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.

When my mum was adopted nearly 70 year ago, no one really understood (cared?) how that might affect a baby/child/future adult. The rhetoric was just that she should be grateful to have been rescued from poverty and given a happy life.

She DID have a very happy life, with lovely parents. But that didn't mean that she was able to completely forget the fact that she was adopted. These days the effects of adoption on the child are so much better understood, and adopted children are given much better support. I'm sure we could get to the same position with children born through surrogacy and/or donor conceived. But only if those driving these procedures are willing to have the discussions (and listen!)

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

Absolutely not true. You are projecting.

There are lots of issues around surrogacy and exploitation (as there are around egg and sperm donation) but ultimately the contents of my uterus and what I chose do with them is my business. If I choose to carry a baby for someone- we'll it's my choice. You don't have to like it any more than you have to like it if I terminate.

The "won't someone think of the babies" arguement doesn't hold water here any more than it does if I chose to terminate or have baby number 6 as a single mum on benefits.

My body, my choice.

You are completely right OP.

I used to work with therapists, (and have experience of being in therapy myself) and they told me there has been a lot of studies on the bond babies form with their mothers in utero. Learning about this was a key aspect of their training. I'm quite surprised none of the big therapy organisations - bacp or ukcp - have stepped forward to condemn surrogacy.

The "won't someone think of the babies" arguement doesn't hold water here any more than it does if I chose to terminate or have baby number 6 as a single mum on benefits.

You're implying "thinking of the babies" as a stance is some form of hysteria. Do you feel this way about other extremely vulnerable groups in society having their needs considered?

I don't see the equivalence you're trying to make between surrogacy and termination and a mother on benefits raising 6 kids. It seems you find these other two scenarios distasteful but in neither case is the trauma of separation of infant from attachment figure intentionally commissioned by several adults, with only the needs of the adults held in mind.

A far closer equivalence to the trauma of surrogacy would be America forcibly separating child undocumented immigrants from their parents at the border.

Those babies are already on the way, or here. Surrogacy is deliberately creating new babies into less than ideal circumstances (with an ugly side serve of exploitation and profiteering).

Just want to point out, as an adult adoptee, it’s actually incredibly hard to find and access this counselling as adoption charity counsellors often won’t take anyone with a history of mental health issues because they are deemed too complex.

Equally, adoption can be different. The most similar situation is where donor egg and sperm are used because then there is no genetic link. There is (or at least often is) an impact that relates to wanting to meet those who have a genetic link to you. On top of this, babies and children who are adopted have experienced in utero or pre-birth trauma, even in cases where it was seen as impossible to keep a baby out of wedlock, the Mum would have had plenty of stress prior to birth and sometimes baby had multiple primary carers after birth. In modern day UK adoption, babies and children have usually been through very severe trauma including severe neglect (think eating their own nappies due to lack of food or never having experienced a table or a bed or a toothbrush) and/or abuse and sometimes trauma in utero including domestic abuse or exposure to drugs and alcohol that can cause life long brain damage and is often hard to definitively diagnose if missed in the pregnancy. Mums may also not have engaged with medical services during pregnancy.

Im not particularly pro-surrogacy, but in cases where it’s done well some of the damage can be eschewed by exposing the child to the parents voices in utero etc. Much like the research where premature babies often experience trauma, both medical trauma and a multitude of carers, however a lot is now being done to change this (as it’s a life saving situation and unavoidable if baby is ill) such as extra skin to skin with parents, voices played to baby on tapes in the NICU, a blanket or toy that smells of the parents being used etc.

Having said that, I do think that children through surrogacy need further rights to access knowledge. Adoption can also feel like the ‘only way’ parents can have a child, especially after IVF, but is very heavily vetted before any parent is allowed to proceed. Surrogacy seems to have very little discussion around the child’s needs and I think that needs to be weighted better in future. It is true that babies take on so much through the pregnancy, but there are often difference to adoption itself.

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 you’re wrong.

There are lots of issues around surrogacy and exploitation (as there are around egg and sperm donation) but ultimately the contents of my uterus and what I chose do with them is mybusiness. If I choose to carry a baby for someone- we'll it's my choice.

To some extent it is. You need medical support to get your eggs out, or implant an embryo made from someone else's gametes. Many would argue that those medical procedures should not be available to you.

I don't know if it has been said already but the surrogate mother would have a genetic impact on the child they are carrying through epigenetics. Genes provided by the donors could be expressed (switched on or off) in a very different way depending on the birth mother. So, the diet of the birth mother can impact on the baby's metabolism and if the birth mother is chronically stressed during pregnancy then that can impact on brain development. She still would not be considered their biological parent but you couldn't say that she had no genetic influence on the baby.

In that case biological dads don’t exist?? Do you only believe in genetic fathers?

And how much consideration is given to the babies Bon of those donations? The babies who will grow up into adults with a sense of something being missing in their identity hence why they might want to look for you when they turn eighteen?

What about your existing children? How do you explain to them that they have siblings out there who you don’t know, who they will never know and who hopefully won’t be able to trace them.

People talk of egg and sperm donation as if it’s just a couple of cells and job done. But it isn’t. When you donate eggs/sperm it impacts someone who didn’t ask to be born into a family where they don’t biologically belong, to have siblings they will never know. And the siblings have no say in whether their sibling is potentially born to people they will never know.

There has been a huge amount of research done into the damage caused to the babies of donor sperm/eggs, hence why the law has changed.

Dads don’t carry babies, they still have as close a bond with their babies as the mum who carries them. So why wouldn’t a parent have as close a bond with their child even if they weren’t able to carry them. I don’t like commercial surrogacy for the reasons already mentioned but I don’t buy the argument that the baby will be traumatised from being ‘ripped from the birth mum’ if they’re going straight to the intended parents.

@ChienChatCheval ChienChatCheval · Today 04:29
@justgettingthroughtheday · Today 03:42

Go away with your goady threads.
For some of us it is our only chance of being parents through no fault of our own. Just because you were lucky enough to carry children doesn't make you judge of other people.
Being a parent isn’t a right. You’re not entitled to it. You shouldn’t be allowed to rent a woman and her womb because you want a baby. You post shows that it’s all about the wants of adults and nothing to do with the resulting baby.

I think using egg and sperm donors in any circumstances is wrong too.

It should all be banned imo

This^

Yes I think you are right OP. You make a good point

Do you have any links to research that supports this? Not being goady there, am genuinely interested. I agree with your points about the importance of bonding immediately after birth, but I’d assumed that as long as someone loving immediately took on this role and did it well, that was the main thing. (Completely agree that the idea of babies sitting in clinics for months is abhorrent).

I don’t have a stake in this, but do feel incredibly lucky to have been able to give birth to my own children, and have always thought surrogacy in the case of a willing participant (who isn’t doing it for the desperate need for money) and an infertile couple that will meet the needs of the baby from day 1 isn’t such a terrible thing, but your post has really made me question that.

I am in the unique position to have experienced both— my partner is a woman and I have carried both children generically linked to me and to her (but not me). We wondered if it would be any different— but my non genetic baby absolutely recognises me as the “mother” and is slowly building a bond with my wife over time (very similar to how a baby would with dad, and it’s lovely to see)

Surrogacy absolutely doesn’t take into consideration the needs of the child, it’s all about the parents. I think if you solely look at the needs of the child it’s impossible to find an ethically sound argument.

I once chatted with a Chinese couple in an airport that had gone to the US on a tourist visa months earlier to engage an American surrogate and were then in the process of taking their weeks-old baby back to China. They didn’t have any fertility problems, they explained, they just wanted their baby to have US citizenship so he could live and work there in the future without needing authorization.

If that isn’t the height of cheeky fuckery I don’t know what is. Fucking hell. Can’t believe the Americans haven’t shut that sort of thing down already.

I agree with you OP.

I'm not against surrogacy in every situation, but I do believe that a baby born to a surrogate mother deserves a relationship with her in addition to their relationship with their intended parents. She is their mother. They may well have other mothers, but she is still their mother and they deserve to have her in their life.

I am against commercial and international surrogacy in all its forms.

@MayThe4th

My son has known that his mum has donated egg/gametes to enable other women to conceive, raise and love her baby the same as his mum loves him, since he was about 4 years old. He's now almost 12, I can assure you - he really didn't give it a second thought.

As for the mother of the child, I imagine she will navigate that in a very similar way as to the way women who adopt very young babies will navigate it. After all, those adopted babies have no say in where they live, who raises them etc either do they? Or shall we stop adoption too?

Again, the change in the law enables the child (of which there was one male child born from my donation) to have access to my details when they reach 18. If they so wish, they can contact me. Again, similar to when adopted children set out to find their birth parent/s.

The language surrounding egg donation is very strange on here, no longer is it just a cell/not a human/the egg has 'rights' to where it ends up but the language changes to suit the agenda when womens rights surrounding abortion is being discussed. Then the embryo/fetus doesn't seem to have the same ones. That's not to say I disagree with abortion, I don't, it's simply an observation on wording!

I'm sorry I've been through infertility but never considered surrogacy. The reason people are so against it is right here in your post. This was YOUR chance to be a parent, it's all about what YOU needed/wanted. No mention at all in your post of what may have been best for the CHILD produced 🤷

@BoredOfThisMansWorld the idea that newborns are traumatised by removal at birth from their surrgogate (birth) mother and being raised by an adoptive parent is a theory not a fact. Interestingly it's a trauma that doesnt manifest if the birth mother dies or babies are accidentally swapped at birth, or if a wet nurse or nanny is used- those babies simply bond to their new caregiver. Which makes me suspect that those that claim otherwise for surrogacy have an agenda.

The language surrounding egg donation is very strange on here, no longer is it just a cell/not a human/the egg has 'rights' to where it ends up

Where has anyone said that eggs have rights?

So do people who have babies to get more benefits. That's even worse imo. Those babies are likely to jabe worse long term outcomes if their parents can't even afford them 🤷‍♀️