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.

Not always.

initially surrogacy was mums egg and the donor dad sperm. Cheaper I suppose and easier.

with the advent of more readily available IVF and egg donation, it’s now more common for it to be a donor egg and dads sperm.

cynical me thinks probably because after quite a few legal battles if mum decided not to give the baby up, or retain parental responsibility, removing the DNA link also removes some of those barriers.

again money solves the problem when you can afford donor eggs IVF. Plus the money to rent two women’s bodies, one for the egg, another for the uterus.

what people don’t think of is that donor eggs increase the risk to the surrogate considerably. And also to the woman donating the egg who has to undergo a hormone regime for ivf that has some significant side effects. But no one cares about that bit.

what people don’t think of is that donor eggs increase the risk to the surrogate considerably.

Yes all donor egg pregnancies carry an increased risk to the mother.

presumably you feel the same way for live organ donation then as the risks and potential pressure are also there.

They are there, but live organ donations are mostly for the purpose of saving life and can’t be compared with surrogacy.

Thank you. Do people hold the same view regardless of whether it straight or donor? In terms of the birth mother being the biological mother or not vis a vie children seeking out their birth mother.

When I think of the vulnerable women being exploited I agree. But when I apply this to myself part of me wants to say - don’t tell me what to do with my own body.

if I want to be pregnant so my sister can be a mum, then why should a government or anyone tell me I can’t?

@OhCalmTheFuckDownMargaret if the birth mother is informed and consenting and the perspective parents are too, what is it that is vile

One could question the situation around consent where surrogacy is monetised. There’s no surprise that this happens in socioeconomically challenged countries, or countries like the USA where impoverished women are the only ones putting their hands up. Having to look to do something like this in order to put food on the table for your own kids is not really compatible with giving free and informed consent. How many wealthy people do you see doing this because it’s their desired dream job?

Would the sibling do it for anyone else?

If the answer is no, then the problem of emotional blackmail, guilt and obligation raises its head in terms of consent free from any form of duress.

And since it is impossible for this to be removed by HCP as a motivation, then for an act which carries life threatening risks for when there is no physical risk to the third party commissioner then in terms of ethical conduct, no HCP should facilitate it.

Except if they are getting paid to do it, then HCPs have a financial reason to abandon ethics... And we are into the land of ultra capitalism where human life is a commodity to be exploited.

Important point: Remember that even in altruistic surrogacy, someone is still getting paid... So there is still a financial motivation present to ignore safeguarding principles. The woman being used isn't the paying client so her best interests are NOT the priority or primary concern of the HCP. We should not be losing sight of this as it places vulnerable women who have unhealthy family dynamics at risk.

In short; because the baby hasn’t consented, has it? The mother-child relationship is far more important than our capitalist society wants to recognise. Some people will consent to anything for money: should we let people do anything they want, even if it causes harm? Some people would consent to selling their organs: should we go ahead and let them do it? Obviously not.

I’m LGB and I don’t think that gay men have the right to buy babies. There is something here that is fundamentally asymmetric between men and women about giving life and mothering. So they can’t have children naturally: that’s something they need to learn to live with, as everyone does with things outside their control. Children need a mother in their life unless circumstances are unavoidably otherwise.

An arrangement where a mother agrees to co-parent a child with friends who are gay? Fine. Occasional altruistic surrogacy where everyone consents, there are careful legal safeguards, the adoption cannot proceed until the birth mother is completely happy with the arrangement after birth, and the birth mother is allowed access to the baby afterwards if she wants? Probably okay, in my view. The current U.K. system on this is about right. But buying a baby? Not fine. Some things should never be for sale, and a human being is one of them, whether uterus or baby.

I agree with this. We are in dangerous territory, wealthy people can opt out of the risks and inconveniences of pregnancy and birth and while they can praise their amazing surrogates for the gift they have given them there is a seedy undertone of desperation for many surrogates risking their own physical and mental health for financial necessity or gain. Any surrogacy should be subject to strict regulation but I fear profit is prioritised above the wellbeing of the surrogate or the child.

@KimberleyClarkthis is a whole area I fortunately never had to consider so it’s interesting to me to hear different views. I guess I err on thinking there is not a blanket good/bad, right/wrong and I struggle to criticise or condemn a genuinely altruistic, possibly family offering to be a surrogate vs a paid surrogate with all the issues surrounding ethics and commoditisation of women

I feel we are all in a position to choose risks every day in life be-it organ transplant, sports or other adventure and if all information is made clear and a say sister chose to be a surrogate for their sibling out of genuine love, it’s not for me to comment let alone condemn. I see that as controlling a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body.

a commercial surrogate to me falls into a different sphere. Much like consensual sex vs sex work or boxing as a sport vs beating people up or working as a cleaner vs being made to as a servant.

I think they are not the same

@courageiscontagious But when I apply this to myself part of me wants to say - don’t tell me what to do with my own body

But you are already told. If you are located in the UK, or any other developed country, the government prohibits you from selling your organs for money. Don’t want a kidney or a cornea and think you’d prefer the cash, you ARE told you are not allowed to do this with your own body. Do you disagree with this? Of course, you are allowed to altruistically donate a kidney, bone marrow etc, just not for cash. Surrogacy should be no different and it isn’t in most countries as a safeguard to women in desperate situations who are essentially being coerced due to the financial aspect (face it, without the $$ none of them would be doing it for strangers). What people are saying is that should be the case worldwide.

Yanbu, being vehemently against surrogacy might be my unwokest opinion

Pure exploitation of women. Wombs aren't for rent.

Really good posts here, setting out the risks and issues.
The egg donors are also not mentioned much, but it's not just two women these selfish men are putting at risk, but one or several more if they used egg donors
Egg donors face a very poorly researched set of risks - they take an ivf regime to harvest their eggs with the pain risk and disturbance that causes, and are often over and frequently stimulated to produce eggs as the commercial demand is to maximise products (egg viable, sellable eggs) for each cycle and payment and the long term consequences of this are not researched or known, but there is a suggestion that premature ovarian failure, fertility problems in later life and certain cancers are associated with ovarian stimulation regimes, so the possible consequences of this kind, altruistic act are huge
It also angers me that these are young women selling their genetic future and possibly fertility to usually richer and older people, because they need the money to live or pay for education, and probably are nowhere near being able to afford and support their own family. It's like we have set up a system where the young have their future and fertility strip mined for the older generation.

Plus kidneys are not sentient beings with their own rights and needs...

Oh and before anyone says it
"But what about the mental health of infertile couples either straight or gay".

Well if someone can direct to me how the poor infertile couples cope, I'll happily forward them on to the rich infertile couple....

It’s not cynical. Legal issues are indeed a large part of why traditional surrogacy is no longer done in the USA. Agencies won’t touch it. (The precise legal status of surrogacy varies by state. Contracts are not legally enforceable in all states.)

I don’t have a problem with altruistic surrogacy. I know someone who did it for a sibling. Paid gets hairy very quickly, especially when couples go abroad to do it more cheaply.

If someone is getting paid in the process of a kidney transplant, then it becomes a problem too. In the UK this is certainly not the case. If someone in the UK is travelling abroad for a kidney transplant then yes this would be a problem. If someone in the UK is in anyway paying for a kidney transplant then yes this is potentially a problem.

(I see issues with organ donations in many countries - the NHS and how it works largely eliminates these).

And to the baby

but the people who have them do ...

How long do you think it would be before unscrupulous people would coerce/force people into doing this? Bob just been trafficked to x country at a cost of £5000 to him on the promise of a better life for him and his family - however Bob hasn't got this money yet, the trafficker is holding his passport, Bob lives in a shared room with 5 other people, Bob is made to work 12 hours a day every day and pay back the trafficker. Bob is held in modern slavery - at what point do you think that Bob has a choice NOT to give his organs?

Oh I absolutely agree it's a moral minefield in its own right but distinct from surrogacy which imo has more vulnerable parties at risk of harm.

ETA to agree with you too @ButteredRadishes the potential for coercion and exploitation is huge with organ donation too. I also feel though that the recipient of a donor organ has a greater vulnerability in that situation than a wealthy couple commissioning a surrogate do.

I’m a lot more against surrogacy since I’ve had my own baby, the idea of it now makes me feel so so upset for the baby.

it’s a shame there’s not more ways of having a live in co parenting situation with a woman who wants a baby and a couple who can’t have one. It would be too complicated in the majority of situations but would work well for some I’m sure. Anything is better than taking a baby away from everything it’s ever known.

Of course the wishes of these two privileged white men over rides an impoverished Mexican woman's!
BE KIND!

I was thinking of altruistic surrogacy when I posted that.

I gave the scenario earlier - that while I find this international commercial surrogacy extremely problematic- I can entertain the idea of being a surrogate for my sister without the same concerns.

people do things for the people they love, it’s not always coercion.

If I want to do that, I don’t think the government should tell me not too. I absolutely think they should prevent me from doing it for money, I agree with that.

Nobody has the right to a baby.

In my opinion, surrogacy is exploitative and no better than child trafficking.

The exploitation of women, usually of a lower social class than the buyers, is vile and dehumanising. I don't give a shiny shite about the buyer's sexuality, religion or skin colour, nobody should be able to buy another human being.

An international surrogacy ban is long overdue. If you're that desperate for a child, apply for adoption. There are so many unwanted children in the world in desperate need of a loving home. Give one of them a chance instead of indulging your own selfish, narcissistic whims.