other’s views as unusual somehow, yet I can assure you that it is not unusual and it is very well written about by many feminists and feminist groups. It is highly topical because the government review process.

Because you are alienating and stigmatising those who have been born through surrogacy and are leading their lives, in some cases happily.

absolutely bring up the question as to whether going forward it is something that for the greater good should be prohibited, however sone of the view and language being used in this argument ignores those who have found joy through surrogacy - including children.

Ok, but they haven't changed.

Everyone knows what is meant in surrogacy, when you say biological mother, or biological father. They are basically identifying the person who's DNA it is, and a more basic level, just clarifying they are talking about the person who isn't the surrogate.

"Sue is a surrogate for a couple. Jane and Jim are the biological parents"

Baffling as to what that could possibly mean. Baffling

No, I am saying you shouldn’t devalue the lives of those who have been born.

You are again using emotional manipulation to try to support your position.

What would your position be if you discover next year that this child is actually struggling with poor mental health because of the decision of three adults to deliberately create that life as if they were a resource to be purchased either via money or other reward?

You don’t seem to be able to separate the ethics of the conception and birth of this child from a discussion where their life now is devalued.

Their situation has not changed. There were ethical issues that you seem to not be able to answer without resorting to ‘but they are alive and’ supposedly ‘happy’. That is falling back on emotional manipulation to support a decision that is either ethical or it is not.

I’ve said all along I think it is morally fraught.

you asked for a positive story, I gave you one. You spent a long time trying to argue that it was not a positive story, and I responded that I maintain it was.

In almost every post I included the disclaimer that I was discussing one story and believe the wider issue is more complex.

My point remains that it is possible to campaign for a ban on surrogacy without stigmatising those who exist through surrogate parenting.

So do you or do you not support a blanket ban on surrogacy?

I think we need to agree to disagree.

At the end of the day, you have never met these people and I accept you will not be convinced that this is a happy family resulting from surrogacy.

Id repeat again details in my agreement that the wider issue is morally fraught but you seem to overlook this each time.

stop being obtuse.
you cannot possibly speculate on the issue of happiness to this “child” and what issues might raise themselves in years to come as a result of this arrangement; that being that one woman was “keen to experience pregnancy” without a child at the end which is highly unusual and indeed that there were a childless couple happy to take advantage of that.