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.

hopefully

This word comes up a lot in pro-surrogacy.

Hopefully the woman is genuinely choosing to do it.

Hopefully the intended parents aren’t awful.

Hopefully the pregnancy doesn’t have any of the infinite number of serious complications.

Hopefully the delivery isn’t traumatic, either mentally (5% of women giving birth in the UK experience PTSD) or physically.

Hopefully the woman won’t experience any postnatal depression.

Hopefully the baby will be happy and not yearn for the mother it’s never known like the example I know personally.

Hopefully…if we all just hope enough, surrogacy is wonderful!

I don’t understand most of what you are talking about in most of this post.

There is no issue with ensuring a surrogate has the ability to consent to an abortion. We assess capacity in the same way we do for all women accessing abortion, or any other medical treatment for that matter.

I’m not saying “things are better here in good old Blighty”, I’m saying that it’s perfectly possible to legislate surrogacy in an ethical manner , as we legislate many areas of health and reproduction, and the fact that it currently isn’t done perfectly in some countries is no argument for saying that surrogacy is always wrong, harmful and exploitative.

In terms of consent- I absolutely think that people should be allowed to consent to what they do with their own bodies, the question comes around establishing consent. When someone makes a decision that is profoundly harmful to their body we understandably worry about issues of capacity and whether or not they are being exploited (eg case in Germany where a man allegedly “consented” to being castrated , murdered and eaten by his lover). The law rightly intervenes in such cases to ensure protection of individuals from exploitation and self harm (eg cases of mental illness -such as anorexia).

Do I think an adult woman , with ordinary levels of capacity, choosing to get pregnant should be considered a form of self harm? No. I think this is harmful, anti feminist, and a restriction on reproductive rights. I also don’t agree with criminalising sex work, fyi.

Do I think that surrogacy , as an Industry, needs to be regulated to protect some vulnerable women from exploitation? Yes.

My post makes perfect sense.

I’m saying that it’s perfectly possible to legislate surrogacy in an ethical manner

But you can’t say how. I’ve given an example. Can you try and address that? How do we ensure that in the UK, the only money changing hands is expenses and that those expenses are adequate? This is what supposedly makes the UK better than other countries, the fact it’s not money being paid. But how? Just try explaining how you do this one thing ethically.

Do I think an adult woman , with ordinary levels of capacity, choosing to get pregnant should be considered a form of self harm?

No one said anything about self-harm. It’s about exploitation. Vulnerable women, doing it to survive, to pay their rent, feed their kids, getting out of debt. They have capacity. But they’re still vulnerable to exploitation.

I also don’t agree with criminalising sex work, fyi.

Figures. I don’t believe in criminalising women, but I believe the punters should be criminalised. Sex work is like worldwide surrogacy: the vast majority of women doing it are doing it out of lack of choice of anything else who would be much happier doing something else. The number of women who are genuinely happy sucking cocks for money is miniscule.

Do I think that surrogacy , as an Industry, needs to be regulated to protect some vulnerable women from exploitation? Yes.

But how?!

As an aside, you mentioned Germany: surrogacy is banned in all forms there. Like many countries, they couldn’t find an acceptable way to make it work. A country where it’s legal for men to pull over at motorway lay-bys to pay for sex with women in wooden shacks decided surrogacy was too much🤨.

Do I think that surrogacy , as an Industry, needs to be regulated to protect some vulnerable women from exploitation? Yes.

And we haven’t even touched on the rights of the baby. Three parties involved. All have rights.

But you can’t say how. I’ve given an example. Can you try and address that? How do we ensure that in the UK, the only money changing hands is expenses and that those expenses are adequate? This is what supposedly makes the UK better than other countries, the fact it’s not money being paid. But how? Just try explaining how you do this one thing ethically.

I have said how. You keep insisting there are issues around medical treatments in pregnancy, abortion and birth. I’ve explained how there aren’t, we apply the same principles to these (pregnancies via surrogacy) as we do to all pregnancies- We prioritise the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person.

I think it would be very unethical to enforce legal contracts with stipulations around abortion and birth (as is apparently done sometimes in the US).

I don’t think there is necessarily an issue with money going from IP to surrogate. In the UK the issue is regulated in a nuanced way - and I think the balance is correct:
https://www.ngalaw.co.uk/knowledge-centre/uk-surrogacy-law/

No one said anything about self-harm. It’s about exploitation

I understand your concerns are around exploitation , but when we make judgements around exploitation/ consent- harm comes into it. When people make decisions that cause serious (self) harm we are right to worry about exploitation.

You keep saying that it is inconsistent to say that we need to respect the bodily autonomy of surrogates, but then to argue for restrictions on other forms of “bodily autonomy” (eg selling organs), I’m explaining why this isn’t inconsistent. We place restrictions on bodily autonomy when people make decisions to self harm in serious ways (eg self starvation) as we worry about capacity to consent and exploitation (eg case in Germany).

I don’t believe in criminalising women, but I believe the punters should be criminalised

Yes and I disagree with you. I think your attitudes on both subjects are paternalistic, blunt and harmful to women and sexual and reproductive rights more broadly.

I have said how.

No you haven’t. In fact in the link you’ve provided, regarding payment it says this:

It is a common misconception that it is illegal for parents to pay a UK surrogate more than her reasonable expenses. In fact, there is no offence restricting payments to surrogates in UK law. The issue is simply a consideration for the family court, which must authorise payments of more than reasonable expenses before it can make a parental order transferring parenthood to the intended parent/s.
There is no definition of reasonable expenses (nor a fixed amount as to what is allowed), so the court must decide what is reasonable in each case and in practice often takes quite a relaxed approach. There is also now a history of the High Court retrospectively authorising payments of more than expenses in international surrogacy cases.

Payments can be made, there is nothing about who checks, or how, or when, and if the Court does check, it often approves the money anyway.

So according to your link, the UK has a free payment form of surrogacy. And your idea of good regulation is this? Money changing hands retrospectively approved by the Court if anyone bothers to check?

When people make decisions that cause serious (self) harm we are right to worry about exploitation.

Why is self-harm the only prerequisite to worrying about exploitation?

We place restrictions on bodily autonomy when people make decisions to self harm in serious ways

People can and do live long healthy lives with one kidney. And as I said, we stop people making informed decisions to donate a kidney for money, even though it’s no more a form of self harm than having a baby for someone, because it opens up the market for more vulnerable people to be exploited.

Don’t you see how this has happened with surrogacy? It didn’t start off with baby farms in Ukraine, did it? It started off with one person wanting to do a nice thing for someone else, and in the blink of an eye we have an international surrogacy “industry” with exploitation of women and babies produced (and abandoned) for money. The more widespread surrogacy becomes the more likely it is that bad things will happen.

Yes and I disagree with you

You disagree with me that men should be criminalised and discouraged for seeing women as bodies they can utilise for sex at their will if they have some money? And I’m the paternalistic one?!

Notbadconsidering

Lots of research, protocols and support is put in place to help the adoptive parents and the child (throughout their lives) deal with this experience. If the child doesn’t need support or experience trauma at any stage, great! It’s not needed. But the framework is in place if it is.

It's really not. Once you've adopted you're on your own. I know from personal experience.

*Payments can be made and if the Court does check, it often approves the money anyway.

And your idea of good regulation is this?*

Yes, as I said I don’t have a problem with how the UK regulates this.
And I agree with the principle that surrogacy contracts should not be legally binding. I support the way the uk regulates surrogacy.

Why is self-harm the only prerequisite to worrying about exploitation?

If something isn’t causing someone harm, and they say they want to do it, I think we should be very careful before prohibiting it.

I think kidney donation should be legal with safeguards in place, and surrogacy should be legal with safeguards in place.

yes I disagree that sex work should be criminalised. I stand with sex workers in their right to define for themselves what is and isn’t exploitative.

@Stupidnighty I agree.

Perhaps controversially, I find it interesting that women on mumsnet in particular seem to 100% support a woman's right to abortion and adoption but the actual sale of a baby is a hard no.

I'm not trying to be clever, it's just interesting.

A foetus doesn’t have human rights, it isn’t a person in its own right until it’s born.

What do you base this on? Genuinely curious.

but the actual sale of a baby is a hard no.

Err why wouldn't it be a hard no?
If you can buy a baby why shouldn't you be able to buy a two year old? Or a ten year old? A 20 year old could be useful - I'd love someone cleaning my house and waiting on me hand and foot. Why can't I buy someone to do all the stuff I don't like doing?

We don’t only draw boundaries with regards to mental capacity. You do not have the right to make unadulterated choices. You never have and you don’t now and I doubt you ever will. You are bound by the law and restricted.

Interestingly - and a side note - it is often not about capacity and euthanasia. It is unlawful to only question someone’s capacity simply because you believe them to be making an unwise decision such as; self harm.

And I agree with the principle that surrogacy contracts should not be legally binding. I support the way the uk regulates surrogacy

So you support a system where money can change hands freely in exchange for a baby, no one can realistically check, and a woman can be promised money in a contract but would have no legal recourse to retrieve it should she not be paid and be left destitute or damaged as a result?

That doesn’t sound supportive of stopping the exploitation of women to me.

If something isn’t causing someone harm, and they say they want to do it, I think we should be very careful before prohibiting it.

There are many examples of types of exploitation that don’t involve physical self-harm, some of which are legal some of which aren’t. Whilst rare, pregnancy involves a risk of death. Surrogates have died.

I think kidney donation should be legal with safeguards in place

Remarkable. Even though it’s clear that payment for organ donation has led to horrible organ farming from poor people because it’s impossible to safeguard people from such exploitation, you still support the idea and still somehow think it’s possible to come up with a safeguarding strategy that no one has managed yet?

yes I disagree that sex work should be criminalised

But I never said sex work should be criminalised. I said the men who buy the use of women’s bodies should be criminalised. You don’t? You think men should be allowed to do what they want with women?

I stand with sex workers in their right to define for themselves what is and isn’t exploitative.

And how does this usually work out? Do we hear from the countless women who are selling sex out of desperation for life, a drug habit, having been trafficked, or part of sex exploitation rings? No, we hear from the tiny minority at the top of the food chain who make a load of money and buy their property outright and live a great life and talk about how “empowering” it is.

It’s the same with surrogacy: we hear all the wonderful amazing stories of the “gift” of a new baby, but pro-surrogacy people ignore the horror stories - of which there are plenty that are easily Google-able - and say “that’s not enough to say it’s a bad thing.” Will there ever be enough? How many women and children negatively affected would it take before it becomes a bad thing?

The law.

@Stupidnighty a foetus doesnt have human rights. Agreed. So the difference between adopting out your child and selling your child is what? Thats my actual question. A woman isnt vilified for recognising she wants to have the baby and adopt it but mumsnet goes mad at the thought of selling babies. There's no actual difference for the baby though and if women have the right to their wombs to use as they wish?

@FannyCann good luck finding a helpful 20 year old 😆are "free"/adopted children ok?

I think surrogacy is fine. Especially if using a donors egg. As long as the woman is definitely happy to give up the baby. What worries me more is her attitude. Cant be arsed. A baby needs a lot of love. Not a great harbringer.

1. No one gets pregnant just in order to give the baby up for adoption.

2. There are many checks in place when a baby is put up for adoption (the mother can change their mind etc).

3. Money doesn’t change hands- a human being isn’t being created to be sold.

4. When a baby is adopted it is making the most of a sad situation- it isn’t good for the baby but the mother isn’t able for whatever reason to keep it, therefor adoption is the best that can be done- in surrogacy people are creating the negative situation for the baby on purpose for their own sake.

That's what I thought.

In the UK, a foetus has no rights by law, but there are countries in which it does. Do Guetemalan foetuses have human rights then, but not British ones? Did Irish foetuses previously have human rights up until 2018 but don't any more? Are human rights something that is based on location and depending on the laws of that region, or are they inherent in each human? What would you say to someone living in one of those countries who said that the unborn do have rights?

I would say they shouldn’t.

I agree and I find it quite strange in a way. The same people go on and on about how a fetus is nothing until born but then say it’s cruel to remove a baby from a surrogate.

Personally I think a foetus should have some rights and it’s a bit naive to pretend it’s nothing. Abortion is a whole other kettle of fish though.

Naive in what way? It isn’t nothing- it’s a foetus, clearly. What else would it be?

I don't want to get into an abortion debate as this isn't what the thread is about and I don't have the mental or emotional capacity for it today.

However I find it interesting when the law is used as the 'end all' argument.

The (UK) law states that th3 foetus has no rights, so it has no rights. End of story.

Except, if I was writing from another country, Honduras, say, where foetuses are afforded human rights, which were enshrined in law, I guarantee that my argument would not pass as being the definitive point.

In fact, in that situation, the internal ethics of the person arguing against the personhood of the foetus would take precedence, not the law of the territory in question. I saw this repeatedly during online debates about the rights of the unborn pre 2018.

Person from the UK: 'Foetuses have no rights until they are born. It's literally the law'.

Irish person, pre 2018 'But they have legal rights here in Ireland'.

Person from the UK 'Oh that law there is wrong'.

So, does the law only apply as the definitive answer if you live somewhere where it aligns with your beliefs? Not specifically in relation to the abortion debate; this is just something I've wondered about ever since I was following the discourse around repealing the 8th Amendment in Ireland. There were a lot of people on both sides citing 'the law' as a strong case supporting their moral viewpoint. I don't see the law as automatically being evidential of moral 'rightness', because it is always tied to the inner viewpoint of the person citing it.

That's why I was asking. Just curious.

@Darkdiamond if we were discussing a different country with different laws, then the answer would be different. If we were discussing whether abortion laws should be changed in other countries, then the whole discussion would be different.

But I think we can all agree that babies in the UK have human rights at this time, so there is no need for people to be twisting themselves in knots about foetuses in Honduras or in Ireland in the past.