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.

You see you say "health" reasons.

Maybe is was for health reasons.

The assumption that it's to keep her figure is misogyny.

I also am against surrogacy for any reason > try reading my posts.

I am pointing out though the misogyny in flagging a famous woman who used a surrogate and

1. Saying it was to keep her figure and
2. Ignoring that she is part of a couple and it's a joint decison

Being against surrogacy doesn't give a free pass to make misogynist comments about people who have used surrogates. That's just not the way to go about this conversation at all.

Sorry must have been a glitch

Here it is www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3548396-Radfem-online-spaces

To clarify I object to woman using surrogates for any reason, including their own health. Is that clear enough?

Please read Barrackers posts.

I object to ALL surrogacy on the basis of what’s best for the child and bodily autonomy for women.

Promoting surrogacy IS misogyny.

Why not read my posts

By all means object to surrogacy, which is indeed misogynistic.

However, making misogynistic comments about women who have used surrogates and putting it all on them while ignoring the men in the picture > is not OK.

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

Surrogacy is the buying and selling of women's bodies and of babies.

Babies are deliberately conceived in order to be removed from the gestational mother (see how language changes to describe new situations?)

And women are in almost all scenarios owned by the commissioning parents for the duration of the pregnancy (and before) while their health in the future is considered irrelevant once they have handed over the baby.

Slavery. Not something that anyone should consider ok

I oppose all surrogacy as I have said. Yes I was being flippant referring to Kardashian's figure/sex life but then that is what she is so famous for. I am aware she has said it was for health reasons, but she has already had two children the usual way and I'm not convinced there is suddenly a serious health issue and if there is then all the more reason not to transfer that risk to another woman as per Barracker's posts. Of course it could have been a decision heavily encouraged by her husband. Not sure that absolves her. Is it less misogynistic to say it's rather greedy when they already have two children?

Where have I made a misogynistic comment?

Gestational carrier is I believe the language used in the USA

To really attempt to render her as nothing but a baby-growing-sack that is somehow unrelated to the foetus.

There's another thread going where I wrote a long post about how the view of the woman who gestates the baby as unrelated to it if it's not her egg, is a very male view. Because their only contribution is dna that's the be all and end all. For women it's 2-fold, the egg but also the growing of the baby contributes to it. This part is ignored because misogyny and because this is all viewed through a male lens where dna is all and women's role in growing and birthing is an irrelevant aside.

GRA

It's a conversation

Someone said a woman had a surrogate to keep her figure
I said is that what she's said or was it for health reasons, if that's an assumption it's misogynistic
You said she had it for "health" reasons - scare quotes included
I said, maybe she had it for health reasons

The implication that she did it because she's vain, when that is not known as a fact and actually she's said something else is misogyny.

I was mainly commenting on the PP but your addition of "health" reasons feels like casting doubt.

I mean this is a side track and I don't give a toss about KK or know her real reasons for doing anything

I just don't like casual misogyny, that's all.

Sorry, they weren’t meant to be scare quotes. My understanding is that one of the Kardashian’s used a surrogate for health reasons due to some form of previous complications.
I strongly object to that, for the reasons in Barrackers post.

I have no way of knowing if that is true or not. The stated reason was Health and I think it’s appalling to pass the health risks on to another woman.

I apologise if my flippant remarks re KK were misogynistic. No doubt they were unkind. As a woman I don't really see myself as being misogynistic when I am being unkind about another woman but I accept others may interpret my casual insults as that.

I leave my apology here and hope the thread isn't derailed.

I am pointing out though the misogyny in flagging a famous woman who used a surrogate and
*1. Saying it was to keep her figure and

1. Ignoring that she is part of a couple and it's a joint decison*

Being against surrogacy doesn't give a free pass to make misogynist comments about people who have used surrogates

It isn't the misogyny in those comments which struck me but the pathetic attempts to make excuses for the behaviour of the women concerned.

Kim K needed fertility treatment for at least some of the children she had herself.

Fair enough lused and I don't want to derail.

I do think it's worth considering though. I mean I don't know much about her personally but I do know that society in general are very quick to believe they know the 'real' reasons women do things, even if they have said something else, and this bleeds across everything, and relates into the idea that women don't know their own minds, that their (our) word is not worth so much etc.

It's a separate topic though.

Sorry for derail.

I’ve posted this article about commercial surrogacy in the USA on another thread, but I think it’s worth posting again.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20390/

According to this, some surrogacy contracts state that the surrogate mother must agree to terminate the pregnancy or have a selective reduction if the intended parents choose. They don’t have to give a reason.

I’ve seen another contract (not in the article), state that the intended parents will decide together with the doctor how many embryos will be “transferred to the uterus”. The surrogate mother was often referred to as “the uterus”.

If a surrogate mother breaches her contract, she may be liable for various fees and damages including medical and legal fees. I’m guessing that not many commercial surrogates have tens of thousands of dollars in savings, so in practice they must lose a lot of bodily autonomy.

Just as a thought experiment, how do you all feel about wet nurses? In the past it was a very common arrangement for lower income women (and in the slavery states of the US, female slaves) to be employed to feed the babies of richer families. Their employment usually stipulated a specific diet and lifestyle for the wet nurse. There were occasional social panics among the upper classes about wet nurses behaving badly, drinking or being licentious so their behaviour was policed in quite a misogynist way. Just reading that article on US surrogacy contracts made me think about how wet nurses were treated in the past. Again, it’s a situation where you’re renting a woman’s body for a biological purpose for a time and controlling how she lives during that time. Obviously the health / life risks for breastfeeding are low compared to pregnancy and childbirth but there are still some e.g. mastitis, lack of milk for your own baby etc.

It’s a moot point because ‘wet nurses’ could just pump milk nowadays and we have formula but I am struck by the similarities between the way those surrogacy contracts treat the gestational mothers and how wet nurses were viewed.

Cattenberg

In line with the article and your post, it is common practice in the US for the fertility hormones and procedures to be written in the payer's name - not the surrogate's which was one of my first discoveries as I was mentally turning to walk away from considering surrogacy. I mean, how fucked up is it that Rx for the surrogate and procedure orders for the surrogate aren't even written in her name? So disturbing and telling...

@Jessy85
There is an underlying smugness to your posts. Your perspective on fertility shows you are not very versed in the subject. Your perspective is very negative regarding women with fertility struggles. You ignored my question, gave my comments and insight zero thought and went on to rant more about how women struggling with infertility are faulty. I tried to help you consider how narrow your statements are - hoping you would see the judgement seething from your posts which are nasty, lacking knowledge, and immature. As you traverse your path, whatever your personal struggles may be, I hope that you receive thoughtfulness and kindness - unlike the diatribe you spout.

StopThePlanet - are those medical notes? That’s very, very strange.

InionElle, I don’t agree with the way wet nurses used to be treated. I’m uncomfortable with wet nursing being a commercial service.

@Cattenberg

This is not every Reproductive Endocrinology clinic in the US, it is some clinics that maintain this practice; some reference the surrogate more than others (depends on individual state requirements). And yes I am referring to medical documents. The chart will be in the payer's name, the patient (surrogate) is listed as an extension by surrogacy of the payer. The Rx ordered by the clinic is in the payer's name (you can't just pick it up at a local pharmacy, it is ordered from pharmacies partnered with the clinics) and arrives via mail with payer listed as recipient. The clinic appointments are scheduled with payer name, procedures are performed at said clinics (surrogate/patient is listed so if there is an issue emergency medical care can be attained in the case the patient is unresponsive) - payer receives discharge orders. Again, this not all RE clinics in all states but the fact that it happens at at is insanity.

It really freaked me out to be told outright via phone that if we needed a surrogate they would write everything in my name as the payer (I didn't ask about surrogacy mind you). I started reading about the practice of treating surrogates like cattle after that call.

*at all

Weren't slaves given their masters' names? It looks to be the same mentality.

I offered to act as a surrogate for someone very dear to me when she was at a point in her life when she thought she would never have children. Thankfully she is now about to give birth. But if she hadn’t conceived and I wasn’t allowed to act as a surrogate I would have had a child and given him or her to her to raise even though that would have been much harder for everyone. I should be allowed to carry another woman’s child if I want to. Altruistic surrogacy is no more a slippery slope to commodified surrogacy than abortion is to euthanising unwanted infants.

*@StopThePlanet

Your perspective on fertility shows you are not very versed in the subject.*

I'm haven't trained in fertility specifically, but if you care to tell me where I've gone wrong I can analyse the information you present using the skills I developed during my biochemistry PhD.

Ah and there you have it ... new petition by Twodads.Uk asking for IVF for men so for surrogacy...

I would have had a child and given him or her to her to raise

...and thankfully the law doesn't allow people to have and then just 'give' their offspring to other people. Because people, even tiny babies, are not presents, and the law prevents us from making gifts of people to other people.
As it bloody should.