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.

It will only affect women who choose to carry a baby that's not theirs.

That's all women.

There is a danger in trying to protect women that you ignore what the women themselves are saying.

This same argument always comes up in prostitution debates too. As though only prostitutes (and madams and pimps) are affected by a legal framework that supports women being for sale to men for sex.

It's worse here.

We are being told that the law needs to be changed so that women can be considered to be incubators of other people's genetic material, and the only people who should get a say on the matter are people who want to earn money by offering services as an incubator.

Makingmiracles
Why is it a problem to say to people that can't carry that they should adopt? We should be working on making adoption easier and better.

Quite simply because it's not an easy process and the likelihood of ending up with a child that is either disabled or severely damaged is high. Why should intended parents be pushed into raising a child with problems rather than having their own Genetic child? You only have to take a quick glance at the adoption board on here to see the kinds of problems adoptive parents have and not just with the child, with social services, the birth parents etc

Adoption should be made easier and better but if anything social services are tightening the rules and regs, not loosening them. For example people used to be able to foster children ever if they were a outside of home smoker, nowadays the simple fact of being a smoker excludes you from fostering/adoption even if you never smoke in your home.

Why is it a problem to say to people that can't carry that they should adopt?

Because adopting a child is not a second-best substitute for having a biological child.

It's not for couples who have trouble conceiving to hear the weight of responsibility for parenting the children in our society whose birth parents can't do it.

to bear the weight

Making - How much have you received for your services as a surrogate? And what was the breakdown of your expenses? (In broad terms)

I know very well what it is like to make & birth a baby, and honestly can't say it cost us several hundred pounds. And that including the amnio which I insisted on and the private room after birth.

"Loss in earnings" - Doesn't happen if you have a salary, which you continue to receive while on maternity leave.

You may well not have a salary. You could be self employed, or have to take bed rest, or have to delay getting into employment... Many different scenarios.

Bathtime
It's not up to people who can't conceive to adopt. It's just a route for them to have children which they say they want.
People who can have children do adopt and foster too.
But if you can't have children and you want them then adoption can give you what you want.
I think adoption here is problematic and that needs changing. In the USA it seems much simpler for mothers to be able to choose their adoptive parents and be able to give the child from birth. Why is that? Of course the mother can change her mind at any point but that should be and is true of surrogacy here too.

Makingmiracles
What if your genetic child has a disability, send it back?

That's not what I'm saying at all it's better, adopting a child with a disability or problems is a choice, of course if you have a genetic child with a disability there is no choice, you just get on with it.

Cote I've already explained expenses upthread. Other expenses that I failed to mention were appts for the chiropractor several times a week in the last few weeks. Also 48hr childcare for my three children whilst at the hospital giving birth.( I don't have any family about that could of done it)

I don't feel I need to break down my expenses and explain them to a complete stranger, I was happy with them, my IPs were happy with them and cafcass and the courts were happy with them.

Box it's because here social workers don't think a pregnant woman is capable of choosing the right adoptive parents. She's not able to consider all the factors that they can, not even if a file of approved parents was slapped down in front of her. They will ask her about her preferences and then, according to their own agenda, factor them in if they feel like it. How's that for condescending. But apparently (no joke) allowing them to make the choice would leave them open to exploitation by would be adopters. So once again, the absence of cash in a woman's wallet is used to justify not giving her options in case the money goes to her head. I have spoken to many, many women who have felt like adoption was a better option for them than abortion but who didn't feel it was a possibility unless they could personally select the right couple. Cue an abortion that wasn't right for them.

Can you at least say how much you were paid?

You say 15K quoted downthread is unrealistic, so what is the real amount?

Are you always so rude, cote? Yes, I seem to remember you are. Expenses can be anywhere from nothing up to £18 000. It depends on what was needed and what a judge feels is reasonable.

I agree adoption regulations should be changed in the UK. Maybe if it had been easier to adopt, some couples may have gone down that route, instead of using a foreign surrogate (those who couldn't find a surrogate in UK). And agree with MatildaBeetham altruistic surrogacy in the UKis a whole different kettle of fish than the situation in India.

To me, if you accept £18,000 to be a surrogate, you're not doing it for altruistic reasons, but for the cash. Surely a truly altruistic surrogate accepts the bare minimum possible (of course IP's should pay all medical costs, but I think lostinmiddlemarch meant these expenses were on top of medical bills). £450 a week over 40 weeks seems really excessive. Considering most surrogates could probably continue to work for the majority of the pregnancy.

When you consider what the surrogate is going through, it's not commercial surrogacy either though. If it was, it would be the worst paid job in the world.

"Scallops I find your comparison of surrogacy to prostitution extremely offensive" I'm sure you do. I find your position that woman's bodies can be bought equally offensive.

Ffs, 18k is the exception, most do not get anywhere near that in expenses!!

If it was commercial surrogacy it would be somewhere in the regein of 40-70K and would be out of reach for most except the elite rich. I hope it never becomes commercial in this country because people would do it for the money and as a consequence there would be more scammers about.

You may find the fact offensive scallops but there's no way I'd do a journey without knowing every eventuality will be covered, myself and my children won't suffer and I'm giving up almost a year of my life.
It is what it is.
There are very few women out there who are prepared to be surrogates and mentally are able to.

Out of interest, what exactly would you consider reasonable expenses?

Btw, I don't and never have considered myself "bought" nor do I feel exploited or that I exploited my IPs.

Wickedlazy, are there lots of unadopted children? My understanding was that the difficulty in adopting was more down to (a) trying to keep families together with SS support and (b) abortion being a far more common outcome to an unwanted pregnancy.

makingmircles

"They run to an average of about £15 000 but that figure is rising."

From a poster who also claims to have experience of surrogacy.

You persist in making claims that "no surrogate" and "the majority" etc when you have already admitted you have no basis what so ever for making blanket claims about the surrogacy industry. This is especially obvious when you seem to be contradicted somebody who also claims to be from your 'community'.

Lostinmiddlemarch

But clarity in the law would indeed reduce the potential for legal confusion

"There's potential for a baby to be in limbo, at the moment, and for unscrupulous parties on either side to exploit the other if they feel like it. Intended parents feel anxious that their genetic child won't be given to them. Surrogates feel possibly more anxious that something will change in the IPs lives and the baby will no longer be wanted, or that the baby will have a disability and this may change the situation (it doesn't, but these are the fears people have). There are also situations when a IPs break up before the PO comes through, which is complicated, or when the surrogate's marriage ends and her partner is no longer willing to sign anything or be part of anything. It's unclear what the law actually is and what it's supposed to be doing. So the law is not, if you like, functioning well as things stand."

To be clearer then - tell me, specifically, how you would change the law to address those problems.

DrSeuss, 69,540 childrenwere in the care of local authorities on 31st March 2015.

I would say that's a lot.

makingmiracles
"Btw, I don't and never have considered myself "bought" nor do I feel exploited or that I exploited my IPs."

I think you are taking many of these comments personally when they aren't aimed at you, they are aimed at commercial surrogates in a different country. I suppose I think expenses should be medical bills paid, and perhaps a small gift at the end. Otherwise it's not altruistic, it's commercial.