Surrogacy in Mexico

[courageiscontagious]

I want LGBTQ people to have families but I am so conflicted about things like this. This article barely mentions the women that are pregnant. It also really grinds my gears when couples clearly value their own genetic ties (eg here it’s two men who by design will be the genetic parent of one child each who share the same genetic mother) but apparently don’t think their child’s genetic ties and sense of identity matter as much. They’ve chosen for their children to never know their genetic mother, and they’ve also chosen for their children to have genetic half siblings.

surely if genetic ties are important- then the children’s best interests should override the parents wishes? If you were the child in that situation wouldn’t you prefer to know your mother? And failing that, for your sibling to be a full sibling and not a half sibling?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2025/06/03/lgbtq-fertility-ivf-family-planning/83942271007/

I want to be feeling like this is good but it really rubs me the wrong way when they approach these things from an LGBTQ perspective only, glossing over the women and children in the story and what might be best for them.

this story is about how expensive it is. Should it be cheap to rent people to grow babies for you?

thats my rant, please point me to some literature that will educate me so I can get behind this and go back to being a better LGBTQ ally.

surrogacy, i.e the exploitation of poor and vulnerable women is nothing less than trafficking, and is abhorrent. .

I agree that gay men can be good parents, i see a number of of gay foster carers and adopters who are excellent parents. I also have a colleague who had a baby with his lesbian friend and they co-parent together and he is a wonderful parent. I do think there is some latent homophobia on this thread.

However I 100% agree that commercial surrogacy is unacceptable. Others have spoken about the exploitation of women's bodies. We know adoption is far from perfect and can have huge ramifications for children as they grow. But at least when adoption happens we literally have tried every other avenue and explored all options in terms of trying to find someone safe in the child's family to care for them. Even when babies are 'removed at birth' they will actually unless in extreme circumstances stay with mum for several days and then typically have ongoing contact, because research tells us the need for newborn babies to be with their mother. When children are adopted lots of thought is put into ensuring the child will have a understanding of their self and identity as they grow. Greater focus is growing now on open adoptions to allow those lifelong links with the birth family. All of it is far from perfect and we still see babies who are fostered by their adopters from birth (ergo not experiencing the trauma or abuse with birth parents) struggling massively with sense of self and identity. The impact of surrogacy on children's developing and Identity is woefully under researched because the focus remains on the needs of the surrogate parent rather than the child.

Surrogacy is vile because:

1. Is it truly consent if the mother is desperately poor and the buyers of the baby rich? That's exploitation not consent. Try comparing it to the buying of body parts - you can see it's exploitation for a rich person to buy a poor person's kidney, surely?

1. Pregnancy is hugely risky for the mother

1. It is the buying of human beings. This is human trafficking and akin to slavery, ethically.

1. Babies are not blank canvasses. We are born knowing our mothers. A baby knows their mother's rhythms, her heartbeat, her gait, her voice, her smell. They are bonded and she is home. In adoption it's recognised that every adoption starts with trauma, but this is ignored in surrogacy. A newborn baby can be traumatised by seperation from their mother. Adoption is an attempt to make the best of a bad situation for the child. Surrogacy is creating a bad situation, disregarding what's best for the baby and focusing only on what the purchasing adults want.

1. Treating women as wombs to rent is abborent and leads to human rights abuses. The surrogacy industry is full of exploitation, very similar to prostitution - people getting rich off the back of controlling / exploiting women's bodies

1. What happens to disabled babies? Often if they're not "perfect' the purchasing parents reject them and the mother is left with a disabled baby to look after whom they hadn't planned for and don't have the resources to look after well.

They're more but I have to get the kids ready for school...

The fact that the doctor from This Is going to Hurt was happy to employ a surrogate to carry a baby for him knowing the risks of pregnancy and birth (having watched a woman die from pregnancy complications) tells you all you need to know about how some men view women. My allyship stops when I see vulnerable people exploited.

Yes but they presumably both had mothers. Mothers who birthed then, nurtured them, gave that maternal care, a unique experience and relationship.

There's going to be a whole bunch of kids growing up without mothers, (just two selfish men ) and not having that maternal relationship... Then having kids themselves. It's going to be a fucking shit show.

All to keep the men happy.

Surrogacy is abhorrent.

Having given birth I cannot imagine paying someone to do that for me - it nearly killed me. Moaning about the cost and all the stipulations given to paid surrogates generally, shows me clearly that they are not viewed as fully human by the people that buy their services. It’s no more a free choice for these women than sex tourism is. I don’t see rich women lining up to lend a womb to any old person that can’t have children, regardless of sexual orientation.

Also framing buying a baby as an lgbt rights issue is appalling, no one has the right to a baby. I think we need to mature as a society and accept not everyone who wants a baby can have one.

@newhouseplans

https://theconversation.com/baby-gammy-case-reveals-murky-side-of-commercial-surrogacy-30081#:~:text=Gammy%20was%20born%20with%20Down,struggling%20to%20pay%20off%20debts.

reminds me of this case, in which twins were separated as the parents only took the healthy girl child home with them.

Imagine this is your daughter.

She's been struggling to pay bills, she's on hard times, desperate. £15,000 in debt, going hungry often. Then she tells you she's been approached by an agency, they'll pay her £12,000 to have a baby for a millionaire couple where the mother decides she doesn't want to give up work, so wants another woman to carry the baby.

She's going to give the baby away after 1hr, you and she will never see the baby.

Would you be FOR your daughter doing this, or AGAINST it...

I hadn't properly contemplated the issue of commercial surrogacy until listening to an episode of the Parenting Hell podcast where they were interviewing H from Steps. I found myself yelling at my phone and getting quite upset, where usually it is a very funny podcast. Have a listen, but watch out for your blood pressure!

After listening to 100's of the women who had their babies removed by the nuns, the loss of identity for the child is huge, wanting to hear how the pregnancy went, was the host happy while carrying the baby, did it hurt her to give away the baby?

My aunt adopted her son from Romania in the 80's, the poverty and history of his birth was very difficult to overcome once he was old enough to visit, it was tough.

I imagine that a child from a surrogate birth would have similar questions, only the big difference is, the parents planned the birth that way.

The pregnant women live together in the last 3 months with other expecting mothers, in pretty shit conditions, better than their home I suppose.

Babies can't consent to being ripped from their mothers minutes after being born.

After knowing only their mum for 9 months, knowing only her heartbeat.

Babies can't consent to that.

Lines are always drawn between commercial and "altruistic" surrogacy. Whilst of course it's less obvious and in your face I don't think the pressures on the women are necessarily less, just different. Emotional coercion, social pressure, obligation due to family ties/dynamics are all heavily at play and equally potentially exploitative imo.

I'm against all forms of surrogacy.

Cimmercial surrigogacy is abhorrent. As the ectractraction of healthy ova womens bodies are not commodotues.

Equally altruistic surrogacy its difficult to say and is really a case by case basis. I also read in here that a woman was keen to have one as her brother was ebthusiastic, however it was told from the surrogates side the mother to be (i.e
SiL ) sounded really disegaged so even though it was "altruistic" it was concerning about the honest communication beteeen the parties involved.

There are several good reasons why surrogacy should be banned.

Even if the mother consents it still sets a precedent for women to be used as commodities.. It's only poor women being surrogates not wealthy for a reason.

Lots of surrogate babies are abandoned at birth either because the "parents" change their mind or the baby is born with a genetic issue not discovered during screening. Leaving the surrogate to raise the baby or they give it up to adoption and nobody is going to adopt a child with severe disability.

Childbirth is no joke, the affects of pregnancy alone on the body can be deadly (e.g pre-eclampsia) and women die in childbirth all the time.. I had unexpected high BP in my first labour and almost had an emergency caeserean, women haemorrhage..fail to pass the placenta and get sepsis.. It's simply unethical to promote surrogacy as it's not just as simple as woman carries baby and baby is born.

Yes it’s under researched and the people who are researching it in the UK at least all have a very pro-surrogacy stance and absolutely refuse to countenance any suggestion that it’s not great. If you did get someone brave enough to want to do research that might counter that argument, they’d be unlikely to get funding because the people reviewing the application would be the “leaders in the field”. This is university research - maybe other bodies would have more luck.

How can you say you understand how important the mother child bond is for the baby but then say you support it if the mother is not being paid? Surely as a child of that surrogacy it’s even worse. Your mother just handed you over to someone she knew for nothing?!

Because human trafficking is wrong, no matter who the buyer is.

The only surrogacy I agree with is when a sister or cousin carries the genetic egg and sperm of the parents. I wouldn't care about that situation for me personally and would be happy with it as there's a family tie.
I don't agree with egg or sperm donation personally, and definitely don't agree with surrogacy for money. I think uk "ultristic" surrogacy is exploiting women's mental health in some cases too unless it is for a family member they love and to produce a niece/nephew who they will love.

It is the exploitation of impoverished women, carrying a child which (in heterosexual surrogacy) has no genetic connection to the surrogate which causes a lot of health issues, plus pregnancy is dangerous unless you have good maternal care, the women are used as incubators, and often do it because they are desperate, some have died due to complications with surrogacy leaving their own children orphaned with no funds to help raise them whilst the people 'commissioning' the surrogate turn their back and look for another.
Also: the 'fourth trimester' never happens to these babies.
As a PP has said: just because we can doesn't mean we should, and as another PP has said, if it was safe and easy these rich people would be doing it for each other (thinking Kardashians)

But can't you see the huge weight of obligation and emotional coercion that sister or cousin could be under? How freely could they really say no for example to a loved family member who had lost their fertility to cancer? Still exploitation, just different strings being pulled imo.

Even in surrogacy within families, there can be huge pressure put on a sibling or other relative to carry a baby for their relative who can’t.

Don't have this conversation. It will be seen as interference. You might find yourself without a son.

Exactly. A worldwide ban would put an end to that pressure.

Surrogacy is a classic case of deciding whether the end result (potentially good patents having a child they can't have naturally) justifies the means (the commercialisation of childbirth, exploitation etc).

I sympathesise with the couples who cannot have a child naturally (including gay men) but I don't think paying for a child is the answer.

Would they pay for ongoing medical care fir the woman if she had birth injury? Or for the upbringing of her children if she were to die in childbirth?

Or the case in the US at the moment with the woman going kept on life support... that is her own child. But should the "commissioning parents" be able to decide to keep the mother on life support if something did go wrong against the desires of her own family?

Yeah I’d butt out too. It won’t end well - guaranteed. Also not sure what your huge issues with adoption are unless you’re saying your son and partner aren’t suited for bringing up a child who’s experienced trauma.