Surrogacy

[Annasgirl]

So I'm here in Ireland listening to a national radio show where they are promoting surrogacy.

It seems as if we are all supposed to think it is ok. Now to be fair, the host is not really on board but the young woke roving reporter (a girl) really is!!! And apparently only religious people are against it (according to the woke young female reporter).

I've just found out that there is a bill coming through the Dail to legalise the process in Ireland, although just for altruistic stuff in Ireland. And guess what - they want to make it broader because no woman in Ireland would really want to do this, (why, if it so wonderful) so they want the US and Canada and Ukraine etc included.

Any thoughts?

I know we had a chat on here about it recently and many of us seemed to feel that surrogacy was really anti-women, and yes I really believe it is.

So it has all ended and there was no absolutely no discussion on any ethical issues or women's issues - because clearly that is all religion and we don't do religion in Ireland any more.

Sorry, just needed to rant to you all.

• Post edited at OP's request.

It was pointed out a generation ago that women were losing maternal rights, and gaining paternal ones. Meaning that they had a "right" to their genetic children, but not the baby they had gestated.

I feel like there’s two very different sides to surrogacy.
For example: say my Dsis can’t carry her own baby, and I carried it for her. I would give birth to that baby, then maintain a normal, aunt-niece/nephew relationship with that child, and still be a part of his or her life. No money exchanging hands etc. I’m not saying I would do it, but I think this kind of surrogacy is very different to the horrible “rent-a-womb” agencies that seem to be rife in the US. That makes me deeply uncomfortable in every sense. It think it’s barbaric that once a woman enters into that contract, she essentially loses all bodily autonomy for the “contract period”. It feels exploitative, and turns something that is on the surface “a beautiful gift” into something very very ugly
I’ll never forget reading about the gay, reality tv couple from the US (can’t remember their names!) who documented their “surrogacy journey” on TV, and they were actually faced with a lawsuit because they filmed a lot of the appointments/labour/birth etc without the surrogates permission, and pretty much told her that they essentially “own her womb” while she’s carrying and birthing their child and they could film what they liked

OvaHere

Citing health risks to the mother are different though.

I think using donated eggs or sperm is turning children into commodities.

I have less of an issue with using genetic parents eggs and sperm and an altruistic gestational surrogate than "anonymous" donor eggs and sperm.

if you are against people having babies because they are not able to have them naturally

That’s not what we are discussing. The topic is, surrogacy.

There is no comparison in your example, as we are specifically talking about the intentional creation of a child that is to be seperated from its mother. It is entirely different as the role of the mother is unique and creates a physical and hormonal bond. Anyone who has been pregnant will understand that that is completely different from being a biological father.

Is it different? I think it's an interesting question.

Genetic make up can have lifelong effects in a way that who gave birth to you doesn't. It's the essence of who you are.

With any ethical minefield one has to consider all the absolute worst case scenarios and check the balance and sacrifice of human rights.
Even with altruistic surrogacy there are horrible outcomes.
What if the surrogate mother dies or is damaged - can society condone a practice that is NOT lifesaving where one party can load that risk onto another?
What if the surrogate mother wants to keep the baby, it isn't genetically hers, but she IS the mother in exactly the way any woman who conceives a child naturally or with IVF and donor eggs is the mother. We would never condone a claim on a child from the donor from a woman who had conceived a child through IVF and donor eggs or sperm. Why does the surrogate mother have less rights, or the baby less?
What if the surrogate mother gives up the child and then struggles with the raising of that child by the relation, whether it may be abusive or not. Her legal rights may be forfeit, but her moral concerns will remain and families can be torn apart by competing claims on a child.

There are many worst case scenarios that are possible and the prospect of some happy outcomes must be weighed against the disastrous implications when it goes wrong.

What if the surrogate mother dies or is damaged - can society condone a practice that is NOT lifesaving where one party can load that risk onto another?

Society accepts that risk with altruistic organ donation.

When weighing outcomes is it better for the child to be one of many children fathered by an "anonymous" sperm donor who grows up to know that they have multiple unknown half siblings or a child who grows up with genetic parents and knowing their gestational surrogate?

Except organ donation is life saving, hence the ethical dilemma of should we risk a life if we're not saving a life.

Furthermore, I understand that there are significant checks and balances on altruistic organ donation alongside the obvious complete ban on commercial organ donation.

Yes organ donation is life saving for the recipient but there is no benefit, only risks, to the donor.

Altruistic organ donation is life-saving.

Prospective parents will not die due to not being able to have genetically related children.

They aren’t comparable scenarios.

See my point that you've quoted "NOT lifesaving".

Accepting some limited health risk to save another's life with organ donation is weighted very differently from risking a life to provide a baby for another person.

What is the risk to the donor Vs the lifesaving benefit to the recipient.

That's the measure.

We should not be condoning the risk to a woman's life - and pregnancy is a significant risk - when noone is in danger for their own life.

And you can’t arrange a backdoor organ transplant via Facebook

www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/how-you-can-help/get-involved/key-messages-and-information/living-organ-donation-faq/

Accepting some limited health risk to save another's life with organ donation is weighted very differently from risking a life to provide a baby for another person.

What is the risk to the donor Vs the lifesaving benefit to the recipient.

Well being a live donor doesn't have some "limited risk" does it? Unless you consider death a "limited risk"? You run the usual risks of surgery - haemorrhage, infection, complications of anaesthetic - any of which could be life threatening plus the risk of complications later in life of having had an organ removed.

That seems quite risky to the donor for zero benefit.

The benefit is saving a life.

These are not comparable scenarios.

Not all children born from ‘surrogacy’ grow up knowing their birth mother.

The benefit is only for the recipient though.

If the "benefit" to the donor is in the feeling that they've helped someone else then a surrogate could also have the same "benefit" surely?

I think another issue that is related to this is that people feel they have a "right" to a child. I have been raised with the idea that you don't get everything in life what you want, but for some reason this goes out the window where becoming parents are concerned.

I agree completely CaptSkippy

then a surrogate could also have the same "benefit" surely?

It is not the same. The benefit is saving a life. The benefit of surrogacy is entirely selfishly motivated by something that is not life threatening, but mere entitlement.

You’re also ignoring the fact that surrogacy often involves poor women with limited choices.

This thread feels a bit deja vu now.

Here are a few other recent threads on the topic:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3496126-Mermaids-power-couple-Hannah-Jake-Graf-say-surrogacy-laws-must-be-changed-to-force-women-to-hand-over-babies

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

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3454463-So-upset-by-commercial-surrogacy

Betty yes, it is deja vu. Unfortunately there's undoubtedly a concerted effort going on at the moment in quite a lot of different countries round the world to change the law regarding commercial surrogacy, so it's something we have to keep talking about, otherwise changes will go in under the radar (see the comment about Ahern and New Zealand upthread, for instance).

I'm torn about altruistic surrogacy - I can see it's the thin end of the wedge, I can see there are risks where there's a coercive relationship within the family (the sister of a gay man or transwoman coming under pressure to "help", for instance). But at the same time my gut instinct is that provided the woman has been counselled properly about the possible risks (including death, lifelong incontinence, risk to future pregnancies of her own, etc.) and has been assessed to make sure she's not being coerced, then the liberal side of me says "it's her private business if she chooses to help a friend or relative."

There is no such argument for commercial surrogacy, however. It's no different from allowing people to sell a kidney, or one cornea. It's inherently exploitative.

JessicaWakefieldSVH

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't agree with commercial surrogacy. I have concerns about altruistic surrogacy, apart from in very specific circumstances.

I am completely against egg and sperm donation.

I have the same concerns about altruistic organ donation as I do about surrogacy. I see very similar risks to health and risk of being pressured into doing both.

I would for example be a gestational surrogate should either of my children need it in the same way as I would be an altruistic organ donor to them. I would accept the risks without question for both scenarios but I wouldn't do it for anyone else.

The other factor in the Nebraska case was the the child was conceived using the 61yo surrogate's DD's eggs, fertilised with her DS's partner's sperm. So there's another woman taking on the risks and discomforts of an invasive medical procedure (egg harvesting) so that two men can have the luxury of sharing DNA with the child in question.

A guy I know locally and his partner had a baby boy through surrogacy last year. He's now gone back to uni to do law and is quite involved in pro- surrogacy campaigns. I remember seeing him comment underneath a post "a child doesn't need a mother", and being struck by the cognitive dissonance- they obviously do need a mother, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to source and engage a surrogate and egg donor. He clearly saw the women that helped them and nurtured their child as no more to him and his partner as a walking womb or ovaries.