Kerry Katona and surrogacy. Thoughts?

[ChocChipOwl]

I'm just watching Kerry on tv ad I eat my lunch. She has 5 children and, because her partner doesn't have any kids, they're going to go down the surrogacy route as her last pregnancy and birth was difficult

She said - and I quote - 'yeah we are going to get a surrogate because that's safer.'

Safer for who, I wonder?

Anyway, it got me thinking. I always used to be ambivalent about surrogacy but now I'm opposed to it, although I do recognise that on some occasions it may have a place.

But does it have a place for a 42 year old woman who already had 5 children and is so blasé about it all?

You really need to educate yourself on this subject before commenting.

Its not sickening.

In my experience we had a joint process of creating a beautiful new human. She really makes this world a better place to live in.

What is sickening is small minded, armchair experts like yourself who have no expertise in this area spouting venom.

I could probably spend a bit of time commenting about how children are impacted by parents who are very judgemental and closed minded … but it’s late ..

You can often tell a lot about someone that tells others to go and ‘educate themselves’. It’s nearly always about something that isn’t in the best interests of women and children I’ve found.

But yeah, I’m ‘educated’ on this topic and the few pros and many, many cons. It’s unethical, unnecessary and you sound like a total fool to talk about the child’s ‘best interests’ in surrogacy.

As for my children, thankfully they don’t think babies are something you are entitled to or that should be commissioned like a piece of art. And they understand that women are exploited in many ways and that some people justify it or just don’t realise or don’t care. They know that just because something is possible or is happening, it doesn’t mean it is right and they shouldn’t just accept it for fear of being called judgemental. Some things, like surrogacy, they should not happen and we should work towards stopping them.

If surrogacy is so great, wonderful and safe, why do you never see any rich people doing it? You never see any of the kardashians offering to carry a baby for anyone? It’s always poor women selling the only assets they have, their wombs.

So you bought a. Baby? Well done. Isn’t it funny humans can’t sell their kidneys but babies are fair game. It is exactly human trafficking.

Yeah, it’s always nice to hear from human traffickers who believe they have the right to exploit women

Just to be clear I am the only person commenting here who has ACTUAL experience of this. Your armchair opinions are actually making me chuckle now as you’re as you clearly have no idea on how the process works in the U.K. You can read as many mumsnet threads that you like on the subject to form your uneducated opinion but unless you have actual experience your opinion means nothing to me.

I was the surrogate, my sister is my nieces mother - her and my brother in laws embryo. I am not a baby trafficker. I am not poor and my sister is not rich. I wasn’t exploited in any way. We brought my Niece into the world together through love. I am fine. My niece is a very happy 4 year old who has the best parents any child could ever wish for. A life brought into the world, as a joint effort, by a family who all love her so much. The family court judge was so happy to have such a nice case to deal with vs some of the cases she has to see (children who are actually suffering from trauma due to neglect etc).

No babies were sold, hurt or traumatised.

@yorkshirepudgf as previous posters have said though there is a huge difference between wanting to help your sister out of love and a stranger with no connections undertaking this for someone they don't know.
I know we say in the Uk that it is illegal to pay for surrogacy other than expenses. However the one gay couple I know that did this paid their unemployed surrogate £20k expenses. I do struggle to see how £20k expenses can be racked up for a baby you aren't keeping....

I understand that and have pointed out that my comments are directed towards the posters on the thread that are saying ALL surrogacy is exploitation / baby trafficking etc.

I am more well off than my sister so didn’t need any expenses etc. I worked through the pregnancy and went back to work when I was ready to after the birth.

When we did it we had to evidence the money side of things and I’m sure expenses paid out couldn’t be more than £11k (this was in 2018).

We are all supposed to go 'ooooh well now I'm educated and how wrong am I?' are we?

Thats like saying, well I had very risky major surgery and I didn't die, therefore everyone else should have it and I don't know why they have any complaints.

Except the surgery is completely unnecessary.

And that baby is automatically denied any access to counselling if they have any negative impacts. They are simply told that they 'are loved extra' or some such nonsense and have to suck it up 'because otherwise they wouldn't exist.'

And there is a problem, that if you did have regrets, it would be hard to admit anyway because to be a surrogate, you have to almost brain wash yourself past the point of logic and instinct to do it in the first place. This has a protective effect, but it means you also are likely to be ultra defensive even if confronted with examples of it going badly wrong. Indeed if you have been exploited or coerced it's often hard to see or admit, precisely because you have. Just cos you don't recognise it as such, doesn't mean that hasn't happened or isn't happening in the circles you mix.

Any trauma that the children have is not going to necessarily be spoken of, whilst parents live too - in the same way that adoptees avoid doing to, but still have profound inner identity issues.

Honestly, doing the whole appeal to authority propaganda trick, because you have experience and therefore are 'the only expert on the thread' is weak. Its an internet tool, that I long got tired of, and it's often used by people trying to argue a point which is utter bollocks. I see straight through it.

Part of the reality of having trafficked a baby is you need to live with others think the practice is utterly appalling and not child centred and very often highly exploitative even in altruistic situations.

Other people are not going to 'be educated' by listening to you as some kind of self appointed moral authority on the subject because they retain their own ability to critically think and analyse.

You are not a strong argument for surrogacy, if there are numerous examples of poor practice. Why? Because the principle of 'do no harm stands' and even a small number of cases where it goes wrong in an market which unregulated and unmonitored is too many. It should not be happening at all.

So no I'm not remotely interested in your opinion which isn't any stronger than anyone else's on the thread on the basis of you 'having experience'

It will come out in the wash how harmful it is...

You will have to wait and see when she’s older how she feels about the fact that her aunt is the mother that carried her. How she feels at 4, isn’t representative of how she’ll feel at 25. If you’re in the U.K, her original birth certificate has you down as mother, theres a reason for that.

Regardless of circumstances, babies created to be taken away from that mother will always be unethical. It’s not child focused, it’s all about what adults want.

@RedToothBrush honestly the way you rant on you sound like you're wearing a tin foil hat. Do you even know what trafficking is? According to the UN, it's:

the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of people through force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them for profit

So what part of that definition is relevant to what @yorkshirepudgf did for her sister and brother in law? There was no force, fraud or deception, and there is no aim to exploit the child for profit. So you can continue saying what you like but it's wrong (objectively, factually incorrect) and you sound like a loon.

I will happily wear a tin foil hat if it stops surrogacy.

Its baby trafficking. It is exploitation of that baby.

Any British law:
Human trafficking involves the recruitment or movement of people for exploitation by the use of threat, force, fraud, or the abuse of vulnerability

So yes a baby is moved by force and are vulnerable because they have no choice.

It does not have to be for profit.

Lots of people concentrate on the relationships between the adults, and dont think about the child.

@RedToothBrush that is a two tiered definition requiring:
a) the recruitment or movement of people for exploitation; and
b) by the use of threat, force, fraud, or the abuse of vulnerability

I don't agree that this falls within part a or b.

If you want the actual legal definition, you'll find it in section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I'll give you a clue though, @yorkshirepudgf doesn't fall within that either, and there's a reason for that. What she did was legal, and it's nonsensical to have conflicting laws in place.

Exactly. So let’s ban the human trafficking of babies via surrogacy. If human trafficking is illegal for adults, surely it should be illegal for babies.

@Asdavaluesausage but surrogacy isn't trafficking, so the argument fails

@Asdavaluesausage you'll also be relieved to know that the legal definition of human trafficking does include babies, it just isn't relevant to surrogacy.

So it’s ok to buy and sell babies but not adults? Awesome. Maybe as feminists we should be working on that.

So what do you call the buying and selling of humans then? Or are you saying babies aren’t human? Wow!

@Asdavaluesausage I see your argument is floundering so you have resorted to outrage, outrage, outrage (and bizarrely claiming that I don't think babies are human, I suppose you use zero logic for most things in your life?).

What I said to you is that the legal definition of human trafficking protects children as well as adults, but doesn't extend to surrogacy. Therefore, surrogacy is not human trafficking.

You called @yorkshirepudgf a trafficker, that is an incorrect statement and indicates that you didn't read the thread as you seem to place so much emphasis on the buying and selling element, yet no money was exchanged.

So babies are not protected from being bought and sold? You do know surrogacy is more than the one poster in this thread? Why do you believe it is ok to buy and sell babies? At what age does it not become ok to buy a human being?

@Asdavaluesausage yes I am aware of the breadth of surrogacy, I was focusing in on @yorkshirepudgf as she has experienced it, shared that with us and you falsely attacked her. I wanted to draw your attention to that.

Commercial arrangements aren't legal in the uk so babies should not be being bought or sold. Money exchanged is to cover expenses for the surrogate such as travel expenses or loss of earnings. That means they are not financially disadvantaged by the surrogacy.

Why is calling somewhat what they are a false attack? Surrogacy is human trafficking. It is the buying and selling of human life. If you are a part of that, and support surrogacythen you are a human trafficker. What is the difference between someone going overseas to buy a baby (as highlighted recently in Ukraine) and going overseas to buy an adult?

@Asdavaluesausage I can repeat the phrase "eating broccoli is murder" - that doesn't mean that it is. What you think, and what is fact, are two different things. You don't have to accept that, but what you accept or don't accept doesn't make a jot of difference to the legal system in the UK.

If you think that buying and selling is what constitutes human trafficking, then you can't think that @yorkshirepudgf is a human trafficker, because no money was exchanged in her circumstance. Both things can't be true simultaneously.

You don't make much sense, and your arguments contradict each other. I'm not going to continue this exchange because I think you're past help.