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 think coming at this from the perspective of 'a woman's free choice' isn't very helpful. It can be said that prostitution is a woman's free choice, and it is of course possible to find some women who happily prostitute themselves, but for the majority, like with commercial surrogacy, it is a decision made when other options have run out. Surrogacy as a contractual obligation once a commercial agreement is entered into threatens to criminalise vulnerable women. And anyone saying that it is not predominantly vulnerable and desperate women who become surrogates is being disingenuous, as are those who say the same of prostitution.

Altruistic surrogacy is the thin end of the wedge. Altruistic between strangers? Odd. I'd give a kidney to a member of my family in a heartbeat but I'd never do it randomly just to be nice. Only this week I had dealings with a person who had lost one kidney for not uncommon reasons and now has cancer in the other.

I think to carry a baby for nine months is an extraordinary thing to ask a close friend or relative to do for you. And what if your close friend or relative suffered some serious health issue as a result? Even something like mild incontinence which is obviously not mild at all when you're wetting your pants - every time you met and made her laugh and she joked "Ooh you owe me a packet of Tena Lady" how would you feel? Let alone people who already have reason to understand the very serious health disasters that can happen as outlined by Barracker up thread. It's an incredibly selfish thing to do.

Even if it's acceptable for a woman to be a surrogate as an altruistic act, it is not acceptable to impose surrogacy on a baby and completely deny that baby basic human rights.

It is putting the wants of adults above the needs of a child.

And I do question if doing this to a baby can ever be seen as 'altruistic' rather you're deciding to inflict potential (almost certain in my view) harm on a child in order to help an adult. Is that altruistic? Not really. Not altruistic to the child.

Does a child born of surrogacy have a right to know that they're a baby born in this way? Are they told?

I think commercial surrogacy very much is only done by people who see the surrogates as 'lesser than' and not as fully human and deserving as rights as them (because they're poorer). There's no other explanation.

Remember the recent article about faecal incontinence after pregnancy and forceps birth - it was hundreds of thousands of women who can't go out because they could have an 'accident' at any time. And very limited surgical options. Awful. Affects your whole life.

Are the ongoing medical costs of the surrogate of pregnancy related issues as a result of commercial surrogacy met by the buyers? I bet not. They should be.

Whenever I hear "free choice" I look to the other side of the transaction.
Yes women have free choice over what they do with their bodies. That side of the transaction isn't or shouldn't be the one being policed. If any woman wishes to inseminate herself, she can and should.
If she wishes to give her child up for adoption, she can. If she wants to terminate, she can.
Free choice there, no problem.
But.
There is a buyer, AND a facilitator. It's those people you have to look at. This is now nothing to do with bodily autonomy, not for them. This is the opposite. It's about rights over someone else's body and whether we can or should grant that, in any circumstance, ever.
I think, never.
The commissioning of another human to be made for you? No.
The right to control someone else's body? No.
The right to claim a newborn from its mother? No.
These are the rights I object to.

It's the exact same principle as the Nordic model with prostitution.
Any woman is free to have consensual sex with any man she chooses. Noone is limiting that choice for her.
But there is a transaction taking place and a buyer, and it's is that side of the equation which the law can and should restrict.
You can have consensual sex with a woman, but you cannot buy rights to her body.
There are certain human rights that are so sacrosanct that we cannot forfeit them to others.
We cannot sell ourselves to others, into any kind of ownership.
None of us can buy other people or claim rights over their bodies.
The person attempting to forfeit their rights shouldn't be punished.
But the person attempting to claim rights over another person should be.

Are the ongoing medical costs of the surrogate of pregnancy related issues as a result of commercial surrogacy met by the buyers? I bet not. They should be.

I think there are quite a few additional costs that are swept under the carpet. Obviously in somewhere like the USA with the medical insurance system they have I should think costs of pregnancy related issues need very closely looking at. Apparently army/forces wives are popular surrogates and of course they get good health insurance from their employer. But I would say the state and insurers should take a close look at potential ongoing costs.

In the UK we have things like maternity leave that is paid for by the surrogate's employer (on another thread someone mentioned meeting a teacher who was on maternity leave and treating her family to a holiday post surrogacy). And of course we can assume the NHS bears all the health costs after the initial IVF/implantation. Which I realise would happen if the commissioning parents had a baby but if we are talking about 60 year old surrogates and all the additional risks it all becomes more expensive. On Dustin Black's radio series he talked to a woman who had had 13 pregnancies, I think 2 or 3 were her own children but she was a one woman baby factory. Everyone knows risks increase for a woman of high parity. The NHS will be picking that up.

But I would say the state and insurers should take a close look at potential ongoing costs

I can't imagine the insurance companies being that happy about picking up the long-term pregnancy-related health costs of someone having babies for money. Mind you, maybe they'll just de-fund all pregnancy related costs. DH has the option of health insurance through work and I noted, when looking through it, that they just say 'no' to funding any and all pregnancy related costs, if I'd have taken up the spouse option.

But the NHS should be looking at this, because they can't afford more post-natal health costs than they already fund. Hopefully this will play in favour of banning surrogacy in this country at least.

For anyone interested in finding out more I recommend listening to Dustin Lance Black's series which you can pick up on BBC iPlayer radio.

The episode on the law leaves no doubt which direction certain activists are hoping the UK will take. And that is one of the reasons I am taking an interest in the wider costs.
My position is I oppose surrogacy in all circumstances, het,gay, trans, best friends and sisters. For various reasons including exploitation of women and bartering/buying of babies.
But the UK is looking to make it easier and more common place.
If this is to happen then I think the state needs to look closely at the costs it can be expected to bear. For instance I could see the UK becoming a popular destination for US parents as they could make substantial savings on health costs. Whilst reassuring themselves it is all well regulated and ethical and not at all like exploiting an impoverished woman from Vietnam or Nepal.

My super long previous post was to demonstrate that wanting at the deepest core of your being to have the opportunity of parenthood should not trump individual rights.

Surrogacy is not an option for us. We can't reconcile the idea of a loved one in altruistic spirit giving us the gift of life with possibility of: long-term health issues for the surrogate and any bonding issues it could mean for the child. Those who have offered us this gift would certainly be involved in the child's life (like an aunt) but we don't find that to be sufficient or fair to a surrogate or a child.

Our desire to be parents ends at the threshold of hurting other people.

I think this issue, like many others, is founded in the current obsession with people getting what they want at the expense of everything else. So, I want to change sex - I can't but hey, the world should line up and say I can. I want to buy a baby, but one with my DNA, and the world should stand by and let me.

The distressing fact is that those of us who do not agree are being lumped in with people who oppose all progress in the world and being shouted down. But surely, we have to all shout stop. The question is how do we organise against a well funded, liberal media darling, cause?

@motherforkinshirtballs

it was the Pat Kenny show news talk on Thursday morning (you. can see form my post the time)

Barracker
There is a buyer, AND a facilitator. It's those people you have to look at. This is now nothing to do with bodily autonomy, not for them. This is the opposite. It's about rights over someone else's body and whether we can or should grant that, in any circumstance, ever.
I think, never.
The commissioning of another human to be made for you? No.
The right to control someone else's body? No.
The right to claim a newborn from its mother? No.
These are the rights I object to.

This absolutely nails it.

And I think Baroness Warnock got it right back in the 80s when she chaired the first enquiry about this, which led to the UK's ban on paid surrogacy.

Paid surrogacy, at its centre, involves buying another human life. It is a form of slavery. A civilised society cannot tolerate slavery in any form.

It is a form of slavery. A civilised society cannot tolerate slavery in any form.

^ this totally

I have some friends who are gay dads via surrogacy. I feel uncomfy about it in many ways but the child is loved and they are great parents. However they have started to become more vocal campaigners and when they bang on about gay people getting NHS funded IVF when there are women out there with multiple miscarriages etc who can't get it it makes me want to smack them. (Nb they paid privately for theirs but campaigning for others).

We should also have a ban in bringing home babies paid for in other countries for a start. I know of a gay couple who chose a specific country for their surrogate because it was “the cheapest” . They have bought two babies and brought each one back to Britain with no consequences.

@Iused2BanOptimist DLB does have a lot of facts wrong about the Uk surrogacy so I'm told...

I also question how “great” a parent is, who would deliberately deprive another human of their most fundamental need and bond.

I wish gay men would think more about considering "alternative family structures" - for instance, co-parenting with a lesbian couple who wanted someone to be the biological father and have an involvement in the child's life (okay, so the relationship they ended up having with the children might then be closer to "beloved uncles" than fathers in the normal, live-in sense of fathers, but it would still be a valuable one, and an honest one).

Agree Fermats.

This isn’t about whether or not they turn out to be great parents. This is about the ethics of surrogacy.

@JessicaWakefieldSVH I know that. But when you're personally involved with people who have done it it makes it very hard to deal with whatever your true feelings may be. I may object to surrogacy but the fact is now the child is here and loved. I can however object to them taking an activist approach to it!

The child wasn't loved enough to consider the child's needs at birth before their want to be a parent though. That may sound harsh but it's true.

And agree with this 100% Paid surrogacy, at its centre, involves buying another human life. It is a form of slavery. A civilised society cannot tolerate slavery in any form

Thinking about it through the years and in general though

A lot of the time men do seem much more cavalier about kids than women - probably because they don't have all the physical risks etc

Thinking about very old men who father children - loads of famous examples - and the general reaction in the media seems to be wow he's still got it.

But these children will have their fathers die when they are v young. The children will be exposed to their parent being elderly / needing care / declining etc when they are young - the stage of life that is usually more the grandparent. That's awful for a child. But still they do it. That seems v much about not really considering the POV of the child.

Men have also sought to control women and girls all over the world and through history again because of wanting children, wanting it to be "theirs" etc and so on. This seems to be a preoccupation.

So this in a way is like a modern version of that attitude. Rather than being given / obtaining a woman to control and to provide babies, whether literally or via social / religious norms, they can pay for a woman to do this.

This cuts across lots of modern supposedly woke stuff - taking attitudes that are seen as oppressive / regressive and repackaging them as choice and modern and marvellous. Same deal with "sex work".

The reason so many people buy into it is because misogyny. And also probably because the risks and impact on women of bearing children is still invisibilised, not talked about, underplayed. And after all, it's what we are for.

The way that the human right to family life is being used as a reason that men must be allowed women to bear children for them, same as the amnesty "human right to sex" which boils down to men must be allowed women to have sex with, is very very troubling.

I think there are lots of questionable practices that go on within the realms of assisted conception - yes surrogacy but also IVF for post menopausal women (for reasons similar to those given by MenuPlant and also the practice of offering free or cheaper IVF to couples willing to donate embryos to other couples (I think this exploits vulnerable people and also disregards the feelings of potential children).