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!

KK and KW are having another. It truly sickens me.

Us Weekly (@usweekly)
02/01/2019, 13:28
Exclusive: Party of six! Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are expecting their fourth child, via surrogate bit.ly/2GTEhbJ

Link.

twitter.com/usweekly/status/1080455853885612034?s=21

Horrifying. The Handmaid’s Tale come true.

“Once you let go it’s the best experience. I would recommend surrogacy for everyone”
Kim Kardashian in today’s paper on announcing second surrogate pregnancy.

No words. This should be illegal. Plus how healthy is it for that poor surrogate she had their other baby only last January.

I think it's truly horrendous. Almost too upsetting to really consider properly.

Reading about KK and KW today is just vomit inducing. People should not be able to bring children into the world as accessories and to sell a lifestyle. It's so so wrong on every level.

"Once you let go it’s the best experience. I would recommend surrogacy for everyone"

Fucking hell, man. Gobsmacked.

YANBU but I think crying about it is a bit over the top.

"Once you let go it’s the best experience. I would recommend surrogacy for everyone"

There's one minor flaw in that idea. But if you are making statements like that you've obviously dehumanised part of society where they are no longer 'everyone'.

The impact of her words are frankly terrifying utterly handmaids tale-esque. Either she is extremely thick or as red says has successfully de humanised the “breeding” class who are not real people like her and her peers.

In 2006, Gabbana revealed he had asked a female friend to be a surrogate mother to his children but had changed his mind: “I am opposed to the idea of a child growing up with two gay parents. A child needs a mother and a father. I could not imagine my childhood without my mother. I also believe that it is cruel to take a baby away from its mother.”
Maybe they're the wrong type of gay?

No woman has the right to get pregnant either, I feel similarly about men who donate their sperm for financial incentive

There really is no comparison between artificial insemination by donor and surrogacy.

Cards on the table I was and still am opposed to IVF. It bothers me that vast amounts of time, money, research, medical skills and no doubt the torture of laboratory animals is used on ever more non- natural ways of creating a baby. Having said that basic AID is at the lowest end of the scale.

No man runs any health risks providing a semen donation.

I believe it's possible to be distressed by something but still support other women's right to do it. I am personally comfortable with surrogacy provided safeguards are in place to prevent exploitation. Banning it denies women autonomy to use their bodies as they see fit.

As a personal example that's not directly comparable in terms of the act itself but is in terms of my feelings: I'm very distressed by the idea of anyone I know personally using drugs but I absolutely support universal legalisation because the current state of affairs has money entering the hands of vile criminals while people are harmed even more badly by impure supply and the NHS sees no finding from taxation to help those who are harmed.

I absolutely support universal legalisation because the current state of affairs has money entering the hands of vile criminals while people are harmed even more badly by impure supply and the NHS sees no finding from taxation to help those who are harmed.
Except in legalising we compel all the poorer countries in the supply chain to also legalise or stand alone with no financial or practical support against powerful kingpins and cartels. We legitimise the bastards hanging people off motorway bridges and filming the most hideous torture in Mexico, and look on as the cartel leaders end up as bona fide businessmen. It would make the de-sovietisation of Russia look civil by comparison.
And we'd do all that and still have an illegal black market in drugs, as we have an illegal black market in cigarettes now despite them being legal and sold through government approved premises with high rates of tax applied to their sale. And the illegal cigarettes are smuggled by organised criminals who occasionally substitute real for counterfeit to boost their income.
So no, sorry for the derail, but I disagree with you completely. Ironically one Dutch city recognises the antisocial nature of cannabis smoking link and Colorado has seen a crime increase since legalisation there link.
I haven't heard of issues from Portugal, to be fair, but the first point and second points still stand - it's not exactly Fairtrade and there will still be a black market undercutting the government approved supply. (And unless you make it free addicts will still commit property crimes to pay for it).
End of derail, sorry.

The two links are meant to emphasise that even cannabis has it's downsides, the first two points are more relevant to class A drugs.
(Before I get set upon by indignant stoners)

Back on topic:
There really is no comparison between artificial insemination by donor and surrogacy.

Cards on the table I was and still am opposed to IVF. It bothers me that vast amounts of time, money, research, medical skills and no doubt the torture of laboratory animals is used on ever more non- natural ways of creating a baby. Having said that basic AID is at the lowest end of the scale.

No man runs any health risks providing a semen donation.
Agreed on all points, matching cards so far!

But No woman has the right to get pregnant either, I feel similarly about men who donate their sperm for financial incentive still has a point. It allows for a woman to have a child without a father. Surrogacy allows for a man to have a child without a mother. The physical and psychological risks or pregnancy are in addition to this. If they didn't exist, and the foetus could be "grown" in a lab, then egg donation and sperm donation would be even more analogous (despite egg harvesting being rather more difficult than ejaculating into a cup is for men).

My problem with sperm donation is partially the disregard/disconnect many donators seem to have for their potential offspring. I also have concerns about the potential for many children to have the same biological father and not realise potentially entering into sexual relationships with each other.

To clarify I feel similarly in that I have concerns but not as strongly, and that men do not put their health/life at risk donating sperm is a factor as well.

I think surrogacy is a wonderful thing IF there is no money/gifts etc. exchanged. The idea of a woman's body and subsequently a baby is a commodity to be sold and bought is genuinely disgusting. A lot of the 'celebrities' using surrogates (Robbie and Ayda, Kim and Kanye etc..) are able to have children naturally so why use a surrogate?!

However, I think surrogacy for the right reasons is fine, provided all parties know what they are entering into, it has been agreed on all sides and NO money is exchanged. And for a genuine reason e.g. couple are genuinely unable to conceive naturally.

FlyingOink, I'll keep this short to avoid a further derail. As you mentioned, Mexican cartels and other large gangs are doing terrible things like throwing people off motorway bridges, these acts would still be crimes in the event of drug legalisation. Regarding an illegal black market in cigarettes, in the US, it's worth around $5 Billion PA, that's from a total market of 37.8 million smokers, while cocaine alone is worth around $28 billion from around 1.5 billion users. In other words, tax avoidance is nowhere near as profitable. The claim about crime increases in Colarado isn't really as evident when looked at over a longer time period and in more detail than the 6 years shown in the very blunt CNN graph. Even in the article you cited, the Denver police commander questioned the conclusions drawn by the governor. Sorry again for the derail.

Gronky
You've missed the point about cartels. Of course their murders would remain illegal. However if you suddenly legalise their other crimes and legitimise their huge income streams the same outcome as 90s Russia happens and the gangsters become the oligarchy.
I have no idea about black market cigarettes in the US, the tax is much much lower there. Here it's up to one pack in three that is smuggled or counterfeit. counterfeits.
Also, my point about crime levels is this: cannabis legalisation is touted as a potential answer to alcohol related crime, and cannabis related crime itself. But crime doesn't drop where it is legalised, and there is anecdotal evidence that antisocial behaviour increases too.
I knew cannabis would be a derail of a derail - the original post was pro legalisation of all drugs because of criminals and impure supply. There is no evidence that either of those two problems would go away with legalisation and some evidence to suggest they would get worse.
It is interesting that you didn't address my point about the morality of forcing other countries in the supply chain to follow our lead because we can't be bothered to enforce our own laws (and see some laws as less important). We force a choice on poorer countries. We empower their most fearsome criminals. Why? So people who choose to take certain substances for recreation can feel better about doing so? Forgive me but it's not a compelling argument for me.
I believe it's possible to be distressed by something but still support other women's right to do it. I am personally comfortable with surrogacy provided safeguards are in place to prevent exploitation. Banning it denies women autonomy to use their bodies as they see fit.
This is a libertarian argument. The individual should make the choice. I can get behind that to some extent but if those choices violate others they aren't choices the individual is free to make. It's a violation of non-aggression. Surrogacy isn't a choice made in a vacuum. The child may suffer. We don't know for sure. The birth mother may suffer. There may be financial or social compulsion involved. There may be an element of consumerism on the part of the end parent and the experience might be difficult for them too, perhaps they might feel it lacks authenticity. They may feel resentful towards the child. We don't know. There haven't been any studies. There is a paucity of relevant information.
Finally banning it wouldn't be a ban on what women's bodies can do, it would be a ban on selling babies. The focus should be on the children involved, not any of the adults.

Finally banning it wouldn't be a ban on what women's bodies can do, it would be a ban on selling babies. The focus should be on the children involved, not any of the adults.

This.

How often does one ever hear of anyone talking about the welfare of the children?
It's all about the consumer.

Sitting with a friend and her new born son the other day, I too couldn’t stop thinking about the tiny children who have been forcefully separated from the person they need and crave most in the works. Utterly heartbreaking that our government wants to enshrine the abandonment of babies into law.

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

On another thread about surrogacy I posted a link to an article about famous people who had used surrogates. A disturbing number already had their own children.

I am opposed to all surrogacy- altruistic and commercial. And I oppose it for heterosexual couples, lesbian couples, gay couples and singletons of any persuasion. I agree however that women who have given birth and subsequently use a surrogate are in a class of their own.