Has anyone had a baby via surrogacy?

[highsexdriveonhol]

Posting for traffic as no one replied to the surrogacy area (fully aware probably the worst place to post but need answers!)

Disclaimer: this is NOT a thread about the ethics of surrogacy - please don't come here with posts about how you don't agree with surrogacy blah blah it's not what the thread is for and you'd be wasting your breath.

I'm exploring all routes of starting a family and to be honest, not convinced this route is for me but I feel only right to consider everything before drawing a line.

So I wanted to hear about positive and negative experiences of surrogacy from parents that did this to have a family.

Did it go well or not well for you, would you do it again?

Are there trauma issues for the child in your experience? Did you struggle to bond with the child?

Ideally looking for couple that used their own sperm and egg where possible.

Thanks in advance x

Well you said it wasn't as uncommon as they think, so I wondered how you know what they think. It's quite a good skill, you could make money with mind reading.

Why should anyone have to declare what they do you asked me to go first which implies you are going to follow on.

Nothing I said was shaming, it was illustrating the way I think we can help people. If anyone is trying to shame people I think it is you, personally I feel great sympathy for anyone struggling with infertility and my heart breaks thinking of a woman having to hand over a child she has carried for 9 months so that she can provide for her other children.

Well I disagree with you, I don't think banning the symptom (surrogacy) is the answer, I think making sure no one needs to do it from economic necessity is the answer. So you do your thing if you think you are right but I think anyone who gets as worked up about someone else's opinion isn't that sure of their way but any organisation that is managing to help all the poor and underprivileged women in the world is pretty amazing but of course it isn't happening is it.

Actually we ALL have poor understanding of risks. Including doctors. Plenty of research on this and how we minimise this especially if it suits our agenda.

Again the wrong way round, no one should be so poor that they would consider selling their organs. I hope you can manage to see the difference.

But according to you we shouldn't ban surrogacy until poverty is eradicated. So in the meantime we have to legalise prostitution, organ sales, and any other way for poor women to make money.

”you asked me to go first which implies you are going to follow on.”

and I did ‘follow on’.

“Nothing I said was shaming, it was illustrating the way I think we can help people.”

By questioning “are they (posters on this thread) doing anything to prevent that need”. The ‘implication’ being that they were not. You didn’t assume posters were doing it you posed the question in such a way to presume they were not. You even repeated it.

“If people feel strongly about poor women being surrogates as they have no viable financial options are they doing anything to prevent that need? It is all very well to say a poor woman shouldn't be exploited but say that woman can't feed her children or she has a sick child and she can't pay for the necessary medical treatment, what are you doing about it?”

Great. We disagree. I see logical inconsistency in your argument to allow surrogacy to be legal as a fall back. So, it is unethical, open to trafficking women to meet demand and for women to continue to be coerced financially while governments take their time to ban it while fixing a nation’s economy, but you want to allow it until complex economic and inherent poverty issue is ‘fixed’. Then it will be ok to ban. And if that country never is able to provide the economic fixes to elevate women out of poverty, that country will continue to grow its surrogacy trade. And as other countries adopt bans and measures to ensure illegal surrogacy is stopped, that country’s women become ever more targets for others creating infants on demand and exploiting women. Making both women and children commodities.

“any organisation that is managing to help all the poor and underprivileged women in the world is pretty amazing but of course it isn't happening is it.”

I am very comfortable with my own position thanks. I also know that there are organisations who are working within at least some of these countries where possible to provide meaningful support while governments sort out their economic issues and their support initiatives. It is absolutely right though that not enough is being done. So I am not sure what you think ‘is not happening’.

Or do you mean that educating those women and men who choose to exploit women’s bodies and infants to fulfill their wants that it is unethical in most instances (maybe all instances) is not happening? Yes, I would definitely agree that is not happening at all.

Well that's huge jump. Where did I say any of that? Let's turn it round, you are saying it is OK for women to be so poor they would contemplate doing any of that. Is that what you are saying? It is the logical follow on to your interpretation of what I said.

What I think having listened to you and others is that hectoring and lecturing people doesn't solve the problem and it doesn't win converts. I actually have mixed feelings about the whole subject because I feel for both sides of the equation but at the end of this thread you have made me feel more sympathetic to people who would use a surrogate as they have to put up with your moral high ground.

Cool.

So you aren't actually centering the child and poor/vulnerable women

You make it an issue of parity where you perceive equality of argument between rich couple and vulnerable groups.

All because you don't like the tone of certain posters.

Slow handclap...

Well done. There's critical thinking and logic for you.

I would like to know if there is a particular trigger suggestion for when it would be appropriate to ban surrogacy where women are left with little options? And what is the back up timeline if the country never reaches that trigger point?

yes, red it is always to do with 'tone'.

However, for every poster who takes exception to the 'tone', there are more readers who start to actually see clarity in the emotionally charged arguments. Who start to dig past the emotionally manipulative posts and realise that actually even 'altruist' surrogacy has the potential to be of huge risk to women. And all too often women who have their very own children and are sometimes single mothers, who simply don't consider or cannot consider the risk that their decision will leave their own children with a mother who can not look after them.

Once the emotional aspect is cut through, there will be posters reading who then think... I hadn't thought of that and will go and think some more.

I find posters who admonish others for not speaking moderately or not 'being kind', or 'for challenging those who should be challenged', tend to not have a clearly thought out position. Or they do but cannot articulate it because they would then be considered hectoring and lecturing.

To add. That all too often the suggestions or positions of those admonishing for 'tone', have no viable solution. Such as the suggestion that no countries should ban surrogacy if women still have no means to feed their children. WTAF? So, people should still exploit those women until such time as some government provides a welfare system?

It is usually the case though. They suggest a completely unworkable solution while in the meantime that country becomes even more of a destination for exploiting women. It lacks consistency and it shows a complete lack of understanding the integral facts of how women and children are being exploited and what protections are needed.

Well done you, you have done a wonderful PR job for being compassionate and seeing it is a difficult topic and zealots aren't very attractive people.

Please keep on Iwasafool. Your denigration of women who don't adhere to your demands for tone is very clear. It was clear in the post you tried to explain as not being posted to shame women who wished to discuss the topic of ethics and surrogacy.

Actually. This is such an eye opener of a post.

Compassion? What compassion are you referring to? Compassion for women who are infertile? Compassion for women being exploited, because any surrogacy is exploiting a woman’s body regardless of whether it is voluntary, altruistic or for profit? Compassion for the child who reaches adulthood with questions about how and why their life came into being ?

Have you shown any compassion for women being exploited in their own country because surrogacy is legal and you have just told us that the country shouldn’t ban surrogacy until they fix the poverty situation? Is that your idea of compassion?

Or do you mean that compassion should dictate that ethical discussions should not be had on surrogacy threads? Or that compassion means that the facts should either not be stated or be softened with words muddling clarity?

It IS a very difficult topic. That doesn’t mean that the discussion shouldn’t be had. And that misconceptions should be allowed to be unaddressed. It doesn’t mean that ethical inconsistencies shouldn’t be pointed out.

But calling posters zealots? Gosh… now we are in name calling territory. It goes with the hyperbolic use of ‘hectoring’ and ‘lecturing’ while your second post was written questioning other’s efforts and motives. All while denying it was to shame anyone. I am very sure I am not the only person reading who found your explanation disingenuous. Yet, you are here telling the thread how we are ‘zealots’. Has anyone called you a name that deserved this censure?

Or did we just disagree and clearly tell you why?

And seriously??? Attractive people???

That really is something to see on a thread discussing such a feminist issue.

So, yes. Please do keep it coming. Have you got anything to actually contribute or is censuring others all you have?

Logic isn't your strong point but A* in denial!

Show me where I said, So in the meantime we have to legalise prostitution, organ sales, and any other way for poor women to make money. I didn't say that at all, I said we need to ensure no woman is so poor she feels those things are her only option.

In the interests of clarity I don't think any man should be so poor he needs to be a prostitute or sell his organs. Just in case you want to twist what I said, which is all you can do.

“Show me where I said, So in the meantime we have to legalise prostitution, organ sales, and any other way for poor women to make money.”

Refers to “So in the meantime we have to legalise prostitution, organ sales, and any other way for poor women to make money.”

Which itsNotRocketSalad said by way of an analogy. They did it again with “We should legalise selling organs so people in poverty have more choice.”

These other situations are where women's bodies could be exploited. Do you think those situations should be allowed until poverty in a particular country is fixed. And your proposal to not ban surrogacy until poverty is fixed, fits Rocket's analogous situations.

Have you got a suggestion for when women can discuss the banning of surrogacy in certain countries, when is the trigger economically? What happens if that country never supports women out of poverty? What about if there is a war, such as in Ukraine? And women of the few remaining countries are then one of the only targets in the world for the surrogacy trade? All because you prioritised what YOU believe should be addressed and what should be left as an option, fully exploitative as those options are based on what?

What stream of human rights would actually recommend this? Please post what the theory is behind your recommendation? let's discuss its pros and cons without you calling posters names.

Let me try Rocket Salads (and others have mentioned these too) alternatives to tease out your thinking here wasafool.

Which of these actions that exploit women's bodies is acceptable in any degree while a government sorts out its economic policy to lift women and their families out of poverty?

organ sales?
prostitution?
surrogacy?

And to what degree are they acceptable to you, personally, while a government sorts out its economic policy? And could you tell readers why you feel they are acceptable?

The issue isn’t solely poverty. The issue is that there are people who happily exploit and use that poverty. Who will target women who are poorer, less well educated, with fewer advantages than themselves. That is why we need to ban surrogacy, because women’s bodies are still considered a commodity by many men and even other women.

I thoroughly believe that ANY tone women use to say that surrogacy is deeply unethical would get shit, because ultimately certain people don't want to hear the difficulties - they are too invested in the happy ever afters and simply don't care about the cases of collatoral damage along the way. Thats just 'unfortunate' or the fault of individuals - not the practice itself. Which is utter bullshit.

Well, red let us just see if we get any answers to the questions or just more ad hom attacks.

I mean, if a poster is going to posit that surrogacy continues as it is until those women are supported out of poverty, they should be able to answer those questions honestly. Including at what point the ban for surrogacy may be triggered and the solution if those economic solutions never get put into place.

I am ALL for ensuring that women are not in the position to be exploited for their bodily functions and providing as much support as they need. But at the same time as the ban.

Who the fuck thinks this is a viable solution in countries that allow women to be exploited that any government is going to prioritise those women and children being exploited? Well obviously some posters, and I think they should be able to articulate answers to questions about their proposed solutions.

It is also rather telling that no poster who supports surrogacy was asked if they were doing anything to support getting surrogates out of poverty. Just those pointing out the ethical considerations, and the ones labelled as hectoring, lecturing and zealots. Oh … and unattractive people.

You're much more patient than me Helleofabore. I don't think you'll get a logical reply from Fool but thank you for trying!

Did I represent what you were getting at though rocketsalad?

Yep, precisely.