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.

The adoption point is interesting. Conventionally adopted children (ie those that were in care before adoption) are recognised as having additional needs over and above those who are brought up by their birth families.

They are eligible for pupil premium, priority housing, priority access to the school of choice etc.

Does that also apply to children born through surrogacy?

orchid, no. The criteria for that is that they were once Looked After Children.

But if they were removed at birth, then how is their trauma any worse than those of children born through surrogacy?

It’s not, but the criteria for that support is LAC or former LAC. (It was originally LAC only and then extended to former LAC so that children didn’t actually lose support by being adopted.)

Off topic but some newborns can turn their heads. A couple of hours after my niece was born she turned her head around to look at her mum, it was actually quite freaky, have never seen it before or since. Anyway I am following this thread with great interest. I was absolutely flamed on another site recently because I said I was against surrogacy, I am not as articulate as most on here and could only say that it felt wrong and somehow anti woman. And imo deliberately creating a child, a person, in order to 'give it away' cannot be compared to donating an organ, which is after all a thing, albeit a useful, very essential thing. I also think that birth injuries and the long term effects of pregnancy and childbirth are not talked about nearly enough, the attitude seems to be gestate and pop out a baby for us, job done.

Fermats - My older dd could turn her head from birth, so it is possible.

Only on mumsnet have I seen the feelings of the child in surrogacy even considered.
If a gay male couple want to be fathers, then adoption is an option, a child who would otherwise be in care, instead loved and brought up by a male couple, no problem. But buying a woman’s body ? Buying a baby ? How does that feel later on, if you are the one who was bought ? Especially if you are a girl, or when you have your own child and truly understand that link between mother and baby.

We co slept for a long time, and the dds didn’t often get to the point where they would cry at night, because I would sense them waking and wake up to feed them. Dh would sleep through that stage. Even now, if I have one in bed with me , then I can’t sleep until she is asleep. Of course some women sleep more heavily, but there are inate links between mothers and babies.

What women do, that only women can do, is devalued in our culture. Yet all of us are here because of it.

What women do, that only women can do, is devalued in our culture. Yet all of us are here because of it.

This^

Surrogacy is wrong. It is wrong whether it is altruistic or commercial, whether the parents are heterosexual or homosexual.

Buying a baby ? How does that feel later on, if you are the one who was bought ?

Remember the earthquake in Nepal, the Israeli's rescuing surrogate babies commissioned by mostly gay couples. The mothers left to take their chances. Imagine growing up and finding out your father(s) did that.

www.washingtonpost.com/world/how-an-earthquake-highlighted-the-plight-of-israeli-gays-and-their-surrogate-babies/2015/04/29/419d60e8-ecf0-11e4-8050-839e9234b303_story.html??noredirect=on

I used to think commercial surrogacy was OK. Why shouldn't a woman use her body to make money if she so wishes. Rather like I believe that sex work could be OK too... If it is free choice.
I beli strongly in free markets etc, men can sell their sperm to "make" babies do why shouldn't women be allowed to rent their wombs, especially if the child is not genetically related to them.
But the last few months, reading on here and reading articles about bans coming in India and Asian countries has made me re consider.
It is so hard to imagine being dirt poor in a dirt poor country and having no education so lacking critical reasoning skills and someone coming along and offering you money to have a baby. A baby you don't want.. You have enough mouths to feed already.. God it must seem so easy to those women. I bet no one explains physical risks, emotional risks..
And while I sympathise with the desire to be a parent, and struggle to think that that should be denied to people on basis of their sexuality.. I now strongly in the no surrogacy ever camp

I doubt it seems easy and it's not to do with critical thinking.

The women are desperate.
It feels like a lot of money vs the risks.
From something I read it's not uncommon for the husband to be the one who decides. The woman does as she's told.

It's awful.Extraordinarily exploitative.

In less poor countries you still have women who are poor. You still have women who are desperate. You still have abusive relationships.

For me though the view that is being pushed is so utterly male.

The idea is that if you use donated egg then the surrogate is not "related" to the baby in any way. This is bollocks. It is male idea > their only contribution is DNA. For women's contribution it's twofold. The egg (DNA). But ALSO carrying the baby. The woman grows the baby from her own body > that will have massive impact. In fact this is recognised in that women who are surrogates have a massive "must not" list. It is accepted that what she does, how healthy she is etc impacts the foetus. But it ignores that the child is built of her, that it knows her heartbeat above all else, recognises her voice. That it will be affected by her emotions. To take that out and say that genetic contributors are the ONLY ones with relationship to baby is a totally male perspective. It is also misogynist, it sees the woman as a vessel, just a bag to grow a baby in with no link to it, no interaction, which every woman knows (and every human knows, really) is not how it is.

Only a man can think that removing a baby from it's mother immediately after birth is OK.

When you see a nature prog and the baby is apart from mother this is a cause for concern worry upset. We are animals, mammals, and this is instinctive.

To throw all this away to enable babies to be bought by mainly men but women too is appalling.

The people who should be consulted into whether this is OK or not are mothers. We know better than anyone the risks and so on. I didn't know before I had kids.

Of course mothers are not worth talking to about anything so let's go ask a load of gay men whether it's a good idea instead.

I’m glad to see that someone bought up adoption as a comparative issue. The idea that only the most at risk babies are taken from their mothers because of the known and established links between bonding and attachment. How does that reconcile with the idea that a child can be removed from its birth mother, the woman who gestated him/her with no consideration of the emotional impact on the infant.

I knew a girl who was adopted at birth. Lifelong issues with attachment and fear of abandonment attributed to the separation from her mother at birth.

If pro surrogacy supporters do not give a damn about women’s bodies being used as commodities (let’s look to history for endless proof of this), maybe they could bring themselves to give a shit about the lifelong welfare issues potentially faced by a newborn baby.

I dream of a world where subjective concepts of what constitutes a ‘human right’ do not override the actual rights of women and children.

Menuplanet... You articulated better than I did. When I said it must seem easy... I didnt mean it superficially but I do believe that these uneducated unsupported women in desparate situations do not have the intellectual ability to look at the rational arguments and decide.
They don't critical weigh up risks vs benefits.
If I was in that position and offered a huge sum I'd think this seems easy way out of poverty

Do babies taken into nicu immediately after birth, sometimes for months, also suffer from not being with their mothers?

That column in the times on saturday about a search for a surrogate in the US is so unpleasant. Sophie Beresiner - its all 'me me me' and she is so callous about the surrogae and her health. last week was one of the worst - when she decided she was so speacia; to be a suurogate herself...

'the space in my head freed up by not dwelling on the medical process has been neatly taken up by something else. The big questions: Why be a surrogate? What does it take? And the soul-searching — because it’s amazing what experiencing someone else’s altruism will do to you.

I have concluded that . . . I categorically couldn’t do it. Nope, absolutely not. Not even for a hefty wedge of cash. I’m pretty sure I’m too emotional; definitely sensitive, not selfless enough.'

Do babies taken into nicu immediately after birth, sometimes for months, also suffer from not being with their mothers?

Yes. That’s why mothers are encouraged to do as much of the non-medical care as possible (nappy changes, feeds etc) as well as offering skin to skin (kangaroo care) as much as possible.

For me though the view that is being pushed is so utterly male

Only a man can think that removing a baby from it's mother immediately after birth is OK

There are plenty of women who have used surrogates.

www.parents.com/parenting/celebrity-parents/moms-dads/celebrities-who-used-surrogates/

Four of these women had given birth but still went down the surrogacy route.

That list

I've just watched the TV shows on the Drewitt-Barlow family, as was interested to learn more about them. I am now decidedly against surrogacy....it is not remotely in the childs best interest to be 'made to order' for anyone....I know that sucks for gay men, but having children is not a human right-there is the option of adopting or fostering.

I don't really think surrogacy can be compared to removal at birth for child protection reasons. A baby removed from its mother at birth these days is highly likely to have been subjected to drugs, alcohol, smoking and/or poor nutrition, incest, and/or to have inherited one of a number of detrimental psychological conditions. Those factors are clearly going to contribute to a higher rate of developmental and emotional problems for the children.

Babies removed at birth are rarely given straight to their adopters, either. They usually spend at least 3 months or so with a foster carer, before being moved to their adoptive family. That's much more likely to cause attachment problems, IMO, than if they were able to be with the same loving adoptive parents from birth.

Carriemac
I'm glad you raised that column. I recall that she's a woman who had cancer so understand that she's encountered loss and challenges. But the focus of her column is unremittingly self absorbed and her "concerns" about her surrogates is all about her needs. I note the occasional challenge in the comments but they are repeatedly seen off by her supporters. No questioning comments allowed.

I now avoid reading it as it's unremittingly self absorbed and so uncaring / ignorant about the surrogates.

That column in the Times is distasteful reading... in fact I've stopped reading it because my blood pressure can't take it. As you say, it's just "me me me me me."

The authorities try to prevent children from being adopted wherever possible. They provide enormous support because they recognise that it is best for a child to remain with their birth mother wherever possible.

That thinking logically can't change when a woman has a baby to order and yet it does. It's massive cognitive dissonance.