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's morally abhorrent to commission a baby and insult to injury to then legislate to eviscerate that child's claim to its rightful mother. I don't give a fuck about the hurt feelings around this, it is wrong.

Fathers don't have as close a bond to their children when born, it's why so many are able to walk away from their kids 🤦‍♀️

Yes, of course the woman who bears a baby is the mother. She's the only person who has provided care for the baby at the time it is born.

I don’t doubt newly born baby seeks the body and comfort of the body that nurtured and grew it.

The voices we are not hearing are those of grown children, born of surrogacy.

I’m going to surmise that just as inter-country, adopted-as-children adults seek their ‘missing’ mothers/culture when they come of age, so too will children born of surrogacy. They will possibly want to know and understand the owner of the egg they grew from, and the body that grew them.

I can’t imagine, having had a ‘naice’ British/American/Australian upbringing, the shock of coming face to face with your biological and/or birth mother in some poor Indian/Thai village, and not even being able to speak her language.

YANBU. It’s human trafficking. And all about the wants of the commissioning parents, not the right of the baby not to be taken away from its mother.

It’s an abhorrent practice which should be completely illegal.

And these aren’t “goady threads”- you’re rightly being held accountable for colluding in commodifying motherhood, taking a baby off its mother and renting a woman’s uterus.

But the baby doesn't bond the same if they're born by caesarean and don't do skin to skin with the mother. They also don't bond in the same way if they're not breastfed. Are you saying that people who actively choose an elective c section or those who don't want to breastfeed are also causing trauma to their baby?

I’m so on the fence with this.

Lack of identity, I really identify with. I was left on the doorstep of a Romanian orphanage as a newborn (lost children of 1980’s Romania). I have no idea about who I am or where I’m from. I don’t have any idea about hereditary illnesses or even my exact birth date. Although I’m almost 40, this still does suck. I can imagine this is how some surrogate babies feel.

I was also a commodity. My adoptive parents purchased me from said orphanage when I was a few weeks/months old. They were vague about details and zero paperwork exists. I won’t disclose too much about why they purchased me, but it wasn’t for a desire to have a baby. Although they gave me the most beautiful upbringing (materially), I never felt connected with them. I can imagine this is how some surrogate babies feel.

Purchasing a woman for renting her womb is wrong.

But then I look at the little girl who currently lives across the road from me, who is only 3. She’s just had her eggs frozen as she’s undergoing brutal chemotherapy for cancer which will leave her infertile, if she survives. And then I think how fucking cruel is the world to take the opportunity of choice of being a parent away from such a small and innocent child?

Rich people and celebrities who use surrogacy so they don’t ruin their bodies are just scum. I think when a sister or friend or parent is the surrogate then it can work, but exploiting women isn’t the answer.

I find the concept of foreign surrogacy akin to foreign sex tourism.
Go to a country where the laws are loose and order baby comparative to going to buy underage sex .
The attitude of paying for something you want and disregarding ethics is incredible..

I hope people are aware that often women are forced into being surrogates and criminal gangs are behind the glossy xlinic webpages in Eastern Europe. Women and babies die in this shady business.

That article is utterly terrifying. Thankyou for sharing.

I guess it’s good we can all individually believe what we want because I don’t agree with you.

True. But as adults, the children of sperm doners seek their biological fathers, and when the law was against them, there was much emotional turmoil. This is why anonymous sperm donation is no longer possible.

what we know for sure, is that people want to know who their genetic parents are. I’m going to guess that they will want to know who their birth mothers are, too.

Not at birth they don’t. If they are good, present Dads then they develop that bond over the comings days, weeks, months and years. Which parent gave birth is unlikely to be the deciding factor in which parent an 18year feels they have a stronger bond with. But at 2 minutes old? 2 days old? 2 weeks old? It makes a huge difference. Mothers have a months long head start on that bond from the baby’s point of view. It’s not helpful to lie to Dads (or mums in lesbian couples where their wife is the one giving birth) about this either. It can come as a bit of a shock when you were expecting your newborn to love you both the same, and they don’t.

But then I look at the little girl who currently lives across the road from me, who is only 3. She’s just had her eggs frozen as she’s undergoing brutal chemotherapy for cancer which will leave her infertile, if she survives. And then I think how fucking cruel is the world to take the opportunity of choice of being a parent away from such a small and innocent child?

Poor little thing. But I thought egg freezing was only possible for girls who have gone through puberty?

The person who provided the egg is the biological mother.
The person who went through the pregnancy is the birth mother.
And the person who raises the child is the mother.

The woman who provides the egg is the genetic mother, and there is a genetic relationship with any of her other children by whatever means those children come are conceived.

The woman who gives birth is the birth mother and as birth is a biological process she is the biological mother. See fetal microchimerism and DNA methylation.

The parents - of either sex - raise the child are the social and usually also the legal parents (if they have had a parental order in the U.K., though this process is set to change - see nordicmodelnow.org/2023/04/01/ask-your-mp-to-say-no-to-commercial-style-surrogacy-in-the-uk/

This

I agree. Everyday there seems to be a new thread started in the middle of the night on surrogacy with PPs whipping themselves into escalating levels of frenzy. It almost seems like a coordinated campaign. It’s nasty.

I’m under no illusion some surrogates are exploited and that more safeguards could be considered but in many many cases surrogacy is completely fine for all parties including the child.

People become parents in many different ways and this campaign against a particular set of parents is not in the spirit.

Agree. Having a child is ultimately a selfish act (unless perhaps you are adopting an underprivileged child from somewhere that has been abandonded). There are examples all the time that show people are putting themselves before their child, it's a sliding scale and you can't really say everything is ok except for surrogacy.

What makes you think it’s an automatic right to have a baby? It’s not

@ChienChatCheval why do you think egg/sperm donation should be banned? I absolutely agree with the point about surrogacy- the babies are treated like bags of rice for sale and traumatised (as are the women often), but I don’t see the same with egg/sperm donation. Those aren’t babies to be damaged, and the resulting babies are raised by the mother they know, the one who gestated them.

Just because you are infertile does not give you the right to shut down debates about the ethics of ways of overcoming infertility. I say this as an infertile person.

If it’s the surrogates egg then yes she is the biological mother. If it’s a donor egg then no, she is not the biological mother. It’s that simple.

If you want to go into a debate about whether surrogacy is right or not you really need to present your argument in other ways as trying to change fact isn’t going to help your argument . Move away from the genetic side of things and try to focus on the ethics if you feel the need to

I am probably in the wrong focusing so much on technical terms perhaps, but my wider point still stands that surrogacy is exploitive to both mother and baby for the reasons stated in the OP.

Not at all OP, if you think about the language and labels of how the way the surrogacy industry and media manipulated stories on surrogacy, often erasing the biological mother completely ("born through surrogacy") your focus is entirely appropriate and relevant.

In adoption the biological mother is often called the birth mother - in surrogacy she is the 'surrogate'. It doesn't take much to understand why 'mother' is completely done away with.

For many people having someone else’s organ is their only chance of not dying. Should we allow the sale of human organs?

I don’t know the full details to be perfectly honest. It may have been her ovaries that have been frozen. Either way, it is truly sad.

No, of course we shouldn’t. Nor should we disallow altruistic surrogacy.