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 seems that more people than I thought could be happy with the Brain dead incubator scenario. After all, everyone deserves a baby to cherish. Especially if they can pay for one!

That thought experiment is horrifying on two counts:

1. the women being abused and exploited in the worst possible way.
2. the featuses, incubated in a still and unmoving body. No voices, no walking - no being awake.

Not a very healthy situation in any way imagineable, but there may be a live baby at the end.

But what I can't work out is why you are implying that people who have experience / know people who are adopted have had these issues are making it up? Why are you using this to try to depend the commercial trade of babies?

Where have I defended surrogacy? I'm against it but I don't think it is comparable with adoption.

Of course there is more to being a mother. No one is disputing that the years of care that come later are vital and important in their own right.

But that doesn’t take away from the fact that pregnancy and labour are in themselves an enormously important part of giving life and there is a clear connection between a baby and its birthing mother.

The fact that that bond sometimes has to be severed for the sake of the child’s well-being is accepted in particular circumstances but also comes with the understanding that it is very traumatic for that child who needs skilled and nurturing parents to accommodate that trauma. Why on earth should that situation be actually planned and literally chosen as an option purely for the benefit of the adoptive parent? That seems barbaric to me.

We cannot legislate it as permissible as a response to the anguish of infertility without also allowing it for all sorts of less meritable reasons (too busy with work, avoiding stretch marks etc etc) and I still believe that no matter how devastating for the adults, we cannot put children through the potential devastating trauma of separation at birth just to feed the adults’ needs.

Well in both cases the child is gestated by someone other than the person bringing them up.

I guess that if you see the birth mother as totally irrelevant there is no comparison as surrogacy is trading in babies and reprehensible and adoption is not.

But to suggest that there is no possibility of a comparable impact on the child in both cases of being brought up away from the birth mother seems pretty simplistic to me. It must be human nature to at least wonder about the woman who carried you in pregnancy!

It is though. It is the most wanted loved thing and everyone involved is doing what they can for that baby. This could go round for ever.

A wonderful idea!

It must be human nature to at least wonder about the woman who carried you in pregnancy!

I imagine there is something more powerful than just ‘wondering’ - more like feeling an emotional wound from the trauma- non-intellectual and visceral.

I’m tempted to leave this thread now. So much black and white thinking and no discussion on how to make it legal and ethical, so not much more I can add really.

A lot of big assumptions here 🙄 yep I’m out

I agree, I talked about it earlier.

My friend who was adopted at birth and was brought up in a very loving adoptive family has always felt that something is missing. It has affected her entire life.

Surely it’s an assumption to suggest that babies aren’t affected by being separated from their mothers? 🤔

It's not assumptions though it is based on research and anecdotal evidence from people who were brought up by adoptive parents.

It is obvious it is going to upset those who think a surrogate mother is no more than a vessel. It doesn't make it untrue.

Hmmm - either receiving the womb of a dead woman or requiring a living woman to undergo major surgery. A womb is not a life saving organ.

I think surrogacy is grotesque. There is a tiny number of women who will do it freely, as a gift to a childless couple. But as others have said, that doesn't take the child's attachment needs into account.

I do wonder what goes on in the minds of (the very few) volunteer surrogates. Ain't no way I'd carry a child for nine months to give it away.

Commercial womb renting is just a particularly abusive arm of the prostitution industry. All payments for eggs and womb space should be illegal. Then see how many women choose to do it.

It’s not a thing
It’s a human being

you can talk about how loved and wanted the baby blah blah blah is the fact remains the renting of another woman’s body for the purposes of growing a baby to order for others will never be ethical.
The fact remains the baby is being removed from their birth mother not for their own safety - as in the derisory unfit mother /adoption argument being put forward here - but because one or two complete strangers have one way or another bought the child.

it’s basically a dystopian nightmare that would never come to pass if men were the ones that gave birth.

as a society we are unravelling if we continue to debate that the anguish of infertility somehow overcompensates for or washes away what is ultimately the baby trade in the case of surrogacy.

So much black and white thinking and no discussion on how to make it legal and ethical

That's because people feel that the whole concept of 'surrogacy' to produce a baby for someone else is WRONG and should never be made legal

It is though. It is the most wanted loved thing and everyone involved is doing what they can for that baby

It may be the most desired 'thing' in the world that someone is absolutely desperate for.

It is simply not fair on the innocent baby (that has to be removed from its birth mother) and it is not fair on the 'surrogate' being used to make the baby for you!!

Thank you for posting this. I'm an adopter. My children are so loved, have their material wants and needs met, have lovely experiences and a happy life. None of that makes up for the effects of being removed from their birth mother. They are well and thriving, but that doesn't make it okay, and I can see the impact it has had and still has. The best thing for them would have been to be born to their birth mother and been safely able to stay with her. Creating babies to deliberately remove from their birth mother, to meet the wants of the adults involved, is selfish. It is never done in the best interests of the child, or with acknowledgement that the adults are willing to risk harmful, potentially lifelong effects on that child, to get what they want.

Has anyone else watched Mimi? It’s a Bollywood film and there are some aspects of it I don’t agree (such as the overall messaging that motherhood trumps any career dreams etc) but it actually looks at what happens when surrogates are used abroad.

.Did I really just read that a child should be deliberately created and at least one woman’s body exploited because some one might be suicidal?

Did I really read that as a justification?

And people are complaining that others understand the ethical issues, so are more ‘black and white’ about the exploitation of children and women to produce a designer child on demand to fulfill an adult’s wish.

Blimey. People understand that there is no such thing as ‘ethical’ surrogacy because they don’t believe that transactions that involve the deliberate creation of a child that is to be born through surrogacy can be ethical. Because at the very least the child has been exploited.

What is also astounding to read is that there are people on this thread that seem to believe that this exploitation of another human being is ok. Because they are given love in return.

Alright then. Exploitation is perfectly fine, it seems, if love is being given as payment. I guess love, a fabulous home, lots of luxuries makes exploitation of another human beingacceptable then.

Good to know.

Baby factories actually exist .

www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/9/13/ukraines-baby-factories-the-human-cost-of-surrogacy

@BiscuitLover3678
I saw this... thought the exact same...

“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.”

Fuck! I wasn’t dreaming it last night when I skimmed through!

You, a poster who asserts there is such thing as ‘ethical surrogacy’, cannot see the completely unethical mastery in this paragraph you wrote!

There is no fucking way to ever dress up surrogacy to be an ethical prescription to prevent an adult human committing suicide!

I think any reader who has made it this far in the thread will now understand that you don’t actually understand ethics. You don’t understand exploitation of other humans.

”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.”

Of course the debate goes round and round when you have no understanding of ethics.

Then in the next post you wrote this gem:

”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.”

If you have such a poor understanding of ‘ethics’, you are going to always be unhappy that others can recognize when ethical boundaries are crossed!

You have now brought in the other way human beings are exploited. Sex. So, do you also believe that prostitution is not exploiting another human body for someone’s ‘need’.

Would you also prescribe a prostitution as a suicide prevention treatment?

“It is the most wanted loved thing and everyone involved is doing what they can for that baby. ”

Fuck! The doors on ethics are wide open here.

So, what other exploitative actions are ok to be dismissed as ‘ethical’ because the result is that ‘thing’ will be much wanted and loved?

And exploitation is fine as long as everyone is doing what they can for that ‘thing’!

You know what that ‘thing’ is? A human being that has been created to prevent an adult from committing suicide or to fulfill the need to have a child that is so bad that other human beings are exploited to remove that need for that adult.

Readers, have the red flags been taken notice of yet? Is the alarm bell being heard?

”So much black and white thinking and no discussion on how to make it legal and ethical, so not much more I can add really.”

Thanks though for showing us what you consider the ‘middle ground’ you assured us earlier really did exist.

I just read the plot of it - that’s really deep and seems to cover so many of the ethical questions about surrogacy.