So upset by commercial surrogacy

[Soggiemoggie]

Considered posting this in AIBU but thought I might get some deeper more sympathetic discussion here...

I know it's a topic that really splits views but I am so upset to hear about distant family friend who has adopted a baby through commercial surrogacy in the US (they live here in the UK). DM told me a about this a few months ago and this week said she's seen photos of the baby and another family friend has visited them. DM has expressed (privately to me) that she thinks it is a horrible thing for the baby and that is equates to buying and selling of women's bodies. I wholeheartedly agree with this view. They happen to be a gay couple and before anyone calls me homophobic - I don't care a jot about that and it doesn't change my view at all that this is such an entitled and selfish act. I don't believe it is a human right to have a baby and if you can't have children of your own for whatever reason, why not look into adoption or fostering for the many children who are already in this world and in dire need of a loving family and secure home?

Anyway when my DM mentioned it again this week and I asked how old the baby was now and when she answered, for some reason I just burst out crying in front of DM and DF. So embarrassing (!) But I just had this overwhelming upset feeling thinking about the baby away from his mum and his mum who god knows how she must be feeling.

I myself have a 8 month old DS (PFB...) so obviously such strong feelings about this are because of my own bias about being a mum to a helpless tiny baby and having my whole universe revolving around DS...

So Mumsnetters please share your views on commercial surrogacy, tell me it's OK to be distraught at the thought of this, or tell me to piss off for being so judgey...

Sorry this is so long - I really needed to get that off my chest!

Yes it’s ok to be distraught at this. I am too.

There was a really good thread a while ago that articulated these concerns. It was about Ton Daley’s decision to go to USA for commercial surrogacy. I will see if I can find it.

Here you go

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3293640-The-mother-of-Tom-Daleys-child

Yeah, I am not for it at all. I think it is wrong a child can be bought and sold, basically, I think it is wrong to (even altruistically) donate egg or sperm if it is without learning who the 'recipient' family is and without plans to have some voluntary link to the child in the future.
Surely, if you plan to have a child to love and care for, you should love the child enough and be mindful enough of the child's future feelings, to plan this in a way that the child, when he or she hears the story of her birth, will not feel handled like a commodity, but treated with respect by all parties.

I feel exactly the same. It's distressing

I would be interested in the reasons why they went to the US and not the UK. And how they refer to and communicate with the baby's mother, if at all. It would tell you a lot about what they think of women.

Being against gay males exploiting women isn't homophobia. I have no problem with lesbians who have children by sperm donor, or with gay men who adopt.
(And I judge infertile heterosexual couples who think they can just rent a woman's womb the same. How it is any different from a woman telling her husband to fuck the maidservant, then claiming the baby as her own?)

I totally agree with you, commercial surrogacy is vile.

One can argue that gay men exploiting women who need the money to get babies is the same patriarchy has done by marriage all the time, but with the pretty mask removed, so to speak.
So, perhaps not worse than a man fathering children with a woman who would not look at him twice if he didn't have more money than her.

As a feminist, I am against the traditional form of exploitation, too, so I think I have the right to complain about commercial surrogacy.

Completely agree with you, I’m against buying, selling or renting bodies. I have had fertility issues myself and always knew I would adopt if I couldn’t have a child myself. I find commercial surrogacy disturbing.

I think it’s awful and that it’s only going to happen more and more frequently. Robbie Williams and his wife happily admitting that the reason they used a surrogate was because they were too busy with work commitments to go through pregnancy I found particularly shocking. Also Kim Kardashian using a surrogate and barely even mentioning it. She complained constantly through her second pregnancy about how awful she looked. I know her official reasons were that she had health issues that meant she couldn’t get pregnant again, but I’m sure her keeping her figure was a huge factor too.

I had a baby adopted at birth. I was a teenager who had been in an abusive relationship. I kept the pregnancy secret until 7 months and I knew from the minute I found out that adoption was the best thing for both me and my baby. For me there were no pressures of me needing money or support or recovery. Everything was done in order to cause as little stress to myself and my baby. 18 years on and there is not a day when I don’t think of my child.

I can’t imagine what it must be like to feel you have to do it for money and then have images of this happy family shoved down your throat.

I’m not sure how I feel about this.

My current POV is that people volunteer to be surrogates for couples who cannot otherwise conceive. I’m not sure how different “commercial” surrogacy is for each individual family and child.

Can someone articulate why it’s exploitation if it’s voluntary and presumably altruistic?

I have a hard time thinking about surrogacy because I can’t see past my own emotion of being attached to a pregnancy and newborn, so it’s difficult for me to understand.

Being too busy to be pregnant is not a reason to expect to be able to pay another woman to take the risks of pregnancy for you.

Robbie Williams and his wife happily admitting that the reason they used a surrogate was because they were too busy with work commitments to go through pregnancy I found particularly shocking.

This will likely become the norm soon.

From the Middle Ages to early modern times, noblewomen didn't breastfeed, they got a wetnurse, so they themselves could keep perky breasts and conceive another child fast.
From what I read about history, this was universal, i.e. not just a few noblewomen, but all of them. And perhaps not even just nobility but wealthy people in general.

This decreased when there was a political movement to idealize the family, but I think the most important reason wetnurses aren't a thing anymore is because it is now possible to feed a baby adequately with something other than human milk.

Noblewomen gave birth to their own babies so the baby would be related genetically to both noble families.

With modern medicine and the option to implant one woman's egg in another woman's womb, that's not an issue anymore.

In those places where it is not illegal, I predict it will be commonplace quite soon.

I hadn't been aware celebrities were already doing it because they were "too busy". With them not being much judged for it, there will be many who imitate them.

We may well soon have a two-class society where one caste of women has good jobs, and the others are always pregnant.

Sounds strangely familiar ...

I wonder whether women's names starting with "Of" will soon be much more common ...

Thank you for the replies so far - it's good to know others feel the same as me. As I say it's all bound up in my own recent experience of becoming a mother. I just feel awful thinking about a baby who has been brought into this world and then separated from its mother for someone else's convenience...

@SilverDoe - yes I do see it as exploitation through and through. It is buying and selling a woman's body. It is the commodification of children. Not to say the women are forced into these arrangements (God forbid) but that doesn't make it any less exploitative. It is the rich exploiting the poor. Society exploiting women. I'm sure others who are more articulate than me will be able to elaborate upon that.

@LemonJello - thank you for the link. I saw this thread when it started but my god 1000 posts! I'll have a read

I firmly believe in everyone's right to live how they choose as long as it does no harm.
I have reservations about surrogacy ( unless maybe when it is altruistic by someone with frequent and close contact with the family) as I think even early separation from a birth mother (or gestational carrier) is a trauma, and should only be done in the best interests of the child - ie removal at birth by SS/courts with good evidence of harm /future harm.

I'm completely against commercial surrogacy and also have great reservations about aspects of altruistic surrogacy too as I believe there is still potential for exploitation. This recent thread discussed the issue, some interesting posts and links plus not too long.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3424290-Law-Commission-consulting-on-paid-surrogacy-in-the-UK?pg=1&order=

I was speaking to someone the other day whose family member has got a baby through surrogacy, and not only that, the birth mothers name is not on the birth certificate at all. Its completely falsifying history. Its like facts dont mean anything at all, and even carrying and birthing a child is nothing.

I have massive issues with surragcy, Even non commercial.

It's funny how gays always cry homophobia when their "right" to exploit female bodies to provide them with the baby they want is questioned. Whilst at the same time displaying if not rank misogyny at least total contempt for the women who are expected to provide them with what they want.

www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/06/her-name-is-monroe-christine

Fwiw I am deeply opposed to surrogacy whoever it is wanting to buy a baby. If anything I feel more disgust at women like KK who are perfectly capable of having babies for themselves but would rather someone else spared them the trouble.

I agree OP and I find it particularly shocking that some high profile celebs have used it when they already have children. Somehow that seems worse as not doing it didn't mean not having children at all.

I have mixed views about this. But I certainly don't see it as negatively as you do, @Soggiemoggie.

My son is gay. I know he would dearly love to have children (once he's settled and with a partner), and it troubles me to know how he's going to go about that.

I agree with you about adoption, but I don't think there are exactly loads of little babies available for adoption - and it seems to be a very difficult process to go through to 'succeed'.

What's the alternative, if not adoption? Get a female friend of his to use his (or his partner's) sperm to conceive their child? That's still exactly the same issue as a commercial approach, because the baby is being given up from its mother. You also then have the added complication of the involvement of the 'true' mother, along with added grandparents, and another family etc.

I don't know what to think really

Yanbu. It upsets me to, people using women as an incubator to have a baby.

And I really hate the term ‘gestational carrier’

For me the most shocking thing about Robbie and Ayda, and Kim and Kanye, was that they used a surrogate for their THIRD child. Nobody needs 3 bloody children, certainly not to the extent of risking the life of another woman.

I admit I am conflicted.

We have a child conceived using an egg donor (my husband’s sperm and my womb). We stayed in the UK for treatment because I want our child to have the option of tracing the donor if he wants to when he’s older. The donor is not known to us and we were told we’re not allowed any details (beyond basic information). I wanted a donor who had a child already because I wanted her to be sure she knew what she was doing. I also didn’t want a donor who was herself going through fertility treatment because I didn’t want her to be pressured to give eggs to us to fund her own treatment. In the U.K. the donor gets £700 compensation and I imagine that could be an attractive prospect but I don’t think it’s enough to induce someone to do something they object to. I can only trust she made the decision freely (she has a compulsory counselling session, as did we).

I think surrogacy is different from egg or sperm donation. Some may find it harder or easier to consider. I believe in most cases the baby is conceived with an egg from another women lessening the genetic link.

I wouldn’t choose to be an egg donor or a surrogate myself. But does that mean that no one else should.

I really don’t know the answers to any of this.

But I tell you one thing that pisses me off and that’s that any conversation about infertility and it’s treatment always includes someone saying ‘why don’t they adopt’ as if that’s the easiest thing in the world. Children who’ve had a tough start deserve parents who have positively chosen to adopt not those who have no other options and see it as second best. Of course infertility can be the trigger to consider adoption and then it becomes a positive choice. But please god spare me people who conceived their own children easily telling me I should have adopted and there are ‘so many children waiting for families’ etc etc when they never considered it for a moment.

Agree, but your reaction, crying, when you don’t know the birth mother, couple or the DC, seems OTT.

Am anti commercial surrogacy and to a lesser extent have concerns about altruistic surrogacy, also egg and sperm donation. UK rules are pretty decent IMO. US rules are not.

“Why not look into adoption or fostering” suggests ignorance of fertility issues and fostering/adoption.

'Gestational carrier' is so minimising and dismissive of the reality of pregnancy. Uteruses aren't just storage units you can rent for nine months that have nothing to do with the woman they're in.

53rdWay-agree. And it’s very dehumanising of women