Sweden to ban all surrogancy

[RedToothBrush]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/25/surrogacy-sweden-ban
All surrogacy is exploitation – the world should follow Sweden’s ban

Personally, I welcome this wholeheartedly.

Agreed.

That seems a bit harsh. Many surrogates don't feel that way-are you saying that they are too stupid to know their own mind?

Personally, I welcome this wholeheartedly

And me.

And that's without making any assumptions whatsoever about the IQ of surrogates. There are some things it should not be OK to ask (still less pay) someone to do. To me, the health risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth and the emotional risks associated with having a baby and giving it up put surrogacy in this category.

Surrogacy has always been ethically problematic. There may be truly altruistic cases but there are so many exploitative cases which tip the balance for me. It's really been turning into an industry which exploits poorer women's bodies. I can't say I'm too upset to see it banned somewhere.

That's an old article unfortunately- Swedish surrogacy laws are similar to the UK's.

I'm torn on this - for feminist reasons I agree, but then I personally know of friends who have had horrible things happen to them (cancer resulting in having to terminate a healthy baby to save the mother's life with aggressive chemo - yes it does happen), whose only real hope of having a child is through surrogacy - there are embryos but the mum, who is now in complete remission, can't carry them because of the very real risks to her health.

Adoption is not an easy answer: it is very hard to adopt these days, there are special challenges involved, and not right for everyone, especially people who have been through a lot of trauma themselves. I'm not sure that banning surrogacy completely is the right thing - after all, it has always been happening in various ways on the quiet - but sensitive regulation is certainly needed.

There are lots of tragic reasons why people can't bear children but renting another woman's womb out can't be the answer.

My sister can't have children; nothing wrong with her eggs - she just can't carry. I have 2 kids of my own. If she and her partner decide they want children, then I will be carrying them. Is that wrong or exploitative? You can't just have a blanket ban on something like this.

I'm close to two couples who absolutely couldn't have their own and used surrogates.

4 kids between them.

Surrogates were absolutely willing and well treated.

One couple have fought and changed the law in the EU to make sure that surrogate families have the same rights as others in terms of parental leave etc. I'm not saying that there are not going to be any exploitation, but the two cases I know of (and the only two) are absolutely fair.

And the kids are :)

And at the other end of the scale ...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408015/Gay-fathers-daughter-wants-baby-surrogate.html

I dont agree with this, I really dont see that it is exploitation at all, provided the surrogate goes through proper assessments to ensure it is a fully informed choice they are making and they are not under any undue pressures, financial or otherwise.

I think in the right circumstances (very important), it is a wonderful gift to give someone. I would happily do it for a family member or close friend, should the need arise. Some people donate bone marrow for altruistic purposes, I dont consider that to be exploitation.

I would also donate a kidney to my kids/close family/friend, imho that is not exploitative and does come with health risks.

It's amazing how many people want to ban others from doing things that they as intelligent adults fully understand the dangers of, but wish to go through with.

The article is from two years ago?

But I agree with Tallulah - "There are some things it should not be OK to ask (still less pay) someone to do. To me, the health risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth and the emotional risks associated with having a baby and giving it up put surrogacy in this category."

Like all things there are too many lines to make a blanket decision.

The story linked to above where a perfectly healthy woman simply doesn't wish to go through pregnancy and childbirth really is "renting a womb" and crosses too many lines imo. However, as pp says, carrying a child for a family member - whilst fraught with personal difficulties and choices - is not something that rings an exploitation bell for me. Women from poor backgrounds becoming surrogates to earn money to feed their own children... Much more difficult.

Anyone suggesting a blanket approach to such a complex human issue is being a bit naive I think.

Paid surrogacy should always be illegal
Bringing a baby into the country that was born overseas via surrogacy should be illegal
However my bro and his wife are going through fertility issues and if they needed a surrogate I would do it in a heartbeat. I would feel very angry if I was prevented from doing so.

Surrogacy is often not very different from prostitution, or organ buying, for instance I know of a male couple who chose a particular country for their surrogate because it "was the cheapest". Motherhood generally is undervalued, and paying to use a woman's body in this way should be illegal. I can see there is a grey area where a sister might really want to carry a child for her sibling, unpaid, but overall it is a horrendous practice that devalues women and treats the bodies of poor women as disposable. Julie Bindell is actively campaigning against surrogacy, probably worth reading some of her writing on the issue.

Adalind-
I agree , I think the ban should be on paid surrogacy.
Also ban offering women cut price ivf in exchange for egg donation, I think it's terrible to take advantage of women when they are vulnerable and feeling desperate.

It's amazing how many people want to ban others from doing things that they as intelligent adults fully understand the dangers of, but wish to go through with

Drugs , assisted suicide, polygamy and selling organs are all banned in the UK.

I am in the ban all surrogacy camp; or at most allow altruistic surrogacy but only where the surrogate is either a close family member of one of the prospective parents or has known one of the prospective parents for at least 10 years.

I'm an adopter so this kind of thing is fairly up close and personal for me and I'm still in the ban camp because I agree with Tallulah. It's way too open to abuse. Particularly when some women are very poor and others are very rich.

And realistically you could leave it very open to family surrogacy anyway. AFAIK you don't need to involve SS if your child is being cared for by a family member and an adoption would be very simple to expedite.

I feel for women who can't carry of course but i have reluctantly concluded that paid surrogacy it is exploitation that can't be justified. I think surrogacy within families or close relationships could be acceptable if you have the sort of ethical assessment you have for live donors. No money should change hands at all.