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 is it offensive? Surely we would aim to have higher welfare standards for children than we would for new born puppies and kittens? Or at least the same? No?

You can’t buy kidneys from poor people, why should it be ok to buy babies grown by poor women?

Do you think a woman who 'loves to be pregnant', or who 'needs to be pregnant' to fulfill a need in them should be considered someone making an 'informed choice'? What about if the woman has children of her own that she will leave without a mother to do this?

Donating a kidney should be a well structured operation and should hopefully be much more straight forward. Carrying a child is for 9 months. And so much can happen in that 9 months. As we see through anecdotal reports and studies.

Plus donating a kidney is saving a life. How is having a child created for you 'saving a life'?

I don't believe the two scenarios are comparative.

"Go away with your goady threads. For some of us, an organ transplant is our only chance of surviving, through no fault of our own. Just because you have functioning organs doesn't make you the judge of people who want to purchase organs from desperate people in developing countries."

Your body isn't doing DNA testing in utero, as far as it's concerned the baby it is growing is your baby. Humans are mammals, it's very suspicious how the whole medical establishment hammers home the importance of the fourth trimester to mum & baby but - oh - suddenly it doesn't matter if a very very rich person wants to buy your baby!

It may be a selfish act. But we generally should consider the need and wellbeing of the child in this act of selfishness. There's being selfish. And then there's the use of children commercially. We might want children. But certainly not at the cost of harm to other vulnerable women and the children themselves.

@mixedrecycling but the baby doesn't get a choice, they're taken from the only mother they know.

How does bringing up all adverse possibilities a child may experience justify the exploitation of at least one woman, if not two, to create a child to fulfill the needs of the purchaser?

This ☝️☝️☝️

You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of infertility or the pain women are going through on that journey. Do you think any infertile woman wants another woman to carry their child for them??! Who the fuck would choose that. Infertility is one of the toughest journeys you can go on, and having other women shitting on you and judging you for a medical condition is just twisted

I haven't said it is.

I have said that there should be a similar regulatory environment for people who choose to do either. You shouldn't be able to buy a kidney or buy a body to gestate a baby.

Adults in a position to make an informed choice - e.g. to help a close relative - should be able to make that choice.

I don't think it does justify exploitation.

I can imagine some scenarios where no-one is exploited, but are making informed choices about their body.

What is often not discussed either is that carrying an infant that is not your's biologically is much more stressful on the body.

There is a large increase in risk to the woman carrying that baby.

TBF you are both right!

Babies should be treated with at least as much dignity as puppies (not taken from mother at birth unless absolutely unavoidable and only when in the child’s best interest) and adoption should be entered into carefully and deliberately and not as a casual back up plan (my teens often say ‘I’ll just adopt’ as a kind of throwaway comment, but that’s because they are not fully mature humans and are in able to understand how there is no ‘just’ about it!)

Children in the looked after system have already been let down once and adoptive parents need to be really committed and prepared for how difficult raising an adopted child can be.

Sadly, some people who know they don’t have a cats chance in hell of passing the vetting required to adopt simply bypass the need for those checks via commercial surrogacy, where money rules all.

I think the two are comparable, so we'll have to agree to differ.

It's about adults making a choice over their body. There needs to be regulation to assess whether the adults involved ARE making an informed choice, and those regulations should be rigorous.

The only form of surrogacy that I find acceptable is for women unable to conceive and birth a baby themselves

By finding this perfectly acceptable ^^^

The current fashion for the rich and/or celebrity mothers who seem to not want to disturb their bodies or lifestyles but want babies I find appalling. Wanting to snatch the baby and run straight after delivery is similarly offensive

It also makes this acceptable in society ^

The process and outcome is exactly the same for the baby involved. You can't advocate for one, but not the other. That's hypocritical.

Many infertile people on this thread, myself included, who clearly do have an understanding of how painful it is, have said they are against surrogacy. No one is judging anyone for having a medical condition. But the bottom line is no one has a right to have a child. Life is unfair. Nature is unfair. We have to deal with that.

Unfortunately coercive relationships exist within families and even the most well intended surrogacy can agreements break down resulting in split families and irreparably broken relationships.

There is no way to legislate for that.

It's so untrue that people don't care about the pain of infertility, it's that people don't agree that it justifies literally any methods of procuring a genetically-related baby.

"Adults in a position to make an informed choice - e.g. to help a close relative - should be able to make that choice."

And who is going to provide the depth of questioning to identify whether or not that close relative is being emotionally coerced, and it might not even be deliberate emotional coercion?

Considering the stories of even wonderfully close sisters suffering irreparable damage to their relationship over surrogacy, I think it is beginning to become clear that there are very few scenarios where this will work. And what is true for those 'close relatives' now, may be not true in the future as they process their experiences.

The same for donating a kidney

You think that having a surrogate carry a child for someone is life saving?

I keep thinking about the 'it's hard being an adoptive parent' angle on being pro-surrogacy on the basis that adoptive children are damaged goods.

There is no guarantee that a baby conceived by surrogacy will be perfect either, what happens if the scans show birth defects? Are they legally obligated to carry on with the process in those circumstances?

I know there was an Austrailian case with a down syndrome baby who ended up cared for by the birth mother in the end, but what happens if the IPs reject the child as not perfect?

You have very naive views about surrogacy if you think the individuals who want another woman to carry a child for them are either a) infertile or b)a woman.

it is also not remotely twisted to find surrogacy a morally as well as ethically repugnant “solution” to childlessness when the impact upon the birth mother and baby are likely to be tremendously damaging both physically and psychologically.

No, but I think women should be able to decide what they do with their own body.

There needs to be protection against exploitation. But also if a woman decides to carry a child on behalf on someone else, knowing the risks, they I think they should be able to.

I wouldn't want to, I wouldn't think many would. But just as I wouldn't tell another woman that they should or shouldn't have an abortion, I wouldn't tell them they shouldn't have a baby.

At the time of signing "consent" it is quite literally impossible to know how you will feel towards a hypothetical child you give birth to that doesn't even exist. When that baby is real and a part of you it's no wonder so many mums change their minds.