surrogacy, Julie Bindel is right, it is human rights abuse

[antimatter]

www.byline.com/project/43/article/820
and
www.byline.com/project/43

I have to say I didn't realise that surrogate clinics existed to provide service to rich foreigners.
It is exploitation on many levels.

What don't you think should be legal, the surrogacy itself or the expenses?

If it's the surrogacy itself is that purely because of the expenses?

If a person is taking a specific physical risk on behalf of another person, specific insurance seems reasonable.

I might have life insurance personally for £500k but consider £1m more appropriate if my risk was increased.

I struggle philosophically with surrogacy but don't think that particular expense can characterised as unreasonable.

I've had involvement in surrogacy in the UK (I have no idea how it works internationally) and the expenses are pushed up by the IPs not the surrogates - the IPs who want to pay for pre-prepared easy to cook food for their surrogate's family while she is suffering pregnancy sickness, who want to buy her a new wardrobe of maternity clothes and book her massages and generally look after her in a more extravagant way than a woman carrying her own child would even think to look after herself. They do this often out of gratitude and a sense of helplessness while they watch someone give over their whole being to carrying their child.

I think a lot of surrogates go through IVF, don't they? Also, I don't know if it's typical for surrogates to get private scans etc paid for - certainly IPs and surrogates may wish to go to scans together, which could be easier if care is private (with respect to scheduling appointments rather than take what you get)

Not in relation to abroad Matilda. That was in relation to the feelings about uk surrogates. The others ARE specifically asking questions about uk surrogacy.
I've already said upthread I condem surrogacy abroad and the practices involved, the exploitation, the jealousy comment was not about that.

How much does this life insurance cost in the UK, then? A quick Google search shows that it costs only $500 in the US.

That is not much of the £15K or £18K quoted downthread.

What are the rest of the expected expenses, then?

If it's the surrogacy itself is that purely because of the expenses?

'Stranger' surrogacy is what I was talking about although I am not sure how one would draw that line. No it's not because of the 'expenses' it's because the whole thing is one giant cluster fuck.

the expenses are pushed up by the IPs not the surrogates

Shocker.

They do this often out of gratitude and a sense of helplessness while they watch someone give over their whole being to carrying their child.

Funny because it seems strikingly similar to how every other demand lead market works.

"IPs who want to pay for pre-prepared easy to cook food for their surrogate's family while she is suffering pregnancy sickness, who want to buy her a new wardrobe of maternity clothes and book her massages and generally look after her in a more extravagant way than a woman carrying her own child would even think to look after herself."

That makes sense. So IPs don't give the surrogate a bulk sum in anticipation of "expenses"?

That makes sense. So IPs don't give the surrogate a bulk sum in anticipation of "expenses"?

No, the usual (according to the two biggest UK surrogacy facilitators) is they get 5-10% of expenses per month and the rest upon birth.

They still get a bulk sum at delivery? So it is not just gifts and massages provided out of gratitude throughout the pregnancy.

Makingmiracles
What made you decide to be a surrogate?

They still get a bulk sum at delivery? So it is not just gifts and massages provided out of gratitude throughout the pregnancy.

That's what it says on Surrogacy UK (one facilitator) and according to Miracle that's how COTS (the other biggy) do it too.

Expenses are agreed before getting pregnant, usually with an experienced mediator there to make sure all the really tough stuff gets talked about too. That is the point when both the surrogate and the IPs talk about what the expenses should cover. At 10% per month it doesn't leave much as a lump at the end given that pregnancy is 9-10 months long. If people do have it lower monthly with more at the end it could well be that the surrogate knows she will need a c section and as such 6 weeks off work and the money could be the difference between SMP and her regular pay. Other things after the birth could be (as I have known) when the surrogate and the IPs live a long away apart so the IPs pay for her to bring her family nearby for a short holiday so her children can see the baby with his or her family and get closure on what they have seen happening with their mum.

Those two statements conflict with each other, though.

Either a bulk payment is made to the surrogate upon delivery, or "expenses" are IPs pampering the surrogate with massages and gifts such as a new pregnancy wardrobe.

The former is a business transaction (which is fine, imho) and should not be presented as just covering costs.

At 10% per month it doesn't leave much as a lump at the end given that pregnancy is 9-10 months long.

Unless I am doing my maths wrong it should still leave around 10-13k.

Still not sure why it has to work like this. I mean there are a couple of very obvious reasons but they fly in the face of the rainbows and sunshine trust based version of 'stranger' surrogacy.

I do understand what you are saying Matilda but not about being purchased? If one was purchased you would be in the ownership of another, yet neither here or abroad does being a intended parent mean you have any legal control over the mother carrying the surrogate baby.

In America I believe the surrogate as part of the process has to undergo financial quizzing and explain and prove she is not in receipt of state support of any kind and that she has certain medical cover, perhaps this should be the case across the board in every country and therefor women who didn't qualify would not be allowed to be a surrogate and the exploitation side of it would be gone.
I think surrogacy should be banned in the worst areas, it's far too unethical and is basically the farming of women, living in communal buildings being pimped out to Weston women by whoever runs the places.

To throw something else in the mix, not everyone will go with cots or surrogacy uk, many will also do surrogacy independently and on the whole you will find they will do things differently from the agencies. Expenses are generally paid in equal installments throughout.

I don't know and can't explain why the agencies do it the way they do, because you quickly become out of pocket and sometimes in a bit of debt doing it this way, I did.
I can only assume they felt it would make the intended parents feel at ease knowing they had only paid limited expenses up front if something went wrong and the surrogate kept the baby for example.

"I will ask again as no one answered the first time,
what exactly do you all think a surrogates expenses should be"

I already answered this, but happy to repeat myself. I think a surrogates medical expenses should be paid directly by the IP's to hospital, and legal fees ditto paid direct to solicitor. £1000 at most for maternity wear, vitamins, pregnancy pillows, travel, etc. Any more than that isn't alruistic, it's a womb for hire and it becomes commercial, which I don't agree with. If you're working, you'd take your maternity leave early, as you only need a few weeks after birth to recover, no infant to look after. If you're not working, and expect to be paid the same as a job would pay, then you'd be basically doing it for a living/as a career which I don't agree with ethically.

It's better- basically before I had my children I had 4 miscarriages, lots of investigations but no reasons ever found, although a short periodic time in comparison for many surffering from infertility it did give me an insight to the sheer longing and desperation for a baby. After my first child I watched a programme on tv on it and knew then it's something I wanted to do one day.
There that thought sat for years, until I'd had my children and that I was in the right place in my life to do surrogacy.

Cote, I have seen you bring horrifically insensitive and rude, without let up, while almost every other poster is begging you to shut up. It must be a very familiar question to you!

There is an element of irony here. Miracles is exactly the kind of woman you want to protect, yes? She is not rich enough not to need some cash during the pregnancy so presumably her ability to make a free choice is being swayed by economic factors. Don't you think she's being exploited, now you have discovered that commercial-ish surrogacy in the UK is actually a thing?

What's interesting is that she doesn't sound exploited. She sounds like a woman who has a good head on her shoulders and arrived at a different conclusion-she's made a free choice and you don't like it. So the debate has subtly shifted to reflect that.

At the start of the conversation, we were hearing that surrogacy in a commercial sense is wrong primarily because it exploits women. Now that we have a flesh and blood woman in our midst who is not appearing grateful to be protected, the moral indignation is more on the child's behalf and on the behalf of a woman who has only existed a few times in the entire history of surrogacy in Britain; the woman who doesn't want to give the baby up. She is not 99% of surrogates, who have no problem handing the child over and would feel happier if there was legal clarity severing any link between them and the baby from the start.

If you wish to protect someone, at least have the decency to acknowledge it when said person refuses your offer of protection. Otherwise it all seems rather paternalistic: the person with the most power, the most money and the whitest skin will decide what's best for all the little people and not to worry if they don't like it because they need stronger people who see the Bigger Picture to think for them...

wickedlazy

This is why I think we are better off without it. I hate the idea that we can start telling women what amounts to "reasonable" expenses during pregnancy. The whole thing is just one ethical dead end after another with women on the losing side no matter what.

For reasons MatildaBeetham* expressed much better than I could have.

This is probably a party that feminists have arrived too late for anyway... The law is gradually growing up around surrogacy, expenses are getting higher, the pressure is high for more up to date laws around it, it's becoming much more common and more permissable to judges with higher and higher expenses being passed.... It's all happening and very unlikely to reverse now. MN had a great webchat recently that said all this.

Also... I am the first one to say that India needs regulation in this area (and have supported charities working for reform, and it is happening now), but it's worth noting that reputable Indian surrogacy agencies engage surrogates who are probably surprisingly like miracles in their economic situation.