Friends surrogacy

[Fatcat00]

Not a particularly close friend, but friend enough for me to be invited to social events etc. has recently told me she is having a baby due in April, I was shocked and congratulated her, she then says “surrogate… obviously”. I was a bit lost for words.

for context friend has recently divorced, they had been trying for a baby for 5 years, had IVF etc. I furthered the conversation and asked if it was her egg. Her response was “nah, I’m not bothered if it’s not my biological baby.. I just want a baby”. Followed by “I can’t be assed putting hormones into my body for the sake of my own egg”. I am just so shocked and speechless, I don’t agree with surrogacy for a number of reasons. Some of them being I don’t agree with the hiring of a woman’s body. I don’t agree with a baby being ripped away from its mother to suit someone else’s needs and the physical and psychological implications to both baby and mother as such. Why not just adopt?? If you don’t care for the child to be your biological anyway, why not adopt a baby who needs a parent?

it’s kind of made me look at her in a different light. She seemed very flippant about it (I’m aware this is just how she has came across I’m sure it’s a lengthy and draining process). She says she was put in touch with this woman through a friend who had used her.

essentially, this surrogate has just got pregnant for the purpose of handing over the baby to someone else in exchange for cash. I think I’d still be a bit 🤔 even if it was her own egg if truth be told.

I just can’t get my head around it. Am I being a bit of a bigot? Aibu to want to distance myself a bit? I don’t like feeling as though someone’s path to parenthood or happiness is “wrong” but it really doesn’t sit right with me and I’m not entirely sure why.

Ok, so you acknowledge that currently surrogacy does not meet adequate standards. So you say there should be. What should happen? How should this work and who should do it?

So now there’s been a progression. You’re for surrogacy, but you acknowledge there needs to be better frameworks in place to protect the woman and the future child. None of this happens currently. So how do you propose to bring this about and how do you counter the people who want NONE of these things to get in the way of surrogacy?

I did too. I didn’t say it was a bad thing. I said it’s not an ordinary physiological state. Not sure what you’re disagreeing with!

If surrogacy was as well regulated as organ donation, it would be a whole different kettle of fish.

The fact that is it unregulated has caused ethical issues. I see a lot of people talk about the surrogate and her right to bodily autonomy. I see little consideration for other factors such as; the actual baby who has rights too.

I am not completely opposed to surrogacy but in its current form, it has serious flaws and the ability to abuse it is far too easy.

I don't particularly agree with surrogacy either. It's a bit 'Handmaid's tale' to me.
But I've never met anybody who's gone through it, so I cant say how I'd react. I have had family members with fertility issues, who've adopted and I feel like that's the way to go. It's worked out wonderfully for them and the children.

But this is the rub. Once it’s acknowledged that surrogacy can’t exist as a complete free-for-all and needs protections and legislation, you then have to decide whose rights are prioritised which is ultimately impossible.

If the rights of the mother are prioritised then the intended parents have no rights or protections.

If the rights of the intended parents are prioritised then the mother has no rights and protections.

If the rights of the baby are prioritised then how can you ever separate it from its mother?

If you want to do some rights for the mother and some rights from the intended parents, how do you determine which go which way?

This is why we have the current state of surrogacy around the world.

There are countries that let it happen as a free-for-all or countries that pretend this clash of rights doesn’t exist, who run into trouble whenever a surrogacy case goes wrong.

Or there are countries that have looked at all this and realised it’s insolvable, rights can’t be balanced, and have banned it.

There’s no middle ground: either you just shrug and accept that at some point in surrogacy that someone will get fucked over eventually - as evidenced by many, many examples - or you ban it.

I refuse to shrug.

A USA study into gestational surrogacy commissioned by foreign clients reveals the scale of this international trade in babies.
The largest proportion to men, from China, often over 42 years old.
This trade has been noted before, with the babies referred to as "Anchor babies" as they can be used to obtain US citizenship.
Often they are not collected until sometime after birth , though there are no figures for this but there have been cases in the news and surrogate mothers / "nannies" on TikTok
discussing the babies they are caring for.

Anyone who can't see that surrogacy is a disgusting world wide trade in babies is a fool. If the law changes in the UK to make commissioning parents legal parents at birth there is likely to be an increase in international trade here due to the attractiveness of reduced costs thanks to all medical treatment being on the NHS. So called protections around domicile and Habitual Residence will just be paperwork issues to get around.

Women who support surrogacy and think it is a loving act are just turkeys voting for Christmas. Soon there will be a breeder class. In fact there already is in some parts of the world. I'd care less if there was an open and honest plan to go full Brave New World with the breeding done by the Deltas and Epsilons.

www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(23)00392-8/fulltex

mailchi.mp/stopsurrogacynow/egg-freezing-parties-and-artificial-wombs-425150?e=63ad6d7206

Twitter thread

x.com/emlwaters/status/1719677083201220964?s=46

Ok, so how do you propose to do this

I mean I don’t write policy on surrogacy legislation, but the same way you regulate anything else 💁🏼‍♀️. It’s currently regulated in the UK.

how do you protect her rights? Who gets to decide the decisions before, during and after the pregnancy? Like if she needs a CVS? Or it’s recommended she terminates for a severe abnormality? Or if she wants to for her own personal reasons? Or if she wants a vaginal delivery and the intended parents want a section? Who decides all these things?

For me, these decisions should be in the hands of surrogate. While the foetus is in her body she should have absolutely have the right to terminate if she wants, as all other women do , and to give birth in the way that suits her. I understand that birth arrangements are usually agreed in advance, which makes sense, Although I absolutely think the surrogate should have the right to change her mind.

When you say “talk to the women” you mean talk to the women who, by sheer luck, nothing went wrong

I mean talk to women who are undergoing surrogacy and who have done in the past about why they chose to do it/ what it meant for them etc. include anyone and everyone affected by the issue who is able to speak on it. of course like many things in life there will be risks, and not all experiences will be positive. Thats not a reason to outlaw something, if, on the overwhelming balance, it’s a force of good. That’s what needs to be determined.

But this is the rub. Once it’s acknowledged that surrogacy can’t exist as a complete free-for-all and needs protections and legislation, you then have to decide whose rights are prioritised which is ultimately impossible

Absolute rubbish. There are any number of things in medicine, reproduction and life more broadly, that are legal but regulated.

your thinking on this subject is extremely black and white.

Yes. The same way it works for kidneys.

👍

‘Sheer luck’? You do realise women get pregnant every day and give birth and they’re absolutely fine?

For anyone who doesn't know about this woman - she delivered twins for Chinese CPs (early of course, they had a month in NICU) and the CPs failed to collect so she is keeping them and taking the legal steps to do so. They are two year olds now.

vm.tiktok.com/ZGJEgPk3B/

I mean I don’t write policy on surrogacy legislation, but the same way you regulate anything else 💁🏼‍♀️. It’s currently regulated in the UK.

But it’s not. It’s regulated with the assumption that if anything goes wrong, a test of law will be required. Basically, hope for the best. If the worst happens, we will have to figure it out after the fact. For example, what regulation is in place to make sure women get their expenses, and/or aren’t paid a private fee?

For me, these decisions should be in the hands of surrogate. While the foetus is in her body she should have absolutely have the right to terminate if she wants, as all other women do , and to give birth in the way that suits her. I understand that birth arrangements are usually agreed in advance, which makes sense, Although I absolutely think the surrogate should have the right to change her mind.

This makes sense. But this isn’t what happens around the world. How do you check that a woman’s decision to do anything in the pregnancy is her decision and not that of the intended parents?

And you acknowledge that the intended parents have no rights? So in that case, the majority of current surrogacy arrangements worldwide would completely cease to be valid?

I mean talk to women who are undergoing surrogacy and who have done in the past about why they chose to do it/ what it meant for them etc

There are women who have been surrogates who are against surrogacy. Do you want to listen to them? Obviously you can’t ask the dead ones.

Thats not a reason to outlaw something, if, on the overwhelming balance, it’s a force of good.

But this happens all the time.

No it’s not rubbish. You think the pregnant woman should have all the say. That’s fine. But you’re acknowledging that inevitably intended parents will commission a baby and not get one, or pay money and not get one, or be given a child with a severe disability because a major abnormality was found and the pregnant woman didn’t want an abortion. And so on, and so on.

I would have no sympathy for them but you’re now advocating that intended parents should just put all their hope in a woman and hope nothing reneges. That’s a clash of rights well beyond anything else in medicine.

So you’re NOT for women’s free unadulterated choice about their bodies? You think there should be oversight and regulation? And psychological assessment? And saying no to women if they don’t fulfil criteria?

Sheer luck that they’re a surrogate who doesn’t suffer a major complication of pregnancy. Like all the many, many examples of surrogates who have. Pregnancy has a 100% complication rate, no woman’s body is ever the same after any pregnancy. For most it’s minor. For some it’s major. For some it’s lifelong disability. For some it’s death. Bear in mind that the majority of surrogates around the world are pregnant in countries with poor health systems and higher than average maternal mortality rates.

How can a surrogacy contract cover all potential complications and protect women adequately if they suffer from them?

But it’s not. It’s regulated with the assumption that if anything goes wrong, a test of law will be required. Basically, hope for the best. If the worst happens, we will have to figure it out after the fact. For example, what regulation is in place to make sure women get their expenses, and/or aren’t paid a private fee?

This is regulation though. And in my view a reasonable way to do it. It’s the way that we do lots of family law for good reason. Regulation just means there are rules and laws.

This makes sense. But this isn’t what happens around the world.

I understand in the US there is contestation around whether abortion stipulations can be included in contracts, and many contracts do in practice, but the legality around these provisions is contested and variable. I absolutely think such provisions should not be enforceable. They aren’t in the UK.

How do you check that a woman’s decision to do anything in the pregnancy is her decision and not that of the intended parents?

The same way you do for any pregnant person. How do you check a woman’s decision to terminate is her own and not her partner’s?

And you acknowledge that the intended parents have no rights?

while the baby is in the surrogate’s body the intended parents should have the same rights as any other non-pregnant (“intended”) parent! Eg dads(!) in a regular conception situation. Do dads have the legal right to decide whether or not their partner terminates , or how they should give birth , or whether they should undergo any other medical procedure? No. The decision ultimately lies with the pregnant woman because of the principle of bodily autonomy. So it should work with surrogacy.

So in that case, the majority of current surrogacy arrangements worldwide would completely cease to be valid?

I have no doubt there are countries all over the world with terrible laws around surrogacy, as there are with abortion etc., that doesn’t mean that all surrogacy is immoral and we should outlaw the practice in the UK.

The right to make unadulterated choices about our bodies should be a fundamental principle. However, in law, we draw certain boundaries where there are questions as to whether someone has the capacity to consent.
When someone makes a decision that is ultimately harmful (eg euthanasia, suicide, self-starvation, etc) their capacity to consent comes into question.

You are massively pathologising pregnancy. Pregnancy is an ordinary and perfectly healthy function of the female body, and has plenty of protective health benefits.

This is regulation though. And in my view a reasonable way to do it. It’s the way that we do lots of family law for good reason. Regulation just means there are rules and laws.

But regulation for surrogacy, even in the UK, barely touches the issues. Like the example I gave, how it’s supposed to be expenses only. Who is checking this? That’s just a basic fundamental element of surrogacy legislation in the UK and it’s completely unregulated and unenforceable.

I understand in the US there is contestation around whether abortion stipulations can be included in contracts, and many contracts do in practice, but the legality around these provisions is contested and variable. I absolutely think such provisions should not be enforceable. They aren’t in the UK.

But there are campaigns to make the UK like the US. So I’m assuming you’re against this. But these contested areas have arisen from the very idea that no protections should be put in place.

The same way you do for any pregnant person. How do you check a woman’s decision to terminate is her own and not her partner’s?

Exactly. How do you check? If you’re talking about a regulated industry then the responsibility falls on those creating the regulations. If you don’t think it can be done then how can surrogacy be allowed?

The decision ultimately lies with the pregnant woman because of the principle of bodily autonomy. So it should work with surrogacy.

As above. If it becomes an industrial standard that intended parents get no say, then you have to demonstrate how you intend to enforce that. Otherwise it’s not worth the legislative paper it’s written on.

I have no doubt there are countries all over the world with terrible laws around surrogacy, as there are with abortion etc., that doesn’t mean that all surrogacy is immoral and we should outlaw the practice in the UK.

Ok, so you acknowledge that surrogacy can be terrible, but not our surrogacy in good old Blighty, we are sooo much better at it. But you still haven’t explained how you’re going to solve all the challenges. And you still haven’t addressed the rights of the baby.

The right to make unadulterated choices about our bodies should be a fundamental principle. However, in law, we draw certain boundaries where there are questions as to whether someone has the capacity to consent.
When someone makes a decision that is ultimately harmful (eg euthanasia, suicide, self-starvation, etc) their capacity to consent comes into question.

Firstly, you acknowledge that women can’t just do anything to their bodies. Second, capacity to consent is not the only restriction to unadulterated choices about our bodies. I can fully understand the implications of selling a kidney for 50 grand, doesn’t mean I’m allowed to do it. We put restrictions in place because of the human trait of taking a mile when given an inch. If we allowed people with full capacity to sell kidneys, it’s only a matter of time before someone starts harvesting kidneys of vulnerable people to make money. This is why it’s banned. It’s the same in surrogacy.

It may be that there are perfectly willing and able women, 100% freely consenting, with non-controlling intended parents and a happy child with a happy life at the end of it. But inevitably because of human nature, bad humans will exploit it as FannyCann’s example demonstrates, and as a result banning it is the only solution.

You talk about “greater good”. The number of completely happy, genuinely altruistic surrogacy cases that occur with fantastic outcomes around the world is minuscule compared to the worldwide scale of exploitation and misery of poor women being exploited for it.

You are massively pathologising pregnancy. Pregnancy is an ordinary and perfectly healthy function of the female body, and has plenty of protective health benefits.

But when you take a normal healthy function of the human body and make it part of a financial transaction then the entirety of the risks need to be considered. Sex is a normal healthy function of the female body, but it doesn’t entitle men to buy it from women. You have to take into account all the pathology that can happen with a pregnancy because it’s being asked of someone to do it on behalf of someone else, not for their own benefit. If you’re going to ask someone else to undertake something so significant as a pregnancy, don’t you think considering all the potential outcomes is the very least you can do? Again, if you’re not prepared to consider the fact a woman might die on behalf of providing someone else a baby, you’re basically just shrugging.

Like anything else. Better then saying outright no.

A surrogate baby will be no more damaged than an adopted one, in fact probably less, as an adopted child goes through the traumas of the mother whilst in the womb, then goes into foster care, then to adoptive parents. A surrogate baby goes straight to it's new parents from birth and hopefully the birth mother has done all of this with little attachment.
You should basically keep your nose out.

But not an outright yes anymore either compared to earlier in the thread. So at least pro-surrogacy people like yourself are starting to consider the possibility of exploitation of vulnerable women and want to put protections in place.