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.

Why do some people feel so entitled to have a child?

Nobody has a right to have a child. It's not a life threatening condition to be childless

I agree with you and I am/was infertile (past childbearing age now).

How about kidnapping? That’s an option.

Or, alternatively, if the ‘theft’ thing bothers you, how about creating baby farms - where women could be housed to breed babies to meet the rights of infertile people to try every option? If you got poor and destitute women for the breeding farms, you could give them a better diet and environment than they could afford otherwise - you could even throw in educational facilities. Everyone’s a winner.

Also, that thought experiment about using brain dead women to be surrogate mothers. Is that in any way bothersome?

Are there any options which are beyond the pale?

Where do you draw the line and say - no this is not an option which is ethically or legally available? When do you say - you can try everything else, but not this?

Are there no limit to these ‘options’ people have the ‘right’ to try?

It's not just infertile women is it. I can think of quite a few celeb women who choose to have surrogates for second/third (sometimes even first) children because of schedules or because the first pregnancy was tough

How about womb transplants?

https://wombtransplantuk.org/

Yes. The ‘infertile couple who tried everything’ is the gateway, opening hearts and minds to fertile women who are rich and don’t want the risk, or fertile gay men who want the mother out of the picture, to engaging in human trafficking.

Yes. The ‘infertile couple who tried everything’ is the gateway, opening hearts and minds to fertile women who are rich and don’t want the risk, or fertile gay men who want the mother out of the picture, to engaging in human trafficking.

Even the 'infertile couple who tried everything' have absolutely no right or entitlement to a child.

Is being childless a terrible life threatening disease that needs treatment? No, not at all.

And it's certainly not fair on either the 'surrogate' mother or the baby being created and removed at birth for the benefit of others

Is being childless a terrible life threatening disease that needs treatment? No, not at all.

I agree but …..we are conditioned to want and expect to have children from an early age. Infertility is generally seen as a misfortune, I’ve even seen it described as a “personal tragedy”. That is certainly not how I view mine.

In none of these posts have I said that’s ok. I’m talking about ethical surrogacy. It does exist. And yes it’s worth it to all those involved. Infertility can cause someone to feel suicidal, whereas surrogacy can be a solution to that problem. The debate is good, sure. More needs to be done to protect exploited women. This debate keeps going round and round. Some of us believe that when done ethically, it is perfectly ok and in fact a good option for people on our society.

THIS.

And the desire to have children can surpass all else, life itself. Some people clearly don’t have that in them and it’s fine. It’s like how some people are able to be celibate and some would rather die then never be able to masturbate/have sex. It’s a human need just like any other and some of us have stronger urges than others. It really frustrates me how some people minimalise this.

The primal wound by Nancy verrier and all training given by adoption and fostering services. As an adoptee, this comment is so unbelievably offensive.

it’s worth it to all those involved

The baby isn’t really front and centre of ‘those involved’ though, is it?

Its an object for sale/to be given/trafficked in the case of surrogacy.

As I said, life isn’t fair. Nature isn’t fair. We can’t always have what we want.

Yes, it's a need.

But so do innocent babies have a need to be protected. Babies should not be removed from their birth mother. And so called 'surrogates' also have a need to be protected from exploitation!

A parents' need for a baby does not trump those other needs

when done ethically

There obviously isn’t a consensus on what is ‘ethical’.

Some people think it is a case of paying the mother well. Others think it is about making the ‘transfer’ as non-problematic for the baby, others only in the case of close relatives with continued relationships, others think it can never be ethical.

Thats why it needs to be discussed urgently. Especially since there is a big push at the moment towards commercial surrogacy with no caveats.

Lots of interested parties 🤑

Life isn't fair. Some people are born blind, others disabled. Some people don't find love, others can't have children. That's just life - make the best of what you DO have!

I really do feel for people with unmet needs. Even people who break the law.

However, the society needs protecting from people who would ‘do anything’ to meet a need and those who exploit them. We need laws.

There are different ways to meet needs.

I have a relative, she passed away now, but she was so good with children- absolute natural- so warm, but was unable to have them - devastating for her. She became an amazing Head of a school.

To clarify, babies are humans with human emotions. They learn voices in the womb, they have emotional memories and it is beyond belief that someone would still believe no damage is done removing a baby from its birth parents. In all situations, if a child can stay in that situation it is seen as less traumatic. If they can stay with family instead that is the second option and always explored. If not, they are adopted. Nowadays that is the reason babies and children who come from severe trauma are up for adoption, because the trauma of removal must be less than them remaining in danger at home. Babies can not be immediately adopted, unless through concurrency or foster to adopt which is a high risk situation for adopters as it may not end in adoption but does provide stability for the child. It takes months to assess suitable matches from family and outside adopters. Sometimes babies may be getting over NAS or having their needs fully understood while in foster care prior to adoption. It is not generally a quick process. As adoptees, we know our birth parents could not care for us and as children we often read that as we were not good enough to be cared for. On top of that, we often feel different and have a need to know more about ourselves by meeting our relatives. Equally, we are often terrified of meeting them because we were rejected (through emotional feelings, though this may not be true as such it feels like this to many even if logically we can see why our parents couldn’t care for us) once before and once feels like too much already. It’s associated with deep shame and sadness for many. There is no question adoption is traumatic, but for many that trauma is necessary to keep them alive and has several positive factors too with loving parents who put huge amounts into their children.

Babies sitting in hospitals is different but awful. It risks bringing severe attachment issues, my sister was one of those babies as her mother disappeared. No one person meets their needs and nurses cannot answer all their cries, so they learn to not really cry and not to trust adults because they believe they cannot or will not fulfil their needs. A lack of primary carer has plenty of research around it too.

I wonder if infertility was easier to come to terms with in the days before there were any/many treatment options?

I was devastated to be infertile in my 30s, and although I was funded for 3 IUI cycles, gave up after the second because of the way it had started to dominate my life. Couldn’t even mention it without bursting into tears, so discussed it with nobody but my sister.

When I hit 40, and perimenopause made my periods late, I (of course) wondered if I could finally be pregnant, and the idea filled me with horror! My first thought was, quite honestly, “Oh shit, I won’t be able to retire at 55!” (I was a nurse). Age cured me naturally of my desire to have a baby.

So I wonder if the possibility of having a baby using varying degrees of medical invasion stops people accepting their infertility as they might have done 40\50 years ago?

I'm sorry but no there is no such thing as Ethical Surrogacy.

It is unethical to procure a woman's womb to fulfil a desire for a baby whether money passes hands or not. There is a power imbalance.

One of the ways in which it is clearly not ethical is that it is only an option for those who can afford it.

Where are all the surrogacies for poor women who can't conceive naturally.

If infertility affects your mental health then you can treat it with counselling and/ or medication. It doesn't give you the right to buy a baby.

@MavisMcMinty I agree with you. Both about the availability of options - even though none is a guarantee of a baby - making infertility harder to accept and about age making it easier.

There’s probably something in that, but there used to also be a greater stigma about unmarried mothers and abortion, and women were, I would go as far to say, coerced, to hand over their babies for adoption, and babies had far fewer rights.

Infertile people had much more of a likelihood of adopting someone else’s newborn baby when the mother and child had so few choices/rights.

There is more to being a mother than being the provider of the egg and giving birth. It’s the love, support and all the other emotions that count not the fact you had an egg and gave birth.

For a start, there’s the whole pregnancy and creating a baby in your own body.