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.

taking a woman from her home, putting her in a dorm, controlling what she eats, how she exercises, requiring her to submit to medical examinations as they feel, then choosing for her how she births a baby which she then has to give away, before sending her home to her money in trust somewhere

I think that's a misrepresentation of what happens and why. A surrogacy clinic doesn't swoop on an unsuspecting woman in her home. Women queue up at the clinic and try to get in (unfortunately some may be starving, but these are not the women who would be chosen). They don't put them in a dorm as such - they provide accommodation which is sometimes shared rooms, yes. The thinking behind this to ensure the women are well cared for; this is in the best interests of the woman and her baby. I don't know that it's necessary or right but there is nothing inherently wrong with the living accommodation. Likewise, there is nothing inherently wrong with providing good medical care throughout a pregnancy. It would be unreasonable for a woman to go into a surrogacy arrangement if she was unwilling to have any medical examinations.

I agree with you about choosing how she births a baby; that choice should be hers (though arguably women in Britain don't get much choice in this area either). 'Sending' a woman home after the birth is reasonable - were you thinking she should stay at the clinic forever? Putting the money in trust is the only way to ensure that the money is spent in the way that the surrogate wishes for it to be spent. Otherwise, given the cultural context, it's possible that male family members would (a) force women into surrogacy, knowing they could get their hands on cash and (b) would force a specific woman to hand over money on her return from the clinic. This way, everything is in her name and any arguments about i will be between the clinic and the male relative, not between the surrogate and the male relative.

No Frank what you are saying is 'its a shame these women are poor and have limited options let just exploit them a little bit not alot like those other mean people'

Sorry, to clarify, it is exploitation of their bodies, just as I believe its their choice, to chose to be surrogates.

women who are considered desirable surrogates are not starving. A malnourished woman would be more likely to miscarry.

Ugh.

I think a part of my faith in humanity just died.

Jesus Christ. What kind of a world is this?

"The revolting attempts to privilege genetics in this way is part of why this is so gross."

Wow Bathtime, thank god you have been so genetically blessed, that you didn't/don't suffer from anything, that may have left you infertile.

Women like you, are the reason lots of intelligent people steer clear of the feminists threads.

"The revolting attempts to privilege genetics in this way is part of why this is so gross."

Interesting. I don't agree with you.

bathtime I want to spray this entire thread with holy water. The cognitive dissonance is strong in some people.

thank god you have been so genetically blessed, that you didn't/don't suffer from anything, that may have left you infertile.

First of all, you have no way of knowing anything about either my genetics, or my fertility.

Second of all, it is far more beneficial for women suffering from infertility that the law should support them as mothers after egg donation than on the off chance they can find an altruistic surrogate.

I am saying that a woman who gestates and gives birth to a baby is its mother unless she chooses otherwise.

Supporters of a surrogacy industry want the genetic material to determine who is the mother, and turn women's bodies into incubators for "real" parents.

Frank you keep using hyperbole to hide the fact that you can't justify exploiting women. And yes women like Bathtime opionated and unyielding are why neo liberals steer away from feminst debate because they realise they can't co-opt the conversation for the own means and for that I am thankful.

You know what, I'm glad to be a neo liberal.

You and Bathwater are welcome to each other. I'm gonna head back to style as that's all my fluffy brain can take.......

Fluffy and exploitative, make sure you buy all your clothes from sweatshops to keep in theme

I agree with everything Bathtime has said. I don't understand why surrogacy is seen as any different to prostitution, slavery or organ selling. All of these things involve those with wealth and power exploiting the bodies of those without. That can never be right, and it should not be regulated, it should be banned, and the requisite criminal sanctions applied to those who flout the ban.

I think it should be illegal.
I also think even in the cases of altruistic surrogacy the woman should be able to change her mind at any point and keep the baby if she chooses to. I'm not sure on the law of it already.
I've never understood why infertile couples don't have a child with another couple and share custody. Everyone is happy then!

And Bathtime, I made assumptions about your fertility issues, based on what you wrote.

Just as you have made assumptions based on what one journalist wrote.

Actually Frank there is a wealth of evidence that shows exploitation with the fertility industry you would know this if you bothered to read anything past clinic brochures.

What about surrogacy between a sister carrying a baby for a woman who's gone through cancer treatment. Hardly any money exchanged as all the support has been practical and fine out of love, where the sister considers it her sisters baby from the start she is carrying, and giving it back at birth not "giving up her child".

Do you oppose and want to ban that too?

Yes Indian surrogacy is completely different and you will always have rich people wanting to have no contact.

What if the woman wants to be a surrogate in India, you know to give her children and education they couldn't have otherwise had and do well in life? Yes yes we should I eradicate works poverty first, but that's not going to happen tomorrow.

Ah, touché Xxed. Unfortunately for me I don't have your "superior" genetics.

All commercial surrogacy ( uk it already is) should be illegal and the expenses system should be tightly regulated so it cant be commercial in all but name

Yes. Completely agree. The UK does not permit commercial surrogacy, commercial organ donation or commercial sale of blood. It does unfortunately permit the commercial hire of bodies for sex, although to its credit does not permit brothels and pimps.

Lucy Liu describing her surrogate as "a gestational carrier" is shocking.

Well my only child is autistic so I doubt my eggs would be worth very much. Though I found pregnancy a breeze but I was 22 older now my pelvic floor isn't what it once was.

I am saying that a woman who gestates and gives birth to a baby is its mother unless she chooses otherwise.

Fair enough; the present system gives women no clear-cut way to 'choose otherwise'.

Supporters of a surrogacy industry want the genetic material to determine who is the mother, and turn women's bodies into incubators for "real" parents.

Yes, including those women who are surrogates. I'm confused about which victim you are trying to save; most surrogates would like to be crystal clear that they have no legal involvement with the child they are carrying.

The reality is that our surrogate was not our baby's mother for a second and she would have strongly rejected any suggestion that she was.

Lass I thought it was illegal to use commercial surrogacy abroad but I can't find any convictions.

I also think even in the cases of altruistic surrogacy the woman should be able to change her mind at any point and keep the baby if she chooses to

I think that is the law in the UK. The person giving birth is the mother. I suppose the genetic father might have the same rights as any other unmarried genetic father who isn't an official sperm donor.

Frank I'm not a feminist. I am probably farther to the right than most FWR posters and on the whole think a regulated , capitalist economy is a better bet than socialism- and yet I still think surrogacy is wrong.

Lass I thought it was illegal to use commercial surrogacy abroad but I can't find any convictions

I don't know. It's certainly illegal to go abroad to use child prostitutes and the UK authorities do successfully prosecute there.

Feminism chat

"I'm not a feminist....."

Fucks sake.

What about surrogacy between a sister carrying a baby for a woman who's gone through cancer treatment. Hardly any money exchanged as all the support has been practical and fine out of love, where the sister considers it her sisters baby from the start she is carrying, and giving it back at birth not "giving up her child".

No, I wouldn't ban that any more than I would ban a woman with from donating a kidney to her sister.

It's a massive, life and health altering thing to do for someone.

But those are things we do for people we love.

I wouldn't even ban altruistic surrogacy between strangers, as long as no money whatsoever changed hands. Some women do love being pregnant and are happy to get the chance to go through more pregnancies than they want children from to give someone an incredible gift.

So if a comfortably off woman in the UK is happy to do that, then I don't blame someone for accepting that offer.

But a surrogacy industry? No.

Just no.

Fair enough; the present system gives women no clear-cut way to 'choose otherwise'.

It does. It's called adoption.