IVF, surrogacy, sperm donation, feminism

[loopdeloo]

Firstly, I should say that I have just had a second round of unsuccessful IVF and it looks like this is not going to work out for me and DH, so I am having a lot of emotional and confusing thoughts and I really hope people can bear that in mind if I say something offensive on what is a hugely sensitive topic and please forgive me if I get this wrong.

Because of our situation, we are now being talked to about egg donation (i.e. attempting IVF with another woman's eggs and my DH's sperm). I don't want to do this because it doesn't feel right for me personally for a number of reasons, one of which is it just feels too "Handmaid's" and that I would be a vessel to provide my DH with his own genetic offspring. He completely gets this, and the other reasons that resonate for both of us, and we are looking at adoption instead.

I have two sets of lesbian friends who have children through sperm donation from someone they knew. In one family, the father is involved, in the other he is not, although he is not being kept "anonymous". This has never seemed to be much of a problem to me. I also have one set of gay male friends who have adopted 2 children in the UK and they are wonderful parents and although it has been hard, their experience has really helped DH and I look at adoption positively.

And yet now I have a couple of male gay friends who have decided to go to the US to have a surrogate mother - who will be anonymous to the child - and it is making me feel deeply uncomfortable. The total cost is going to be near on $100k and they are spending time browsing through brochures of women's profiles. As I type, I'm not sure why the cost is relevant and yet it seems to be so I'm going to leave it in the post. This seems even more 'handmaid's' and I can't quite get my head round it.

Is this just a purely irrational and emotional reaction due to my personal struggle with infertility, or is there a feminist issue here? I am aware that I'm all over the shop emotionally at the moment and that there is the potential for great hypocrisy here and I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts and not looking for agreement or sympathy.

[mustbemad17]

Social surrogacy is illegal in the UK. The only way you can legally have a child via a surrogate is if you or your partner cannot medically have a child. There also must be a biological link to one parent.

[SylviaPoe]

Exactly. So nobody is telling a woman that she cannot get pregnant.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

None of us has a right to be a parent. None of us 'deserves' to be a parent. 'Nature' does not give a shit if some of us can't manage it - enough of us manage it to preserve the species. A worthwhile life, a fulfilling life, and a happy life - all possible without children of our own....but I know to say that from my position of having them sounds horribly cruel

Realistic and truthful.

I would also expect people attending an appointment with a patient to be treated with respect, regardless of who they are. I can’t see that their rights have anything to do with it

They have no rights. It is ridiculous, morally or legally, to talk of "their rights"

I second all your posts Sylvia

[blue2014]

But this thread isn't about legality - it's about ethics and some posters are saying it shouldn't be allowed at all on ethical and feminist grounds.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

I don't think it should be allowed on ethical grounds.

[IsabellaDMC]

I don't like the idea that based on feminist principles you would tell me I can't. That I can't do what I want with my own body.

I find this a somewhat spurrious argument. There are many, many things which I cannot (legally) do with my body. I cannot take heroin, for instance, or walk down the street naked, or sell my kidney. Pretty much every law works to constrain the rights of an individual, usually in a bid to protect the others. Sometimes that link is clear (such as murder is illegal to try to prevent people being murdered), other times it is less so (no nakedness on the street so as to respect other people's rights to not see naked people if they choose).

FWIW, I'm not comfortable with the idea of surrogacy but I don't strongly object to the current laws around it. The potential for exploitation is very clear, and ensuring no payments are made makes exploitation far less likely.

I find egg donation slightly more complicated. While people aren't paid for donating eggs (beyond expenses), offering £2000 off a round of IVF is a significant inducement for those of us who could not have children naturally yet can't afford the full cost of IVF. It isn't a direct payment so it fits with current laws, but I think it is a financial inducement and therefore a step to far IMO.

[IsabellaDMC]

None of us has a right to be a parent. None of us 'deserves' to be a parent. 'Nature' does not give a shit if some of us can't manage it - enough of us manage it to preserve the species. A worthwhile life, a fulfilling life, and a happy life - all possible without children of our own....but I know to say that from my position of having them sounds horribly cruel

I agree with all of this even though I don't have children.

[mustbemad17]

But which part do you feel is unethical? There have been many different snippets that people have mentioned & some are more pertinent to certain 'types' of surrogacy.

I'm opposed to social surrogacy. And commercialised surrogacy. And wanker agencies making stupid amounts of money from desperate IPs.

I don't have a problem with altruistic surrogacy - altho i have an issue with some levels expenses can extend to.

[QuarksandLeptons]

mustbemad17
I think altruistic surrogacy is unethical to the baby. A baby deserves to be with its mother at least for the first 6 months of their lives. Breastfeeding is so important on multiple levels to the development of a baby.

[mustbemad17]

But what about mums who conceive naturally & don't breastfeed? Or children who are taken away at birth by the authorities?

I'm generally intrigued in all of this - my only negative reactions I ever received as a surrogate was because i carried for a gay couple.

[QuarksandLeptons]

Over 90% of mothers breast feed at birth and it tapers off generally because support is so poor in the U.K. The reality is that most mothers really want to.

Whereas with a surrogacy, I understand the baby is removed from the mother and has no further contact in most arrangements. So it’s not comparable to a mother who tries but has problems and doesn’t end up breastfeeding.

I don’t think the authorities should ever remove a new born baby from a mother.

Breastfeeding isn’t just about nutrition it’s about comfort and bonding with the mother who grew the baby inside her and the milk created is perfect & specific for the baby they have birthed.

[CharisInAlexandria]

Totally against surrogacy in all forms.

It has only been possible in the very recent past for a woman to give birth to a child using another woman’s egg.

The emotional and physical impact on the mother of birth is huge and it doesn’t matter whether she is the genetic mother or not. We are not emotionally adapted to giving away a child we have given birth to just because of the intellectual knowledge that the egg was someone else’s.

There is a gradual separation of mother and child that occurs after the birth. Often not appreciated on the wedding threads where the currently childless bride and groom don’t realise why the ban on newborns at the wedding requiring a weekend stay feels like a ban on the mum attending too.

Sorry the above sounds trivial but I think the strength of the bond between a mother and her new baby is often downplayed.

[CharisInAlexandria]

On and as for the rich college student examples. They remind me of the happy college student working as escorts examples.

Unlikely to be representative and also causing themselves lots of emotional and physical damage in any case.

[GuardianLions]

But what about mums who conceive naturally & don't breastfeed? Or children who are taken away at birth by the authorities?

There is a big difference between the unfortunate situation of a baby being separated because the mother is a chaotic drug addict, or a baby not getting the right antibodies and bonding because a mother finds it difficult to breastfeed. These are unfortunate situations we try to avoid.

In the case of 'designer babies' and other surrogacy - this harm and deprivation for the baby is actually planned and deliberate. It is entirely different.

[Catinthecorner]

I, personally, feel the uk has a reasonable set of legislation around surrogacy and egg/sperm donation.

To be honest, my ethics are more spiked by the children in the adoptive system because their mother was persuaded abortion is a sin or because their parents are abusive.

[mustbemad17]

The emotional & physical impact on the mother of birth is huge and doesn't matter whether she is the generic mother or not

Have you spoken to any women who have been surrogates, out of interest? I know many surrogates, running into the hundreds...I know of two who have struggled to give up their surrogate baby. Just curious whether this is an opinion you have formed based on speaking to actual surrogates or not?

Quarks some surrogates do breastfeed. Some IM's induce lactation with help from GPs so that they can take on the breastfeeding. The baby isn't just whipped away after birth & that's the end of it (perhaps in the US that's the norm)

[OlennasWimple]

OP - feel free to pop over to the adoption board if you want to explore that with others who have been through the system (on all sides - there are birth mothers, adoptees and social workers on there, as well as adoptive parents)

[blue2014]

But @IsabellaDMC your point is again about legality and mine wasn't - it was about ethics.

I also ethically have no problem with someone consuming heroin (I've known several who have - to numb trauma. I wish they didn't have to but I don't find it unethical)


I also question the thinking that we have no rights to be parents. Whilst I can see the logic (do I agree? I don't know, how can I? I paid for my baby) then if we follow the nature argument through (nature says you cant have a baby so you won't have one, there are enough humans in the world already) then shouldn't we also stop life saving treatments (nature says you're suppose to die - there are enough humans in the world already) infertility is a medical condition.

[IsabellaDMC]

Actually, mine was an ethical point, though I was using existing laws to (perhaps badly) make it. It isn't feasible to have an ethics discussion about individual rights within a society without considering examples of what is/isn't currently legal.

What I was trying to say is that I don't always have a problem with telling other people what to do with their bodies. I find the "I don't like telling others what to do" argument nonsense because pretty much everyone accepts that it is necessary to at least some extent if we want to live as a community. The difficulty is in balancing the rights and freedoms of the individual against those of others, or of society as a whole.

Surrogacy isn't a medical intervention which is done to the person who has a medical problem, so it isn't analogous to infertility treatments performed on the prospective parents themselves. For the same reason, it isn't analogous to life-saving treatments. (Though it is worth noting that actually we don't have an absolute right to those either.)

Surrogacy is performing hazardous treatment on someone for whom it is totally unnecessary. Fully altruistic surrogacy I don't find ethically problematic as I see it similar to live organ donation. Add in the idea of paying for it, however, and I have a massive ethical problem with it.

[blue2014]

Good counter argument Isabella fair points - my argument was based on true altruism too so I guess we agree.

[GuardianLions]

I think the ethics of the UK law around surrogacy and sperm/egg donation is pretty close to what I find acceptable too.

[mustbemad17]

The problem is you can't be truly altruistic in the UK in the sense that it be done entirely free. Expenses must be paid otherwise CAFCASS & the courts view it as exploitation.

Guess we can't win 😂

[loopdeloo]

Thanks to those who've responded, and particularly to Olenna and Fatberg for directing me over to the adoption board - I've not been sure until now whether I was ready to look there but actually I now feel the time is right to explore a bit more.

This thread has made for interesting, and at times painful, reading. I'm relieved to see the overwhelming response that I wasn't just being "emotional" (barren and bitter) at the idea of my friend and his boyfriend browsing brochures of pedigree young women with the intent of spending $$$$$$ on a baby.

But it's also helped clarify my thoughts on egg donation and why I won't go for that option, even if I had the money to try it (and it is very expensive and inaccessible to many, not least as it has a low success rate). I question the right to deliberately bring a child into the world knowing they will have no access to at least one half of their biological heritage. If I could have used my sisters' eggs, maybe. Perhaps I would even have considered surrogacy given how heavily involved I am with my nieces/nephews, though the fallout if there was a change of heart when the child arrived does not bear thinking about. But anonymous donation does not feel comfortable for me, and wouldn't if the roles were reversed and we needed a sperm donor rather than an egg donor.

How I will handle this with my friend is something I need to think about, though. It is pretty tough to hear "you can have a perfectly fulfilling life without children of your own" from people who have their own children (so I appreciate your contribution Isabella) - I've been in the US very recently when people list the things they are grateful for at Thanksgiving, without fail, their children are top of the list. You also see it here all the time - people saying that they only get through things at times because of their kids, if it weren't for my kids etc. and at the same time you hear how unfair our system of forced adoptions is, how awful for the birth mothers (aka the 'real' mothers), how difficult adoption is, how most wouldn't go near it with a bargepole...

The fact that I can't have my own children might possibly make the conversation a bit easier I suppose.

[QuentinSummers]

I might be confused - are you talking about your gay friend? Do you need to discuss it with them? It could be very awkward....

[loopdeloo]

Yes, I do need to discuss with him - we are that close.

This is a man who actively tries to live what he calls an "ethical lifestyle" and would certainly view himself as a "feminist ally". And yet he has very few women in his life and none of them would say something other than me. I know he will not have thought properly about the arguments put forward here with regard to buying a woman's eggs and paying a woman to gestate a child for them. In our last conversation (which was via message as I wasn't up to facing people) I asked if he had given up completely on the UK option of finding an altruistic surrogate and he said yes and that he thought it was actually better to pay a woman because it was so much more than, say, giving blood that the woman deserved to be compensated properly. I closed down the conversation because I felt so strongly that this was wrong but needed to take a step back and work out if this was in part down to my personal situation or whether - had I not been through what I have - I would have said something immediately. I know the answer to that for sure now.

I'm not concerned about the conversation being awkward - I'm concerned about it breaking the friendship completely but I feel the arguments are so powerful that I need to present them to him because no one else will.