Surrogacy

[ffsonly46]

Wasn't sure where to put this but feel the posters on here will have plenty of views!

Watching the documentary last night by Tom Daly and I mention to DP that I was put off by his TWAW stance as this is all well and good but clearly they are not when you're not asking them to lend their womb for him and his DH to have children. I said I didn't like the commodification of women's bodies.

He pointed out that in this country no one is coerced or paid, I replied it's not so around the world and in general I was uncomfortable with the donation/selling of eggs and sperm.

We don't know anyone who has used a surrogate but do know people who have purchased and also donated sperm, he asked if I was against this also and I'm not sure, it is still commodifying children, all be it consensually.

Please can you share your thoughts on this?

@Dobbysgotthesocks I said I was guessing you hadn’t experienced the complications just like you had guessed I hadn’t experienced infertility issues.

I may have guessed wrong, you guessed wrong about me I have experienced fertility issues.

Out of interest @Dobbysgotthesocks did you know much about surrogacy before you had to consider it? Do you think there is more to it that an intended parent by surrogacy learns that the average person isn’t aware of? Did your views change after your illness?

I had a brush with fertility treatment and although we didn’t go ahead in the end, it did make me think much more deeply about it all. So I can see how knowing you have no choices outside of adoption or surrogacy would really focus the mind ( and maybe change your view). Even seeing how fertility clinics work is eye opening.

It might be in feminist chat but it's deeply deeply offensive to those of us who have no other options to have a family.

Does this mean we aren't allowed to discuss surrogacy? Incase we offend someone?

Should we have a list of topics we aren't allowed to discuss incase we offend someone?

@CuntAmongstThePigeons we do though, frequently, place puppies/kittens/any other animal with non related animals raise them for a number of different reasons but mainly for socialisation reasons.

How many children have you adopted?

@PinkyU the reference is to the UK wide law that puppies must stay with their birth mums for 8 weeks before being sold or handed on.

It’s certainly a feminist issue that there are women out there who petition for the limitation of a woman’s reproductive rights because they choose to carry a child for another person/couple.

Can we not see what happens when we open the door to government having the power to legislate over women’s reproductive rights?

Where does that end? What other rights should we control?

No one has a "right" to use another person's body. That's not a reproductive right.

@RoseslnTheHospital that’s not actually true though.

The rule prevents puppies and kittens being sold under 8 weeks Ian’s applies to England only. It doesn’t mention puppies etc staying with the birth mother.

Correct, however a woman does have the right to get pregnant, carry the child then place it with other intended parents. It seems some women want to prevent women choosing to get pregnant for this intention. That is attempting to control women’s reproductive rights.

You clearly did know how you felt as you posted it in this topic where it was obviously going to get only one type of response.

You can only reasonably seek to regulate embryology and fertility clinics. Straight surrogacy is, naturally, ungovernable.

I think it’s a flex to view it as “petition[ing] for the limitation of a woman’s reproductive rights” given that the surrogate mothers are not the ones seeking to gain children.

It's here...

www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-animals-as-pets-licence-england

And yes, you're right this only applies to England. Perhaps wales, Scotland and NI have similar legislation. The law also requires puppies to be shown for sale alongside their mother, that's where the concept of keeping them with their mother comes from.

The point is that there are laws to attempt to reduce the cases of puppies being bred and removed immediately from their mothers.

How many women do freely choose to be artificially inseminated, carry pregnancy to term, then give birth and immediately hand over said child and have nothing to do with it?

Barring financial incentive or familial pressure, who would choose to do that for shits n giggles?

Seeking a total ban, being of the opinion that it should be banned entirely etc shows a total disregard for women’s bodily autonomy it’s no different to American law makers banning abortions, seeking to ban pregnancy because you disagree with the morality of the outcome.

(the universal you, not you personally necessarily)

@RoseslnTheHospital Yes I’ve read it, it relates to the selling of animals. There are many, many examples of young animals being “fostered” by other animals, even of a different species. The alternative is a dead litter. Your comparison is weak.

Altruistic surrogacy if it has similar checks and balances to live organ donation, I can just about stomach. Even though I still think there are risks and pressure and other issues.

Anything else is extremely problematic.

And I do hear you @Dobbysgotthesocks however if you didn't have a sister (I don't) would you be as angry with people suggesting that surrogacy for money wasn't feminist? Because we'd be stopping from having a biologically related child then too.

If it's all just based on adults wanting babies, then any amount of renting wombs and paying people should be OK?

As I frequently say on these threads, when I see rich, famous women doing it for poor women, I'll think again.

I think sex work is a much better comparator than abortion is. (Forced birth being very obviously detrimental to the woman concerned. You can’t say the same about having to forego being a surrogate mother or having to forego being a sex worker.)

I am actually not quite sure that, pragmatically, an outright ban is workable. The three things we we definitely should be trying to avoid are the legalisation of commercial surrogacy, the provision of surrogates on the NHS, and making it easy for British parents to hire foreign surrogates.

Surrogacy - deliberately having a baby in order for he/she/them (multiple embryos implanted, which is common in surrogacy, can result in twins) to be removed from their mother at birth - is often compared to abortion under ‘reproductive rights’ and I’ve never understood this.

Reproductive rights is the right NOT to become a mother as an equaliser of a kind as fathers get to NOT be fathers as they aren’t the ones going through pregnancy and giving birth so they get to walk away and disappear. Forced birth is the alternative, clearly this is bad for women and girls.

Abortion, being the termination of a pregnancy, a baby isn’t born, this is the very opposite intention of surrogacy, where one or more children are born.

Being two very different, or even opposite things, I don’t get the comparison. The only thing in common is it relates to women, women’s bodies, pregnancy and laws. Where there is an overlap is if you are pregnant by contract then doesn’t your body autonomy diminish as the baby inside you is owned by someone else? Women lose rights and decision making power in surrogacy. One story in New Zealand I saw recently as they are seeking to reform laws there too, referred to rights of the donor gametes used to conceive a surrogate baby. An MP there spoke on the laws to prevent a surrogate mother terminating a pregnancy so resulting in a forced surrogacy birth.

The law in the U.K. allows for ‘altruistic’ only surrogacy and whether it is or how it can be is at the centre of this being a feminist issue which makes sense to discuss on this board.

New Zealand story - I was the OP 😁

Read down to see

Labour MP Tāmati Coffey wants to enforce surrogacy arrangements

I remember that thread. I can’t believe that was more than a year ago. I’m trying to resist falling down the rabbit hole of researching what happened.

It’s at Select Committee stage Hinch, it’s unsurprising to see Coffey is leading the charge for Law reform.

Thanks!

I think this thread demonstrates that surrogacy policy should not be driven by desperate people or profit-driven agencies. Unlike organ donation, no one's life is at risk if you can't have a child.

Surrogacy is rarely the sugar-coated versions the media likes to tout out and it should be examined by clear-headed people who aren't so heavily invested in one particular outcome that they overlook the other parties involved. While a sister being a surrogate may be less problematic than commercialized, it isn't beyond debate. I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss ethics, especially by women and medical professionals (not so much the infertility industry) who understand pregnancy and birth.

My sister dealt with infertility and our youngest sister who'd never had children offered (out of the blue) to be her surrogate. Having never given birth, she had no idea what she was offering. My sister declined her offer for many reasons, but primarily because she wouldn't ask that if any woman, especially her own sister. Not all women who go through the pain of infertility would consider surrogacy an option, so I find it difficult to accept that if you're infertile, you have no choice but surrogacy.

Pinky we only place infant animals with animals that aren't their mother when the mother is either dead, Ill or has rejected her young.

Much like adoption, it's not ideal, but it's making the most of a bad situation.

Unlike surrogacy which is creating a child with the intention to separate it from its mother. It's completely different.

Simon I'm unsure what me adopting children has to do with anything. I'm aware that it's not straight forward and that children who are adopted may often have struggles and trauma which makes things complicated.

I'm sure having a 'blank slate' baby is easier. I still don't agree with creating babies with the intention of separating them from their mothers.