Friends doing surrogacy: how to keep my feelings to myself

[AlexandraOrlov]

Before having my daughter, I had no issues with surrogacy but in the years that have passed, I’ve found it less and less comfortable. She screamed every time she was removed from my chest after birth, and for weeks her world was only right when she was on me, and no-one else. It was such an animal, instinctive bond, like we were still one unit. I cannot imagine what it would have meant for her if I’d have left then and she’d just had her father.

My friends (gay male couple) are starting their surrogacy journey. They’re in the US, it’s costly, but they both earn crazy money and they’ll have as many goes as it takes. Most contact with them has been over WhatsApp so I’ve been able to say all the “right” things but we’re visiting them in February and it’s going to be hard to sound supportive when I just feel really odd about this baby who is going to emerge knowing the smell of its “mother” and rooting for milk. Full context we are TTC again and it’s not going well, which is not helping.

I know all of this is probably not rational, and I truly believe that same sex couples are wonderful parents. I also don’t know how I feel about surrogacy when there’s a women or two women as the intended parents, I can’t unpack it that far.

How the bloody hell do I handle my mixed up feelings on this visit to not ruin a friendship I value deeply? Processing and debating it “live” with them doesn’t feel like a great idea but I’m terrible at hiding my feelings.

Yet we don't see dreadful outcomes for babies who spend the first few months of their lives in NICU, often living out the fourth trimester in the arms of a machine and a procession of nurses, away from the smell and sound they are habituated to. There is no NICU syndrome afaik. Adopted infants in the UK tend to have a host of traumas they are dealing with from birth onwards in connection with their time in utero so it's not like for like.

Many surrogates choose to use a device that plays recordings of their commissioning parents voices while they're in the womb.

Personally I know the cry of a tired, hungry baby from the scream of a deeply unsettled baby. I'm perplexed that you don't.

Of course long NICU stays have an impact, this is recognised hence initiatives like skin to skin, and other initiatives to promote parent care and interaction as much as possible. Babies aren't often just left to nurses to look after, parents will take turns to visit all day, and mothers that are wanting to breastfeed will be sitting next to their baby and expressing as much as possible.

Personally I know the cry of a tired, hungry baby from the scream of a deeply unsettled baby. I'm perplexed that you don't.

Why assume that I don't?
Surrogate mothers with regret have spoken about how their baby was unsettled or had 'colic' but settled immediately when held by their mothers after days or weeks apart.

Here is something on the parental experience of babies in NICU, these babies had contact with their mothers, could smell them nearby perhaps due to their proximity, were held buy their mothers when possible, heard their heartbeats when lying on their chests.

Why do medical staff remove babies from their incubators in order to place them on their mother's chest, would this happen in NICUs up and down the country because there was a benefit for these babies? Is there a benefit from skin to skin with fathers? All useful questions I think...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730907/

If there are no studies to show how NICU babies are negatively affected by the absence of cuddles from their mothers I suspect that is because newborns can't speak and NICU babies can barely cry.

Please don't assume that I have not been in NICU myself. In fact, please don't assume anything but rather read the studies available.

If there are no studies to show how NICU babies are negatively affected by the absence of cuddles from their mothers I suspect that is because newborns can't speak and NICU babies can barely cry.

I don't think you understand how science works if that's truly your view.

Do behave, you said babies scream anyway and this is what I responded to as I'm sure you're well aware! It did make me wonder if you're a mother yourself because a baby's distress would be identifiable regardless of why else they might be crying, but perhaps you haven't direct experience to know this. It wasn't an assumption, just a question mark because your assumption made no sense.

It is of course important to mitigate the impact of being raised in an incubator for NICU babies who often don't have mum well enough or available to sit endlessly by the cot, nor is mum always allowed to hold baby. However these babies generally do not go on to show the kind of trauma that adopted children more often endure, suggesting there are many other factors at play, pre birth trauma and a succession of primary care givers being two obvious stressors that children born through surrogacy do not encounter.

There is no reason to presume that children will be fine with a switch in caregivers at birth - I'm not saying that - but to suggest that they will go on to deal with trauma akin to apron trauma on the basis that there is a parallel in their experiences during the fourth trimester is absurd.

In regard to NICU babies, I would imagine that a straightforward and lasting change in care giver at birth would be preferable for the baby over extended periods of time alone in a noisy machine with a rota of nurses doing most of the handling and minimal skin to skin contact. However that's speculation, as are most of your posts on this thread. The reality is that babies are cared for in both situations and, as any NICU nurse will tell you, NICU babies grow into perfectly well adjusted children. As do children born through surrogacy. It's been going on for a while now and we don't have an influx of these children through our children's mental health care services. There's no smoking gun to indicate trauma as there is for children who have been adopted. I don't think you're entirely wrong but I do think the situation is much more complex than you realise and children are affected by a multiplicity of factors, not just the issues that matter to you.

Children who spend a long time on NICU are often traumatised. They're also often disabled in other ways. I think you need to do more research.

Some research

neurosciencenews.com/nicu-mental-health-15585/

"Summary: Children who were admitted to NICUs as babies are twice as likely to be diagnosed with mental health problems, including ADHD, phobias, and separation anxiety."

It did make me wonder if you're a mother yourself because a baby's distress would be identifiable regardless of why else they might be crying

But a father's nipples - commissioning, adopted or genetic - didn't leak milk when their baby cried. You can check my posting history to check on whether I am a mother or not. You will also find many threads and posts about surrogacy if you care to check.

pre birth trauma and a succession of primary care givers being two obvious stressors that children born through surrogacy do not encounter
I know of a couple of commissioning parents who put their surrogate-born 6 week old in daily childcare. I have other examples and can explain why this is (American maternity leave not being applicable is one, why may leave is so bad on the US is another thread.)

The reality is that babies are cared for in both situations and, as any NICU nurse will tell you, NICU babies grow into perfectly well adjusted children. As do children born through surrogacy. It's been going on for a while now and we don't have an influx of these children through our children's mental health care services.

Yes babies are cared for, to not do so is neglect. See my citation in previous post re NICU babies. Please share yours for your claim re surrogate-born babies growing and being treated (or not) by mental health services.

I don't think you're entirely wrong but I do think the situation is much more complex than you realise and children are affected by a multiplicity of factors, not just the issues that matter to you.

Agreed and ditto.

But a father's nipples - commissioning, adopted or genetic - didn't leak milk when their baby cried. You can check my posting history to check on whether I am a mother or not. You will also find many threads and posts about surrogacy if you care to check.

Yeah, I don't think this is making the point you think it is. We were discussing whether it's possible to tell if a baby is distressed due to separation because apparently they scream anyway? Please do stay on point.

know of a couple of commissioning parents who put their surrogate-born 6 week old in daily childcare. I have other examples and can explain why this is (American maternity leave not being applicable is one, why may leave is so bad on the US is another thread.)

Irrelevant. This doesn't necessarily amount to a succession of primary givers - babies are designed for community care in the right circumstances. Again, you make a point but it's not hitting the target.

You didn't make a citation and nor did you engage with the point made. In fact you said something ridiculous indicating that we couldn't know if NICU babies are suffering because they don't have the power of speech.

I find you very light on critical thinking. I'm thinking final year undergraduate pretending to be an academic. This may be your pet hate but your arguments are poor and don't stand up to scrutiny. And if anything we were discussing thriving rather than neglect as that should be the bench mark. Can they thrive. Yes they do.

We were discussing whether it's possible to tell if a baby is distressed due to separation because apparently they scream anyway? Please do stay on point.

Mothers bodies do not react like fathers bodies, mothers wake before a baby even cries, mothers are more connected to their babies than fathers, for obvious reasons, so obvious my statement does not need a study to back it up. Fathers do not have maternal instinct, mothers do. Mothers may instinctively be able to know what a baby needs more so than a father (or she may not). Babies cry for many reasons, one might be because they want their mothers. When a mother is absent other parent or grandparent/carers/nurses cannot settle them, only being near their mother can. Babies cry/scream and cannot say "please put me near my mother I need her", this can only be expressed by a distressed cry, unlike other cries. What happens to the baby if the mother is not there? I've known a newborn to turn blue from screaming for her mother whilst she was in emergency surgery. They both made it.

This doesn't necessarily amount to a succession of primary givers - babies are designed for community care in the right circumstances. Again, you make a point but it's not hitting the target.
And

There is no reason to presume that children will be fine with a switch in caregivers at birth - I'm not saying that

Which is it? They might be fine, they might not be. Ok, but not irrelevant, not in terms of surrogacy, adoption or with NICU babies. Studies on children in orphanages compared to children who are with stay at home primary carer givers would prove quite relevant, to the baby especially I would imagine. Newborns in childcare will not be with the same person every day, nursery staff get ill and have their own kids to care for. There is no guarantee that on childcare a newborn will be cared for by the same person (most likely a woman) every day.

You didn't make a citation and nor did you engage with the point made
I shared Research re NICU babies and being twice as likely to "be diagnosed with mental health problems, including ADHD, phobias, and separation" in response to your There is no NICU syndrome afaik
and to a PP who made the point was posted prior to my post you are responding to. I was engaging with your point and more broadly others on this thread.

I find you very light on critical thinking. I'm thinking final year undergraduate pretending to be an academic.
Any other assumptions you would like to share? Way off the mark I'm afraid but do try again. I do currently work in a scientific field though (not social sciences) so that should help narrow it down for you.

This may be your pet hate but your arguments are poor and don't stand up to scrutiny.
Your scrutiny. Surrogacy isn't a pet hate of mine, more an area of proposed law reform which causes me a great deal of concern as I have learn from the original posts on the subject made on this Board. (Do a search for Rumplestiltskin and you'll find it.) As for my scrutiny of your posts, I'm waiting for the research to support your claim that we are not seeing surrogate born children experiencing mental health issues.

And as any scientist will understand, an absence of research isn't proof something does/doesn't exist. Many studies I've read on and around this subject (and related subjects) nearly always preface their conclusions with "more research is needed".

And if anything we were discussing thriving rather than neglect as that should be the bench mark. Can they thrive. Yes they do.

I'm sure surrogate born children do thrive - many children thrive despite difficult beginnings - any research you can share to back your "yes they do" would be useful. I've read studies before so I know they are out there and I look forward to reading something new.

You didn't need to explain you're not a specialist in social studies as that is obvious. I can't conclude you're an expert in anything despite the hinting that it should be possible to deduce.

The law is not changing in your favour, partly because there isn't research to show that surrogacy harms children. More research is always needed in everything to do with children but what you're talking about isn't there. I realise that is not proof of absence but at some point there would be a need for hard evidence to support your claims rather than random facts about men's nipples and day care (that is judged perfectly adequate for most children in the country). I'm rather surprised that you're not concerned about most babies in the world as staying velcroed to Mum for the entire fourth trimester works for a minority of women as we have evolved to share care of infants within communities.

To clarify, you seem slightly hysterical about the idea that a baby would be cared for by others during the fourth trimester. Babies are built to cope with this. I was making the point that you have no idea if the specific example you're referring to (complete with unnecessary random facts about the US) involved a nanny or child minder (ideal) or a nursery. Even if it was a nursery, the baby would probably have thrived if home and nursery were good quality. Just like the baby who screamed while Mum was being cared for after delivery - very common situation and crying would not have been something a hospital couldn't handle so of course baby made it (more random facts). If in fact that's why they were crying - birth itself is something of a trauma. As is NICU in terms of isolation, lack of sound and skin to skin contact. This is not like for like either and while I'm sorry to hear there are some challenges for children who have spent time there, it was probably the wrong comparison to make as there are so many hardships suffered by these babies in addition to the loss of primary caregiver, none of which affect children born through surrogacy.

A succession of different primary carers would look like an ever changing rota of NICU nurses, a series of emergency foster care placements, a chaotic home environment where no one consistently (that is, on a daily basis) picks up the buck. Not one change to a different care giver. My point was that of course that could be significant but it is not to be conflated with the multiple traumas of adoption or the good-enough-but-not-gold -standard nursery care used by so many women to survive and support their families. I hope you're not suggesting it shouldn't be an option as any mother, regardless of how she came to be a mother, requires access to childcare and nannies are just not feasible for the majority.

I have known circumstances in which Mum sadly couldn't be there and guess what - Dad and sometimes Gran were good enough despite not leaking milk. These biological responses and bf itself are not a prerequisite for producing a thriving child - though I can see how suddenly spouting these random facts could shut a conversation down in real life. But it won't allow you to sway law reform in your favour. You would need the research you don't have to do that and you won't get it anytime soon - for a great reason. Scientists prick their ears up when there's a problem in society - children born through surrogacy are not demonstrating the presence of a problem with their well being that would prompt that kind of research. If you know all about it anecdotally and there's a problem with the children of the kind you're inferring, that would be noticeable. So either you don't have your finger on the pulse with these kids - or you do and you know there is nothing wrong with their development and bonding.

The wind is behind surrogacy law reform, it's necessary to protect women if surrogacy is going to exist at all (and it seems highly unlikely it will be suddenly banned) - in real life the burden of proof to halt reform is on you as things stand.

But I agree that research is always to be encouraged and welcomed in every issue that affects children.

In practice in this country, most parents through surrogacy have been waiting eagerly to be parents through many years of heartache and are falling over themselves to respond to and bond with a new baby. This is simply in response to your suggestion that they're stuffed in nursery as soon as possible - not here they're not.

This is simply in response to your suggestion that they're stuffed in nursery as soon as possible - not here they're not

The two examples I mention are U.K. based and obtained children through surrogacy under U.K. law.

The law is not changing in your favour
How do you know? Perhaps you are one of the lawyers working on reform, but I won't make assumptions.

The wind is behind surrogacy law reform
There have been several delays to the reform report, I have been following the law commission on this. There is nothing to suggest that law reform on surrogacy is at the top of the political agenda now or in the near future under this government, the same Tory government who sanctioned the process for reform in 2018. Other reform in the previous Tory government also failed and didn't progress. Can you substantiate your claim with evidence that there is that there is wide, public support for reform of surrogacy as a priority in England, Wales and Scotland (as Ireland have reformed for international surrogacy but not domestic surrogacy yet)?

Scientists prick their ears up when there's a problem in society

And

So either you don't have your finger on the pulse with these kids - or you do and you know there is nothing wrong with their development and bonding.
No such claim was made but I await the publication of this study.

https://childrensvoices.le.ac.uk/

I have never claimed to be an expert so you're reading too much into my posts there. There's no need to make things up though. I read a lot and I read a lot of studies, because I think data is interesting and important, I share them, which is clear from my posts here and elsewhere on the same subject. I'll share other resources too as I don't think data exists in a vacuum.

Though I hate the phrase, the 'lived experience' of surrogate mothers who have regret (or not) and the children who are born from surrogacy are worth listening to.

A study could find 10 women who regret giving away their children and 100 who don't. I'd still want to hear from those 10 women.

There are children who have suffered from being born from surrogacy arrangements, who as adults have processed (some) of this early trauma and I want to hear from them too; Millie Fontana, Jessica Kearns and KC Miller. That could be 3 I've named off the top of my head, 3 out of 8 billion people, or not. That's why we need the data. Unbiased, correctly and ethically gathered and analysed data.

I'm still looking forward to links to the resources you wish to share. I think it's clear that I may have more to share on this particular subject than you and that's why you are making personal insults as you have nothing else. Everyone can have their own opinion but it's useful when they are backed up with 'random facts'.

K C Miller, the one that went viral for detransitioning? I haven't looked into the story so didn't know that. That's interesting.

@Forthelast

I think it's very controlling and arrogant to tell another woman if her feelings are 'natural'. You're also quite confused if you think this woman is obliged to feel a baby is 'hers' if she has no genetic connection and feels no maternal link.

No it's not. If it was so easy to give up a baby lots of women would be doing it and and adoption of newborns would be a lot more common as well as surrogacy. Also although the poster claimed the baby "was not hers" she didn't state that it was a gestational surrogacy and not her egg. I've seen women who are so called "traditional" surrogates, using their own egg, who still claim the baby was not theirs when of course it is, in every way.

Most gestational surrogacy, unless a commissioning mother is able to supply an egg, involved exploiting the health of a SECOND woman who must go through ovarian stimulation and egg collection, putting TWO women at risk.

This blog looks at a couple of family surrogacy "journeys" and it is quite clear it involved several women being exposed to harm and one of the women found it extremely difficult because she knew how hard it was going to be to give up her baby.

https://stopsurrogacynowuk.org/2022/12/22/lets-talk-about-altruistic-surrogacy-from-co-founder-liz-purslow-long-read/

This thread from a woman who donated her eggs is very interesting

I donated my eggs AMA www.mumsnet.com/Talk/AMA/4715888-i-donated-my-eggs-ama

While it's not about surrogacy per se, the process and how she was lied to about it and the health implications are eye opening.

Yes, KC talks about it in a thread here.

twitter.com/kcmiller1225/status/1608088444978225155?s=46&t=FuKVOk9pSW75YZ7CrMOVyw

"Surrogacy: NO, full stop.
I'm a surrogate child. Surrogate birth fucked me up."

KC talks about being separated from her mother at birth and that she molested by her dad (commissioning? Genetic? Perhaps both) as a toddler.

Whether her transitioning or detransition is in any way linked to being surrogate born I'm not sure, but she speaks about attachment issues and how she thinks being born via surrogacy had a huge impact on her.

The law is not changing in your favour, partly because there isn't research to show that surrogacy harms children. More research is always needed in everything to do with children but what you're talking about isn't there. I realise that is not proof of absence but at some point there would be a need for hard evidence to support your claims rather than random facts about men's nipples and day care (that is judged perfectly adequate for most children in the country).

Here's the thing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence like you say.

So what happens if evidence shifts and there starts to be a pattern of harm's that appears. Do you think that public opinion will stay the same? When public opinion shifts things change. Notably the law.

The law isn't something that's fixed. We don't know which way this might go, because we have an absence of evidence.

In terms of human rights if harms do occur you would expect a shift accordingly. I think we are likely at some point to see a backlash on the whole 'wealthy feelings' v 'poor physical and mental harms' dynamic. I don't know what will spark it but it will happen across a range of subjects. It's the very essence of holding power to account and these things have a habit of eventually catching up as 'truth' emerges

We have a generation of surrogacy to play out and then a wave of a generation seeking their genetic identity to work its way through society.

All the evidence on human nature and desire to understand genetic origin suggests the direction it's likely to go on the laws of probabilities. Yes it's speculation but there's something here that's inescapable.

The fact that people don't want to look at the balance of probabilities on this, is telling in itself. In general I think it's easy to have a good guess that surrogacy isn't a neutral act for kids and that there will be fall out. Even if that's to do with a lack of proper vetting of prospective parents before handing over a child which could be regulated but isn't. There is a safeguarding risk and because there is third parties this means there's a potential issue with where responsibilities lie. That's a problem that isn't going to disappear because of how our laws are constructed. That, to me, suggests there's a ticking time bomb on when rather than if there will be a test case on this somewhere in the western world, which will then send shockwaves around the world in terms of organisations and politicians scrambling to cover their arses.

Time will tell. I hope I live long enough to see the results on this one, but I may well not do.

It must be obvious to you that the law is moving towards further legalisation of surrogacy, as has happened in Ireland only weeks ago. If it isn't, I question if you do know the area at all as this is common knowledge. In the UK, ever higher compensation packages are being approved in court without demur and POs signed off - hardly the sign of the clamp down you would like to see and would need evidence to initiate. One can easily (and I'm sure you have) google to see how proposed changes are in the pipeline that will legislate and regulate altruistic surrogacy today in recognition that the process is becoming increasingly popular. There is no appetite to make it less common. If you're unaware of this, you're living in a bubble far removed from the surrogacy community and lawyers who specialize in the area.

These changes are going through gradually and the momentum is very much in that direction - in the last few years, gay couples were approved to apply for a PO, then single parents were also approved. The next step may well be people who can't continue a gamete being approved to go ahead with donor embryos (at the moment one party must have a genetic link). I don't have to provide links as we can all Google and this is readily available. Women who call themselves surrogates (I'm not sure how you would like to refer to them as I know you think of them as baby sellers and I don't agree!) are lobbying to bring these changes about. There is widespread support or the changes that have already taken place would not be happening. I think you got to this about fifteen years too late, to be honest. Delays through Covid etc are to be expected but I have seen various people wait patiently for the law to be changed who are parents now. These are going through, like it or not.

My issue with your random facts is that they are truly random, ohj. They demonstrate nothing except your belief that nursery childcare is unacceptable and men are inadequate mother figures due to their biology. You talk about data but then refer to anecdotal instances with absurd takeaway points. And you support this position by calling for evidence proving the absence of harm when there is currently no trigger to investigate the presence of it. You can say nothing about the welfare of children born through surrogacy - if you knew children in this position, you would presumably be in a position to state you were well-informed, since you would, if what you say is accurate, be able to report that they are not healthy, well adjusted children. As it happens, I doubt you personally have meaningful relationships with any children born through surrogacy as I expect you would not associate with people who 'buy babies'. Which leaves you clutching your pearls and imagining the worst for a growing group in society. By all means, call for more research. But don't imply these children are being harmed when you have no evidence.

You did refer to US examples, actually. Perhaps you have forgotten.

I suspect @Forthelast you have an axe to grind as you reveal yourself to also be informed on recent surrogacy legislation - though Ireland was moving this was a year ago, not a few weeks. Ireland isn't know for its excellent treatment of women and children historically, nor recently so I'm not sure that law is a good example, particularly due to their links with Ukraine surrogacy - and you have not yet provided anything to evidence your claims of how:

1. Surrogate born children do not experience mental health issues (I have provided a study where NICU babies are negatively affected)

and

1. Where the evidence is of this widespread support of surrogacy law reform in E, W and S

What you have shared is your opinion and a review of my comments which is fine and welcome as far as I'm concerned.

I won't be responding to each of your points though until we can catch up on the above so we can move and not leave gaps on this thread which has ventured wildly away from the OP, but such is the nature of discussion, especially on emotive and controversial topics of surrogacy.

To correct you:

"I know of a couple of commissioning parents who put their surrogate-born 6 week old in daily childcare. I have other examples and can explain why this is (American maternity leave not being applicable is one, why may leave is so bad on the US is another thread.)"

When referring to US maternity leave I was referring to other examples not the two I mentioned. Commercial surrogacy and maternity leave are separate to our discussion, so I mentioned it as an aside. Both examples of surrogate born babies going into childcare at 6 weeks and 8 weeks old are U.K. born under the so-called 'altruistic' system applied in U.K. law.

Apologies if I wasn't clear but maybe you are not reading my posts properly.

I suspect there will be a massive backlash on how the law has gone elsewhere and where it might be going now in the UK

Like I say, laws change to reflect public opinion.

Public opinion isn't always informed and governments are often forced to uturn even on key policies as this ignorance is demonstrated to be damaging over time.

The US has moved towards a liberalisation on drugs in many states for example, with consequences that haven't been positive. I fully expect that in time, there will be a massive shift on this (not dissimilar to smoking). Because it's not working in the way envisaged by those who professed it would improve social issues.

Ohj - you also claim to be informed so presumably you have an axe to grind as this seems to be the determining factor. It's likely that all of Mumsnet is aware you have an axe to grind on this issue and it must be frustrating that you can find no data to demonstrate that surrogacy is harmful to babies as you seem so keen to believe. I am personally glad this doesn't seem the case from what we know.

It's really neither here nor there what form of childcare is used by parents provided it is the best solution for their family, as with any other family.

There is no sign of any backlash at the moment. A recent surrogacy documentary sparked debate but the fact that it was made and took a positive tone speaks volumes about the rise in surrogacy and the way it is received outside feminist circles. (I did find the examples they chose to use quite non typical though - a woman who was surrogate for her boss etc - not the norm in surrogacy at all). However it did serve to illustrate that more people are becoming surrogates and growing families this way.

If you were better informed about surrogacy generally, you would know that Irish parents were celebrating only last month that the long awaited day had arrived re legal issues being resolved. British women wishing to help Irish couples through surrogacy were pleased as they can now do so. Ireland's human rights record doesn't come into it as this was simply as a step towards Britain's current position.

If you suspect that I know children who have been born through surrogacy, I can only say that I suspect you don't. You can't claim to have a special interest in something without some first hand experience of the people you are concerned about.

I'm not interested in widening the topic to how surrogacy affects women as that's an important topic but different to the issue under discussion (how the children are affected). Unless surrogacy is to be banned (you can show no evidence this is even remotely likely to happen) further legislation is desired as the legal process at the moment is not designed for the purpose.

You're welcome not to respond to my points individually as I find your individual responses unconvincing and not to the point - 'facts' about nipples and childcare are not relevant to whether a child can thrive though they might feel emotive to you.

@Forthelast

But don't imply these children are being harmed when you have no evidence.

Don't imply these children are not being harmed when you have no evidence.

I may come back to your other points another time but "Do behave" and 'Pearl clutching' are common misogynistic tropes used, usually I find, to undermine feminists arguments women make (this is a feminist board), to undermine and dismiss so none of what you have posted surprises me, nor does your lack of evidence (so far) for the claims you make.

As @RedToothBrush says,

We have a generation of surrogacy to play out and then a wave of a generation seeking their genetic identity to work its way through society.

So far in the U.K. surrogacy has been fairly niche, numbers are low, and I accept that many involve surrogate mothers and commissioning families who have remained friends and perhaps in those cases the children are not overly impacted.

However there will be MANY children coming through who have no knowledge of the donor of the egg bought from an impoverished woman on another continent, whose commissioning parents scooped them out of Ukraine whilst leaving their mother to take her chances with the war, whose gay parents refuse to acknowledge they even have a mother - I have had a gay couple tell me their child doesn't have a mother and when I pointed out that every human alive (and dead) has a mother they said I had a different understanding of biology to them. And what about those poor children who have been bought by a paedophile? There are some we already know about and undoubtedly many more that we don't yet know about.

It won't be long before we have a mass outcry from damaged children/young adults, we are already seeing some coming through and speaking out.

A recent surrogacy documentary sparked debate but the fact that it was made and took a positive tone speaks volumes about the rise in surrogacy and the way it is received outside feminist circles. (I did find the examples they chose to use quite non typical though - a woman who was surrogate for her boss etc - not the norm in surrogacy at all). However it did serve to illustrate that more people are becoming surrogates and growing families this way.

You don't think programme makers choose subjects carefully and then ladle in the sugar coating ?

And I find women being surrogate mothers for their boss very problematic. 🚩🚩🚩

...and the Special Committee on International surrogacy in Ireland was announced last February. The report was July '22, the law was passed in December.

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/33/jointcommitteeoninternationalsurrogacy/reports/2022/2022-07-06final-report-of-the-joint-committee-on-international-surrogacyen.pdff_

So I that, and the history of woman's rights and the treatment of adopted children, is why I said it was heading that way for some time. I watched the committee debates and it was clear from the attacks on Senator Keogan which way it was going to go.

Governments in Italy, Spain, the European Parliament and even the Pope have spoken against surrogacy.

For more posters reading here can follow CIASM.

https://twitter.com/ciamscoalition/status/1572244246719246341?s=46&t=iUdG6qUee_wdO1cchxXTdIQ

I have ended a lifelong friendship over surroogacy.

I was called all the names under the sun for it, including homophobic, but I don't care. I find it repugnant and immoral, for whatever reason it is done. Buying a human is ALWAYS wrong, for whatever reasons given.

Those in favour are either stuck back in the 'be kind' movemnet, ignorant, or in some way benefit from it.