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.

I had fertility issues and no I would not have tried anything to get a baby. I realised it wasn’t all about me and my wants.

Try anything? I don't think so.

But you demonstrate exactly how it's more about what the adult wants rather than whats right for the child.

So many reasons (many of them in this thread) why surrogacy is not the best thing for the baby whose rights seem totally subsumed by the 'rights' of people to have babies. Just because it is possible doesn't make it good and absolutely no one has a 'fundamental human right' to be a parent, no matter how much they may want it.

Dd is the result of a few rounds of ivf. It never occurred to me to find a surrogate to create a baby from our remaining embryos. Neither did it occur to me when the embryo implantation failed.

We had our remaining destroyed when it was clear I’d never be able to carry another child.

I would not have been willing to donate them to an infertile couple. The thought of a biological child walking around somewhere was too much for me to bear.

Why if I wasn’t prepared to give my genetic material to another woman, would I ever expect another woman to gestate a child for me?

• remaining embryos destroyed

It has to do with the number of celebrities currently using surrogacy. And it has to do with the current review of legislation in the UK. It has been in the media.

“I’ve noticed a common theme whereby the OP starts off attacking surrogacy and then PPs will bring in gay men going down that route and how that’s bad. They may pepper the post with trans stuff to make it extra sensational. This will be followed by attacks on sperm/egg donation, IVF and even adoption in some cases.”

They tend to naturally follow this pattern because all those issues are relevant. Don’t forgot those posts about people being unable to have children any other way and how sisters do it and the defence of surrogacy arguments as well.

You are attempting to frame it with a narrow view to what the reality is.

The reality is this is people exploiting female bodies to create a child for their own needs. So, exploiting the reproductive capacity of females and exploiting a child.

It is a huge feminist issue, how surprising to see it being portrayed as ‘American Christian think tanks’. It is almost as if more than one group in the world recognise this process for what it is.

Are people discussing it supposed to now feel ashamed they are ‘aligned’ with a group they don’t agree with on some issues or many issues?

Or are feminists allowed to have a voice and offer a different perspective although with the same outcome?

I think there's a scenario where surrogacy can be a very beautiful thing. When you have a willing participant who is not getting paid per se, and who is doing to help out another family, who is motivated by having that connection in their life to another family. I know someone who is keen to be a surrogate, not for the money (because I don't think you can paid in the uk) but because she loves being pregnant, has finished having her children (she has 4) and would love to have a connection to another family. She would do it with a implanted embryo of course, not her own gamete. I think this sounds like a beautiful thing to do, and if the baby can continue to have a relationship (and vice Versa) as they grow up with both their genetic and birth mother then that would be the ideal.

I really struggle when two men are having a baby today, use the surrogate's eggs and then baby is taken away from the birth AND genetic mother with limited access. I just don't see how two men can replace what a woman does. It really bothers me and I worry for the child. Probably an unpopular opinion and not something I have ever said out loud before.

Yes all the women who are anti surrogacy on mn are funded by hard right American think tanks.

YABU the biological mother shares her DNA with the baby, so if she uses her own egg she’s the biological and birth mother, if she uses someone else’s egg she’s the birth mother. Stupid to imply ‘birth mother’ dismisses the pregnancy, it doesn’t, because you have to be pregnant to give birth. You can’t change the actual and legal names just because you don’t agree with surrogacy and egg donation.

I feel really conflicted about surrogacy.

While I do agree that no one has the right to be a parent, I can also understand the heartache (to a lesser degree!) when you can't have a child naturally.
We have DS and would love another DC but it just isn't happening and we're at the point where we are about to give up. It's very upsetting and painful when I see pregnant women because I automatically feel a pang of longing and jealousy. I have to remind myself how lucky we are to have DS who I wouldn't change for the world. Obviously for some couples they can never have their own child for whatever reason, and when everyone tells them to "just adopt", they clearly don't understand how difficult and painful that can be as well.

Does that therefore mean, if they find a woman who is willing to be a surrogate for them, they are wrong? After all, most(?) babies are born out of a selfish want of the parents.

I know (old school acquaintance) a lady who is a traditional surrogate IE she uses her own eggs. She does this willingly and has done this 5 times (3 successfully) as well as having 4 of her own children. It is her body, and she should be able to say what happens to it. But on the other hand, is it morally right?

I find the 'loves being pregnant' argument is highly exploitative too. It leaves a woman open to being exploited, but also highlights that there is 'need' within that woman that leaves others open to being exploited by her too in some situations.

Being a surrogate because you 'love being pregnant' is a problem in itself. If that woman died or was left permanently unable to care for her four children, how has that benefited that woman or that woman's four children. All because she 'loved being pregnant'.

That there is a point of exploitation.

This is such a complicated topic but I feel for all of the birthing mums who have complicated deliveries. We don’t bemoan the fact that the newborn gets placed onto the chest of dad or into the arms of a caring midwife while mum receives vital care, sometimes for hours, potentially for days. Please don’t act like that will then cause lifelong trauma to the baby, who will be feeling the love of its other parent or carers around it. Whether we are the one who birthed the baby or the partner, we all get to know eachother through touch and care over the first days and weeks.

Would you separate a puppy from mum straight away? No we see it as cruel and detrimental yet it's fine for humans to do it. It's about the adults needs and not the baby. Surrogacy is selfish exploiting women and babies for a want.

Thanks for showing how you absolutely cannot understand the relationship between a child and the woman who carried that child to term. On mumsnet no less.

LOL at the all women who are anti surrogacy are funded by the far right.

As a student in the 90's at the University of Sussex surrogacy was one of the topics discussed on my medical ethics course!

This is just, yet another, attempt to shut down valid conversations. Surrogacy is a woman's rights issue (along with rights of the child), isn't it funny how so many women's rights issues are currently framed as 'far right'.

We are not allowed to discuss things that impact us as sex class especially when it comes to others (including men) using our bodies as paid commodities.

Framing this as a homophobic position is a particular tactic. No human has a right to buy a baby, no matter their sexual orientation.

But it does. The mother is the one person who that baby recognises when it's born.

Of course other people cam provide care but in an ideal world for the baby, that care is provided by its mother

I do sympathise with parents who can't have their own baby by natural means, but the animal welfare phrase "don't shop, adopt" springs to mind. It's so important for a newborn mammal to stay with its mother that your aren't allowed to sell cats, dogs or rabbits until they are 8 weeks old, yet its fine for human babies?

Why are you so angry about this on a random Tuesday morning? It's like walking into an argument that's been going on for a while but you've just started the thread.

You may or may not be right (I don't agree with you personally) but the foaming at the mouth rhetoric right out of the gate is not going to help anyone. It does feel goady and unmeasured.

That is unbelievably offensive. Babies are not rescue puppies and adoption is not something the average person, who would make an adequate parent, can or should do, with the best will in the world, because it is extremely challenging.

So is having babies in general though...

Wait what, so leave babies / children in care to create a designer baby?

Having any child is challenging. My two, have additional needs.

No doubt adoption comes with additional issues, I have friends who have adopted but this post, above all, show it's about the parents not about the children.

And now I have my answer as there appears to be an almost timed response to my post about the American hard right with several similarly written ‘LOL’ type discrediting posts written at the same time.

I recall the last thread on surrogacy even had racist posts which had to be deleted by MN.
I’m sick of think tanks using MN talk as a way of driving wedge issues. And no doubt there will be a glut of ‘LOL conspiracy theorist’ posts to follow.

@KimberleyClark That doesn't answer my question. Why is what my friend did wrong in your view? She did it because she wanted to help another couple, and the eggs would have been destroyed otherwise. She certainly wasn't exploited at all. In her particular situation what is the problem?

Over the entire history of time, has buying humans, and legislating for their sale under contract, led to anything good?

Nobody is saying it’s your fault… merely pointing out that separation from the birthing mother absolutely does impact the baby’s development. Gabor Mate and Bruce Perry have some fascinating information on that very topic. You may well still feel surrogacy is ok, but it’s short sighted, and wilfully ignorant to not acknowledge the impact on the baby.