Rich men using a surrogate - miscarriage

[BlueThomas]

I read an article about two Made in Chelsea stars using a surrogate who sadly had a miscarriage. If just really doesn’t sit well with me. From the article

Obviously we’re in a very fortunate position, we can go again. But you know it’s not, it’s not easy

im sorry but a woman out there somewhere is undergoing a miscarriage. That is what is not easy no mention of her at all in the article or how sorry they are for what she is going through. It’s all about them.

also doesn’t sit well describing themselves as fortunate they can go again. What about the women putting themselves through ivf and miscarriages for these men - how many times will they put women through this?

www.her.ie/celeb/made-chelsea-stars-ollie-gareth-locke-reveal-surrogate-miscarriage-569977

My wording of this earlier may have been wrong, I'm in agreement with this. I think they should of worded it differently, they shouldn't have disregarded the surrogate. They have had a loss yes, but they have not suffered a miscarriage.

@BlueThomas
The baby would be born into a loving family.

I don't have any research into any attachment issues for babies being "removed" from surrogates.. is that the issue here?
If it is, please could you share some information/research on this?
Apologies if that's already been shared.

Looking at the medical side of things there’s risks being pregnant. The strain on your body during pregnancy and then giving birth. You just don’t know what complications will happen during or after birth.

tell me @IVFGotThis05 if you say end up using a donor egg and grow a baby and give birth to that baby would you say you are not the babies mother as its not your genetics?

The person that wants/raises the baby, genetics, embryo etc is/will be the mother. The donor/surrogate is not. My point was some people on the thread that are against surrogacy are taking the mother title away from them.

Someone has donated the egg to me, knowing that they will not be the mother of that embryo... So I will be the mother.

The surrogate has agreed to not be the mother of my egg, so therefore I will be the mother.

There is a wealth of knowledge and study on this. You could look up the 4th trimester or John Bowlby on prenatal attachment theory and maternal deprivation and is a good place to start.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083029/

@OhHolyJesus
Thanks for the link.
I'll admit there's a hell of a lot that I don't know about the science, as with most things!
If it was me personally making a decision like this, I'd do the research and make a balanced decision with my partner.
However, when it comes to others, I believe so long as they have the relevant information (including research on attachment to birth mother etc) and they make an educated/informed and consensual decision with all parties involved (obviously they make this on behalf of future child), then it's up to the people involved.
You can call it selfish or whatever, but at the end of the day, even if it did cause a short term pain to the child while they adjusted to 'new parent/s' after birth, it would surely be a long term gain.
All those involved need to be considered, baby, surrogate and future parents.
I just don't believe that someone not involved in the situation should be able to make that decision for them (claiming to be on the child's behalf) as if everyone involved has no rights to decide themselves.. that doesn't sit right with me..

I hope the people on this threat being so extreme with their views can try to understand that there may be people here that really can be hurt by those comments - maybe adjust the wording to be kinder ?

Those in favour of surrogacy take the title of mother away from the woman who grows and births the baby. An adopted child knows they have a biological mother and an adopted mother. A child born via surrogacy is told they only have one mother (the one who raises them) and they were ‘just carried’ by a ‘surrogate’. I don’t agree with erasing the surrogate mother in this way. She is the mother who grew and birthed the baby and whose body and genetics created the baby (epigenetics etc).

Also that’s a lot of mental gymnastics you’ve got there. If the person who raises the baby is the mother then if you got pregnant you wouldn’t consider yourself a mother until AFTER the baby is born and you state you intend to raise the baby? How do you reconcile that with women who are mothers to babies who never made it? This is the problem with surrogacy. It uses a lot of emotive and confusing language to try fit the scenario that sounds nice for the person buying a baby. The fact of the matter is the woman who grows, creates and gives birth to the baby is that babies mother. They may have another mother who raises them fine but the surrogate is their biological mother and babies should not be taken away from their mother. It’s widely agreed this is the case hence why the legal system and social workers are involved in removing a child from its mother as it’s so important to get it right.

@BlueThomas You missed my point with my 'mental gymnastics'. I am not the one that is taking away the mother title from the surrogate or egg donor... The surrogate or egg donor is the one to do that!? Do they consider themselves a mother while pregnant, that is up to them. It's all very personal and your making it factual. I don't believe it is.

That's the point, YOU consider them the mother which is fine. but both parties have come to some form of agreement that the mother will be the one that raises said child.

The term 'Mother' is a female parent be it biological or not.

Your situation is one I wouldn't wish on anyone and your decisions about surrogacy are yours and your suggogates. So long as they know the risks and make an informed decision, that's what matters.

The problem here is there aren't just two parties is there?

NO ONE is centring the person that really matters here in terms of risk. The actual child thats born at the end of this 'informed decision'.

And since we haven't got research into the long term effects on children from being a surrogate - because we haven't got to a place in time where thats possible, how can you make an INFORMED decision?

You can't.

The best we have in terms of this, is knowledge about how not knowing your genetic origins and how that impacts on people. And we know that this is a really mixed bag - and that even those who have happy adoptions have major issues about their identity in the long term. Add into this the deliberate act of mixing a genetic identity with a gestational mother to erase that tie and you have a conscious act to break that human link that seems to be strangely universal across cultures - people have a desire to see the people who look most like them.

Every time there are these discussions the would be purchases ALWAYS make it about them and their needs and their biological need to be a mother / father or to have some sort of 'created for baby' free from the 'potential defects' of being adopted. Women who give away their unwanted babies are somehow lesser and not high quality enough carriers - their lifestyle choices and background are deficient to those who can't have a biological link or aren't made to measure enough for those who want that biological link.

Wtf does that actually say about this supposed 'innate' desire to be a parent. Oh I want a baby, but no not like that. Not a traumatised one. Not one thats a bit older. Not one that I can't pick the look to be as much like me as possible.

Na. Its not about the baby. It never is. There is this void of willingness to talk about this, and instead there are all manner of nasty accusations thrown at those who do ask them. "Oh you are homophobic" "Oh but you don't understand the trauma I've been through because you have children". The emotional blackmail is appalling.

But the women and babies who are paid and bought by this are forgotten in the vanity of it.

I'm not remotely sorry for being blunt about how awful I find the whole practice.

@IVFGotThis05 again the well-being of the baby is completely missing from this agreement and what the baby wants and needs is to be with its mother - the mother who grew and birthed it but the mother ‘agreed by both parties’. you should not be able to just ‘agree’ between both parties that ‘ok I’ll buy the baby off you for €30k and I’ll be the mother - deal - ok agreed’ - it should be illegal.

I am not saying it's ok to pay someone 30k for a baby. What the baby wants/needs is not missing, I just believe that a child will still have a healthy life and relationship with a mother that didn't birth them. Maybe I will read some articles that people have put in here to look at the evidence but I would love to know the figures of how many babies have been affected by not being with their birth mothers and to what degree.

I take your point @SaraSS and would once have held the same view as you but it was on MN that I became more informed about surrogacy, specifically the U.K. laws (and that many countries, including throughout Europe, ban surrogacy completely) and if you wanted to you could check my posting history and see many examples of why my position changed. The resources thread I shared is a good place to start.

I understand why you might think it's extreme or unkind to reject surrogacy outright but at the core of it, for me, it is far, far 'kinder' to consider the child at the centre. Studies cannot be performed with a control group - ie, taking away a newborn from his or her mother temporarily for the purposes of seeing possible differences alongside a second group of newborns that stay away from their mother - that in itself would be unethical. I think that is quite key and suggests there are reasons why we (as a society) don't routinely, take babies away from their mothers, unless for extreme reasons and sometimes for the health and well-being for the child. You see, where that happens the child is prioritised.

I think it's worth exploring why you think 'being kind' is something we should do, when being kind results in being unable to fairly and calmly question a process that many here consider harmful, and have good reasons, and can explain these reasons, for holding that position.

You're right @RedToothBrush

Women who give away their unwanted babies are somehow lesser and not high quality enough carriers - their lifestyle choices and background are deficient to those who can't have a biological link or aren't made to measure enough for those who want that biological link.

I have personally seen same sex male couples say they don't want 'straight's rejects' and the general message was an adopted child is somehow second class, and not as desirable as a commissioned baby. It's therefore not surprising that 'foetal reduction' based on sex (illegal in even third world countries, and this contributed to a sex imbalance in China during the one child policy) is used in surrogacy, as well as egg donors chosen based on their entry in a catalogue (their page detailing, academic and sporting achievements alongside a shiny picture) as children are made to order.

One very wealthy gay couple famous for their surrogacy involvement held a casting for their egg donor.

I find many articles about surrogacy very uncomfortable to read. Many, as with this one, focus almost exclusively on the ‘intended parents’ and barely mention the birth parent or infants needs or experience. I find that so odd and concerning given the baby and birth parent are the ones most affected by the process.

I can understand the loss of the baby they hoped to adopt would be very upsetting, but the lack of mention of the mother/woman actually miscarrying is so disturbing to me.

Like this one @Whowhatwherewhenwhynow ?

www.towleroad.com/2021/09/lance-bass-twin-babies/

The woman who was actually pregnant and lost their 'commissioned baby' et eight weeks isn't mentioned, nor are the 8 or 9 surrogate mothers who went before her (I lost count). There were also numerous egg donors, so multiple women involved so these two men could procure a child, or two as it turned out, who were promptly dressed up for Halloween at just weeks old for the entertainment (and photo opportunities) of the commissioning parents.

(This was the man I mentioned at the beginning of your thread @BlueThomas with what has followed you may not have been able to look up their history so thought I'd share it.)

The twins came from their 10th egg donor. Bass previously shared on a podcast that he and Michael were hoping to have twin boys and were timing it with the astrological calendar in mind. "If we end up getting pregnant, like, soon, that puts them right on the boarder of Taurus-Gemini," he joked. "So, we had to do it now for them to stay a Taurus."

www.eonline.com/uk/news/1132350/lance-bass-to-proceed-with-10th-egg-donor-after-surrogate-suffers-miscarriage-at-8-weeks

After years on consideration on this topic I've come to the conclusion that surrogacy should be illegal. Human beings, even tiny embryos are NOT COMMODITIES. Its a disgusting practice that pays fuck all attention to the needs of the baby.

Thanks @OhHolyJesus I had looked them up but could only find puff pieces about them being parents and how great it was.

You won't find much else really OP,given the media narrative around surrogacy, in Hollywood especially. I think there were three or four surrogate mothers involved with this one couple but there were 10 women donating their eggs (which comes with risks as well). 10. I wonder how much each of them got paid...

It's a symptom of a wider problem really, as is evident here on this thread, to question or reject surrogacy, as anything other than a lovely, happy 'journey' with a fairytale happy ending (=the baby, one that hopefully grows into a fully fledged adult) is 'unkind' at best or 'vile' at worst.

@OhHolyJesus
With the 'being kind' that was more aimed at comments that were not well put, feeling somewhat like shaming those with a different perspective.
From what I've seen on here your posts are well informed and more educational - which I appreciate.
I didn't mean to sensor the facts, just to realise it's a very emotive subject and actually, having posts like yours are far more useful if someone is open to listening. Of course, if someone isn't able to or in a place to listen then a debate like this, isn't the place to be for them.

These women do consent and are not pressured though. Just reading this thread you would think the women are being forced or are living in poverty and forced to do it for financial gain

Well yes it's illegal in this country to be a surrogate for 💰

I’m just watching MIC Bali on catch up (my guilty pleasure) and watching their little speech to the whole gang saying that the last few years have been really difficult but now they’ve ‘put an embryo in our surrogate and we’re pregnant’ it’s excruciating but hard to put into words why…I think as someone whose had miscarriages I can’t imagine a woman announcing it like that to a whole group of people (although maybe they should!- another discussion)…shows how far removed they are from the actual surrogate and what they have to go through.

I don’t see the issue. Why is everyone assuming the surrogate mother would want her name and private feelings publicised? There’s nothing wrong with the article not being about her as that is probably respecting her wishes for privacy. And as for paying women, why shouldn’t they be compensated? I think it’s exploitation to demand women be surrogate mothers for nothing. It’s also not even remotely comparable to organ donation so that analogy falls flat.