Liz Kendall, baby by surrogacy

[womanity]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/24/labour-liz-kendall-having-baby-surrogacy

I love Liz. Disappointed she’s chosen to rent a womb and buy a baby.

Another friend of mine is considering surrogacy, again for altruistic reasons

Sorry, I mean she is considering becoming a surrogate, to be clearer.

"But it would be good to have more surrogate mothers. I would use one if I couldn’t get pregnant.”

'Use'? Interesting words from Zarayna, it's also interesting that she speaks about feeling guilty for the baby not being well at birth and feeling "even more committed" after the miscarriage, almost as if after their 'investment' she owed them?

"But two weeks after Lee celebrated with the couple she miscarried. “I was in pain and bleeding so I went to the hospital for a scan and they confirmed it. I didn’t expect to be emotional and didn’t tell Oona and Tiberio that I cried but I did. I left them on the street and just started crying. I wanted to give them their miracle and it not working made me really emotional. After that I was even more committed.”

www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/i-just-knew-oona-and-tiberio-would-be-great-parents-9071792.html

It doesn't take much to see her motivations and what the relationship was like, I recommend reading the article in full.

I would never judge anyone on their actions when it comes to infertility, each couple has the right to take their own path. I have every sympathy and I support surrogacy, especially when it’s informal between friends/ family. I’d do it for someone close to me.

However, she is NOT struggling with infertility. She is 50 and this is totally wrong. It’s quite disappointing that an intelligent lawmaker would think this is ok. 50 is too old to become a mother for the first time.

@AwaAnBileYerHeid

Is surrogacy always exploitative? A friend of mine was unable to carry a child, a woman in the UK who had had children of her own volunteered to be her surrogate, she states she did it as she wanted give another woman the joy of having a family, as she had herself.

Another friend of mine is considering surrogacy, again for altruistic reasons.

Is it always exploitative? And if two willing parties who are not being co-erced into anything, voluntarily undergo surrogacy, who are we to police what these women do with their bodies?.

I don't think surrogacy is something I'd consider, either as a surrogate or as an intended parent, but I would try not to judge others if it was being done on a purely voluntary, altruistic basis.

It is always exploitative of the baby who is quite literally being born to be sold.

We don't take puppies away from their mothers until they are at least 8 weeks old. But human babies can be taken from their mothers at birth. It's inhumane

I honestly don't have time for any 50 year old renting out another woman's body for anything
And even less time for anyone who deliberately sets out to remove a child from their birth mother
I did this as a social worker and it is hard enough when there is a clear safeguarding reason
It is shockingly self centered to set up a situation where this is done deliberately

This is absolutely spot on.

There is no such thing as “altruistic” surrogacy, even when done with the best of intentions it is removing a baby from their mother, which should only ever be done if that baby is in danger of serious harm.

Stumbled across this on the active board.

Can I ask what's wrong with surrogacy and how it's exploitive?

I’ve suffered infertility (lots of IVF), read about this yesterday and was dismayed.

She is literally buying a baby. At 50 (or even 45 when she met her partner) her eggs were vanishingly unlikely to work via IVF, it’s less than a 1/100 chance of a live birth at 45. So she’s roped in two wombs to meet her goal.

I completely understand the drive for a biological child and I have zero time for anyone who has successfully conceived their own but says it’s “not important” - it’s very easy to say that from a lofty position of relative privilege. For us neither donor eggs (ethically tricky) nor adoption were right and I shouldn’t have to defend that stance to anyone. But she’s 50 ffs, she’s just left it far, far too late beyond any woman’s reproductive capacity.

@videobaby123

Stumbled across this on the active board.

Can I ask what's wrong with surrogacy and how it's exploitive?

Really? You can't see what's wrong with it?

It is buying and selling human beings. That can never be okay in a civilised society.

stopsurrogacynowuk.org/2021/04/22/welcome-to-stop-surrogacy-now-uk/

Disappointing.

She and her partner are buying a baby, let's call surrogacy what it is. She is 50 she is past the age where most women can still have a baby and this is usual and very different from a woman in her 20s or 30s trying to conceive.

Really? You can't see what's wrong with it?

To be fair, lots of people, including presumably LK, can’t see what’s wrong with it.

@videobaby123 There’s lots wrong.

First off, you’re commissioning a baby to buy (or be ‘gifted’). We don’t generally think that giving away or selling babies is okay.

Secondly, you’re exploiting the mother, by having her take massive risks in exchange sometimes for money, sometimes for a feeling of having done something nice.

Women don’t ‘carry’ children, they literally build them.

As they say, when rich people start being surrogates for poor people, then we can talk.

There’s lots, I could go on but I’m short of time.

I’m undecided on surrogacy. I do think it should be very highly regulated; but I think some cases are less easy to condemn. I have a close family member who developed an acute blood cancer while in her first trimester of pregnancy in her early 30s, and had to have a TFMR of the much-wanted healthy baby in order that urgent treatment could save her life. After remission she subsequently had egg collection for IVF, and then unexpectedly had to have another transplant to save her life - which put her into menopause. She is now cured (as far as her team can tell), and she and her husband have stored embryos, but the only way to safely have them would be surrogacy by a friend (who has volunteered), or other volunteer surrogate.

Now in that case I find it harder to condemn the potential use of surrogacy. I agree that leaving it late then wanting to commission a baby a la pop stars and models is selfish and commercialised. But it’s also becoming more the case that women surviving after cancer or other drastic medical treatment may be in situations that are less clear cut, and I’m not sure I’d like to ban surrogacy outright for some of those instances where medical complexity and genuine altruism may be involved.

It is not just the risks and long term health challenges and bodily changes resulting from pregnancy that are an issue, but surrogacy also promotes the commodification of women's bodies. This inherently gives rise to a high risk of exploitation of the woman as an individual but also of women as a class as only half the population can provide the "service".

Promotions of surrogacy also very often attempt to decouple the concept of growing a baby from motherhood in order to support the idea of a baby being taken away from its birth mother at birth. (Rather than adding to the concept of motherhood when women become mothers in other ways or take on a mothering role.)

@videobaby123

Stumbled across this on the active board.

Can I ask what's wrong with surrogacy and how it's exploitive?

Even if her own situation was 100% fine, MPs shouldn't be freely promoting surrogacy. If this is a mainstream practice, it will become exploitative even if it isn't already.

I don't see mass harvested babies as a great idea, especially if there ends up being a race to the bottom

@Clymene no need to be aggressive, I was literally just asking. I thought in the UK you can't actually pay a surrogate money to carry your baby? Of course they're allowed to cover expenses but that's it.

@womanity thanks for responding OP and thanks for the reasons given. I agree with a PP who said that if both women are consenting adults and are both happy to proceed with situation, then I don't see the issue. It is actually their bodies that they're making decisions for. I don't think the case of exploitation can be used in every single situation either.

People are also saying why couldn't they adopt or foster but so many people want to have a child that actually has their genetics. I know someone who tried IVF many times and were unsuccessful. They then used a surrogate who was more than happy to carry their baby for them. I don't think it's as brutal and cutthroat as some are making it out to seem. However I'm not an expert on this, just stating my own views

Is it always exploitative? And if two willing parties who are not being co-erced into anything, voluntarily undergo surrogacy, who are we to police what these women do with their bodies?

I agree wholeheartedly with this

if both women are consenting adults and are both happy to proceed with situation, then I don't see the issue

What about the person who is born from this agreement? Where do their interests get factored in?

[quote videobaby123]@Clymene no need to be aggressive, I was literally just asking. I thought in the UK you can't actually pay a surrogate money to carry your baby? Of course they're allowed to cover expenses but that's it.

@womanity thanks for responding OP and thanks for the reasons given. I agree with a PP who said that if both women are consenting adults and are both happy to proceed with situation, then I don't see the issue. It is actually their bodies that they're making decisions for. I don't think the case of exploitation can be used in every single situation either.

People are also saying why couldn't they adopt or foster but so many people want to have a child that actually has their genetics. I know someone who tried IVF many times and were unsuccessful. They then used a surrogate who was more than happy to carry their baby for them. I don't think it's as brutal and cutthroat as some are making it out to seem. However I'm not an expert on this, just stating my own views[/quote]
You can’t ‘pay them’, but you provide ‘expenses’. The ‘expenses’ can be fairly high. (Thousands, not hundreds of thousands.)

who are we to police what these women do with their bodies?

We often police what people do with their bodies.

What about the person who is born from this agreement? Where do their interests get factored in?

Has anyone ever spoken to someone who was born by surrogacy to see their thoughs/views on the situation? Or do people just assume that the person born in this situation would not be happy because their birth mother isn't their actual mother?

'I honestly don't have time for any 50 year old renting out another woman's body for anything'

Completely agree

I knew that Oona King went through IVF unsuccessfully several times, and that she adopted more than one child. I didn't know that she had a FOURTH child through surrogacy. Is three children not more than enough for any couple?

I really think surrogacy is another ticking time bomb. The way adoption was carried out in the 50s and 60s gave us a lot of damaged adults, and the way donor conception was carried out in the 70s and 80s has given us a lot of questioning, confused adults. Surrogacy is the worst of both worlds at the same time, and only when the children involved are adults will we know what the outcomes really were.

Surrogacy is the worst of both worlds

Yes! This completely.

Has anyone ever spoken to someone who was born by surrogacy to see their thoughs/views on the situation? Or do people just assume that the person born in this situation would not be happy because their birth mother isn't their actual mother?

I doubt this has been examined in any detail - perhaps because surrogacy is relatively new and adults born as a result are still relatively few in numbers.

But the total absence of any reference to the offspring reminds me of the thinking around adoption in the 50s, 60s and 70s when adoption was seen as a solution for childless couples/unmarried mothers (ie I am not talking about current adoptions which tend to be the result of abuse/neglect etc

Back then all assumed that the outcome for the “child” would always be a good one. In practice though, many adopted adults (healthy children, not abused, adopted in infancy) demonstrate significant psychological trauma. This may be a result of the birth mother’s health during gestation but it is also linked to issues of abandonment, being brought up by people not genetically related, mental health of the adopters etc.

Surely those advocating surrogacy should be looking at this.

@Lottapianos

'I honestly don't have time for any 50 year old renting out another woman's body for anything'

Completely agree

I knew that Oona King went through IVF unsuccessfully several times, and that she adopted more than one child. I didn't know that she had a FOURTH child through surrogacy. Is three children not more than enough for any couple?

Presumably it was related to the drive to have a child which was biologically related to King and her husband.

I said earlier I understand the drive to want to experience pregnancy but without that , the genetic aspect seems irrelevant; particularly here where King and husband already had 3 children who weren't genetically connected.

You asked "is three children not more than enough?" I would ask - were the 3 adopted children not good enough- were they not "real children"?