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.

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.

Yes they do need a mother. Equally they need a father too. So that must make sperm donors at least as controversial as egg donors surely?

If you know anything about the lead up to and process of egg collection you'll know it's a completely different matter to sperm donation.

TheCraicDealer

I do know. My friend had IVF and I gave her the injections.

The effect on the child of either a donor egg or sperm is no different though surely?

I used to be in favour of surrogacy for altruistic reasons, but having thought about it as more and more cases come to light. My position is now this:

I have come to the conclusion after considering the arguments for and against surrogacy that surrogacy should be banned. Because it affects the child's rights - the right to not be taken away from it's gestational mother, or to be treated as a saleable commodity. As far as I can see surrogacy is only ever in the selfish interests of the adults paying, never in the best interests of the child

I think the Kardashian’s can probably take credit for me finally reaching #peaksurrogacy

We seem to be living in a hideous amalgamation of 1984/animal farm/brave new world/handmaid’s tale.

How is it 'no different' mouse? Giving birth to a child for cash is not the same as having a child with donor gametes

The Law Commission in the UK have started looking at surrogacy issues to make recommendations on law reform here. Apparently public consultation will be a big part of that, which is good: www.lawcom.gov.uk/surrogacy-laws-set-for-reform-as-law-commissions-get-government-backing/

Perhaps MNHQ could invite them to do a webchat?

Sorry ^ Great Britain, not UK. Northern Ireland seems to be excluded. Not sure why that would be?

How is it 'no different' mouse?

Talking about the case where it was a donor egg, donor sperm and a surrogate - a PP said that being an egg donor was far more involved than being a sperm donor. My comment was relating to the child conceived as a result - it doesn't make a difference?

Oh right - in that case, no, it makes no difference to the child I'd have thought. I find the way that Lance Black and Tom Daley decided to not know which of them is the bio dad is completely about them rather than their child. It's deeply unfair on him

Annasgirl I watched a debate about that recently on Oireachtais TV, I found it horrifying. Ireland has become so drunk on wokeness it's as cultlike and devoid of critical thinking as the bad old days of Catholic dominance. It all seems to come as a package- promoting prostitution as a valid choice, centring men in feminism and lobbying for commercial surrogacy. It's so counter-intuitive given our history, I despair.

I agree we should ban surrogacy, i see the grey area of altruism, but even that is open to coercion.
I really hate the trend now of using one woman’s egg, and another’s uterus, I assume to avoid the woman giving birth changing her mind and wanting to keep her baby. It is particularly horrible as underlying it is the knowledge that the mother/baby bond matters.
Buying a woman’s body to grow a baby is no different from buying a kidney.

So, my gut instinct having carried two babies to term, is that the link made between mother and baby during pregnancy is really very important for the baby, particularly early on. So I googled for about 2 seconds and found this (and other articles basically saying the same)
www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/how-mother-child-separation-causes-neurobiological-vulnerability-into-adulthood.html. One quote from this is "The attachment bond between a mother and her child is first formed in the womb, where fetuses have been found to develop preferential responses to maternal scents and sounds that persist after birth,"

Of course, some children tragically lose their mother early on and often their father and other adults in their life step up, and manage to overcome the negative effects of this. But it's not a desirable situation and the people in those situations had no choice because of shitty bad luck. And everyone thinks it's tragic and recognises how hard it is. Deciding - actually making that decision - to put a child through this just because you really, really want a new baby is really dodgy as hell. I mean you're doing something quite unpleasant to the child from the off, doesn't really bode well for later on, does it?

I also don't see the difference between commercial surrogacy and selling organs.

I really hate the trend now of using one woman’s egg, and another’s uterus, I assume to avoid the woman giving birth changing her mind and wanting to keep her baby. It is particularly horrible as underlying it is the knowledge that the mother/baby bond matters.

Reading this gave me chills. This suggests the people doing it know exactly how important the bond formed in pregnancy is, and are using another egg to ensure the gestational mother has no rights. So they clearly just don't give a fuck about the importance of that bond to the baby and the negative consequences of taking that away.

And when it comes to using another woman's egg and thereby claiming the child is legally theirs - it's a form of ownership based on DNA. I don't think 'owning' a child is ok. I don't 'own' my children. And I also fail to see how donating an egg is performing more 'work' than gestating a baby, if it comes down to it. Not that this level of the argument should matter because clearly surrogacy should just be banned because it's a cruel thing to do to a baby.

There is going to be such a big push to legalise it, led by people like Lance Black and powerful legal lobby groups who obviously look set to make bundles of money from sorting out the official contracts.

It’s all going to be dressed up in language of looking after the child’s best interests, ensuring they are not stateless and how perfectly dreadful it is for the commissioning parents to apply for custody and permission to bring the child into the country and a passport.

@pachyderm - yes we have substituted one church for another and no criticism or critical thinking is allowed.

And my worry is that in the longer term, western women will be discouraged from having their own babies and taking time out of the productive economy. They will be pressured into farming this out to poorer women. I know it seems Orwellian but honestly even Orwell wouldn’t believe some of the stuff we discuss on this forum!!!

Anna's girl - Huxley was more prophetic in Brave New World, though it's turned out to be poor women's bodies rather than artificial wombs. (Mind you, Orwell wasn't really writing about the future, he was writing about authoritarianism in his own present - just that authoritarianism turns out to look much the same regardless of when it takes place).

YY to Brave New World, so prescient.

Anecdote- the day after my first child was born I remember running to the bathroom for a quick shower and returning to find him screaming. A friend had arrived to visit and she was leaning over his cot, whispering and trying to soothe him. I said hello to her and the second I spoke he abruptly stopped crying.It was really amazing how he knew me from those months I carried him. The bond starts long before birth.

The attachment bond between a mother and her child is first formed in the womb, where fetuses have been found to develop preferential responses to maternal scents and sounds that persist after birth.

This is very well known/documented in adoption circles where even babies removed from birth mum at birth can have life-long attachment issues.

It’s a huge deal in adoption yet doesn’t rate a mention in surrogacy.

My birth partners told me a lovely story about the immediate aftermath of my C-section. The midwifes brought DS back to the recovery room slightly before me (I was still being stitched up) and shortly afterwards wheeled me along on a trolley. DS heard my voice from out in the corridor, apparently, and turned his head towards me! He recognised my voice even at less than an hour old.

A newborn can't turn it's head...

They do recognise their mothers voice though! Definitely.

Evidence suggests that babies start learning language in the womb too.
They can hear their mothers voice in the womb, other people's voices sound quieter.

I wasn't actually there for the head-turning incident (obviously- I was out in the corridor), so it may have been poetic licence to convey the fact that they could tell he recognised my voice. I don't think they were suggesting he could lift it, or turn it while being held in an upright position, more that he rolled it to one side while lying in the cot.

Maybe it was more turning his eyes towards you, for sure babies do that.