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.

^ Are ALL ffs

I actually think live kidney donation is a very reasonable comparison. Perhaps we should be looking at how living donor organ donation is done as a blue print for the ethical management of surrogacy.

Just a personal experience, but I shared my eggs in return for cheaper IVF. The counselling they gave me was all very one-sided, explaining to me how it was a wonderful thing to do and I very much shouldn't think any children born from my donation as 'my' baby.

The problem was, that was exactly how I felt about it after I'd done it, which I'm sure the counsellor would have told me was misguided. I didn't choose or want to feel that way, I just couldn't help it. I did it because I was desperate to have a baby but after I'd done it, I was tortured by the idea of having a child that was genetically related to me out there somewhere and not knowing whether they were happy, well cared for, or how they would feel about the whole thing. And there was no support available for me- it felt like I was just told there was a right way to think about it and that was that.

It's still something that troubles me to this day. I was too afraid to call the clinic to ask for a long time but in the end I did and the relief when I was told that no children were born from my donation was immeasurable. But I also felt this tremendous guilt because I did conceive, and benefitted in the form of cheap IVF, and what kind of person does that make me to feel like I feel about it.

Agree.
Surrogacy should be banned. It is a hugely exploitative industry.

I'm not sure about the baby feeling unsafe with someone other than the birth mother. How many times has a new mum struggled with a screaming baby who won't be soothed or won't feed and then a midwife or experienced mother takes the baby and the baby settles or takes their feed? I've seen it many many times, I've experienced it myself.

That doesn't mean surrogacy is right or wrong, just something I have observed that doesn't match one of the arguments against surrogacy.

Yes exactly, although it's also important to note some adoption arrangements can be quite coercive especially in the US so important to consider the details. Being a parent is really not the sort of thing that should be "by any means".

when the impact upon the birth mother and baby are likely to be tremendously damaging both physically and psychologically.

It isn't 'tremendously' damaging for the baby. I have an adopted child. She has been significantly impacted by the abuse and neglect she experienced in her birth family. Being separated at birth from her first mother? No - it wouldn't have been ideal, but also not 'tremendously' damaging, not compared with her birth mother putting alcohol in her formula milk for example.

A child should never ever be part of a commercial transaction. There will always be someone with dodgy ethics who will want to capitalise. Where does it all end baby farms, buyers wanting a return???

"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".

So my baby felt stress at being placed in my partners arms immediately after birth while I was being stiched up following my c section? Hopefully she's not traumatised for life...

The difference is that a kidney is not a sentient being who will grow up knowing he or she was given up by his/her birth mother, who may or may not still be around at family
gatherings.

(plus a kidney transplant is life saving rather than life creating. There is even a study into why people make this comparison, when it’s not really a comparable scenario at all)

plus, there are some really weird legal issues around parents by surrogacy in the case of couple separation too - eg a sister could have a baby for her infertile sister using her sister’s partner’s sperm and an anonymous egg donor and the partner could theoretically claim full custody of the baby because the baby is not biologically related to his ex or the ex sister in law, only him.

https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2022/may/break-ups-cause-huge-control-issues-for-those-using-surrogacy

An ex can’t do a runner with the kidney his SIL gave to her sister!

Why do you have the right to be a parent? Why is it goady to ask this?

(I am an adoptive parent by the way. We adopted children who needed a home, we did not buy a woman's body to create them).

It's not a goady thread and infertility does not give you the right to either exploit other womens bodies or stop the rest of us from talking about that exploitation.

OP was correct in what she said, and you likely know that which is why you are so defensive off the bat.

That's a valid point, and consent should be reversible until the baby is finally placed.

And all parties should know that in advance, and make an informed choice based on that.

I have a birth son but tried IUI to have more with DH which didn't work.
My view previously was that surrogacy was ok as long as it wasn't done for financial gain, going to a lovely family who desperately want them.
12yrs later we started Fostering(older children ,) and the training and research I've done in pre birth effects on children, removal from birth mum and handed over to a 'new' person and the effect this has on their lives really makes me question how surrogacy is done.
When a foster child is going to adoption there are several steps where they meet the adoptive parents over time, with the foster parents stepping back so the child can 'attach' which helps the child.
A baby simply handed over at birth is going to suffer. Their only safety has gone and no matter how much love the new parents hive , that is STILL a loss for that baby.
I understand that biological refers to DNA but i do get where OP talks about the gestational mum being biological - she has given ghat embryo life, she has nutured fed and grown that baby, all of those things are biological in nature.
Anything done financially feels immoral and if it continues maybe the time of birth and early life needs to be developed further only for the benefit if the baby, not for ease or convenience of the parents to be.

@LotsofVikings

That's awful.

Can you complain about the bias?

I can totally understand where you are coming from. It's human nature to wonder and a sense of regret is completely understandable to me.

Agree 100% they are a vessel. And from the countries uou refer to, the pittance paid to them feels like a fortune.

That sounds like a massive headfuck
I would imagine your feelings are not unusual and I’m horrified to hear first how one-sided the counselling was (I have read about it in articles but not directly from someone directly affected).

I don't know what posts you are reading. That's not at all accurate., Every thread says this isn't about gay men, we are just as opposed to women in a "conventional family" (whatever that is) re surrogacy.

From anyone with a strong opinion on it its very clear that they mean ALL surrogacy, and not at all the picture you are painting.

@drspouse that's amazing I think people who adopt are incredible. I have a biological son and want to start fostering in 10-15 years time. I know that's not the normal way of doing it but I felt like I didn't have enough experience to care for a kid who's been through stuff yet. The child should always come first, but surrogacy is child-last.

The two aren't comparable. It's great that your adopted child has you. And adoption sounds like a good outcome for your child under the circumstances. But it would also be better if your child had not experienced what happened to them in the first place. So the best outcome was found for them under the circumstances that were beyond their control. Surrogacy is not the same by any stretch of the imagination. We do not start off with the premise of causing children harm. We do rescue them from harm however (as in your case). You're making it around the needs of the adult, not the child, by conflating the two situations.

It's exploitation ultimately.

I think it's completely unethical.

what about the child?

The one deliberately created to be transacted on the fulfillment of an adults wishes? Where is the child’s rights in all of this?

This is not the same as a child being naturally conceived or even assisted in being conceived with an ongoing parent -child relationship. This really is a transaction where a child is sold, even if money has not changed hands.

Yes, there are currently weird legal aspects that should be clarified.

Y'know, there are adopted children who are happy with their adoptive family and don't have a burning need to connect with their birth family. DD would be devastated to lose contact with her older sister, because they grew up together for 7/8 years as sisters. The rest of her birth family? Well, neither one way or the other, she doesn't miss them though is quite happy to say 'hi' from time to time.

She is very connected to previous carers and friends, and would miss them if she lost contact.

So the genetic connection isn't the be all and end all.

This.

@LotsofVikings that's awful, I think the egg exchange programme is so exploitative. I actually wanted to donate eggs for genuinely altruistic reasons but couldn't at the time for health reasons and now I still would but I'm too old! I understand that the eggs are less reliable when you're older but they are prioritising coercing younger women who maybe haven't had children of their own yet over older women who still have eggs but are less likely to feel regret.