Mother acted as surrogate for her gay son

[nellodee]

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/06/us-woman-61-says-being-surrogate-was-gift-for-her-son-and-his-husband

I think this is a pretty good solution, actually.

Erythronium why is it terrible if the child is motherless if it has two loving parents? Biologically all children have a mother who gestated them and a father who provided the sperm. But that doesn’t mean that your family cannot be happy without both of these in the child’s life. Would you say that lesbians who had a child by donor sperm are depriving their children of a father? So many people have mothers who aren’t nice people either- let’s not pretend that giving birth automatically makes you caring. Surely as part of feminism we want to challenge the notion that only a woman can be nurturing and caring? That’s what has held us back for so long.

Do you think women should be treated as human incubators, Funky? That's what surrogacy does.

Some children are motherless because of circumstances nobody can control, but this is about making a choice to deprive the child of their mother because of the desires of other adults. I don't think you can use feminism to justify that.

Male violence, exploitation of our bodies and their theft of resources from women is what has held us back for so long but that's for a different discussion.

Erythronium no, I don't think women's bodies should be used as incubators. But this was an inter-familial arrangement, so I think it is a bit different to women's bodies being bought and sold on the market. There have been similar stories of women carrying babies for their infertile daughters. Are you equally outraged about that? Again, those children will be motherless in that they will not be brought up by the woman who gestated them.

Male violence, exploitation of our bodies and their theft of resources from women is what has held us back for so long but that's for a different discussion.

Yes, but it has also been consistently justified on the basis that we are naturally caring and therefore belong in the home while men waltz through life unencumbered by caring responsibilities.

Stories like this help normalise surrogacy as an institution so you end up with the situation we're in now where very poor women in developing countries are risking their lives and health to be paid peanuts to give birth to babies for rich white westerners

That is so true.

Would you say that lesbians who had a child by donor sperm are depriving their children of a father?

Well to be brutally honest, yes they are. One can argue about the role of a father and/or male role model and the need for/ benefits of having same, but factually a child in those circumstances is being deprived of a father.

There have been similar stories of women carrying babies for their infertile daughters. Are you equally outraged about that?

I can't speak for other posters but I am opposed to all forms of surrogacy.

I'd happily do the same for my children, wouldn't you?
Not a chance in hell! Even if it wasn't illegal, which it is where I live. I'd do anything to save their lives but I would not even consider gestating a baby for them.

One can argue about the role of a father and/or male role model and the need for/ benefits of having same, but factually a child in those circumstances is being deprived of a father.

A father is a cultural thing though. There is no inherent 'need' for the person who provided the sperm to allow you to be born to be in your life- it's what we have decided is natural and normal. But there are e.g. many species of animals where the male animal has no involvement with his off-spring. And whereas there is no father, a lesbian couple would be providing a second parent. If that child has love and stability, I cannot see deprivation just because the family does not fit a socially constructed ideal.

Also, given the number of women who are DV victims and are generally treated like shit by their male partners, it is not so much deprivation in many many cases. What of the millions of children who have been damaged and traumatised by the things they have seen and heard and which were perpetrated by fathers? I think kids need love and stability first and foremost. The constant message that it's wrong to deprive a child of a father is literally what makes many mums stay in toxic relationships or 'give things a go' with a man who has already abused them.

I agree ^^, no, I wouldn’t do that for my child, son or daughter, gay or straight. There is no ‘right’ for anyone to have a child.

But there are e.g. many species of animals where the male animal has no involvement with his off-spring

What on earth has that got to do with raising young humans. It makes as much sense as pointing out those male penguin parents who hatch eggs.

The constant message that it's wrong to deprive a child of a father is literally what makes many mums stay in toxic relationships or 'give things a go' with a man who has already abused them

You are conflating 2 completely different points. There is no benefit to a child to sticking with an abusive father but that does not follow to mean that because some fathers are abusive no child needs to have a father in their life.

Men have used a variety of reasons to justify their oppression of us Funky. Using those post hoc rationalisations as some kind of basis for our own agenda would be a mistake.

I already said I don't support surrogacy, but there's a special kind of awful in a man fathering a child with his own mother.

I also don't see how you can say you don't support using women as incubators for babies and then say but it's fine when it happens within a family. That's contradictory.

There's no difference between a mother carrying a baby fir her son or daughter.

You either agree with surrogacy or you don't.

The mother and son didn't have sex and the mother's eggs weren't used so what relevance does it have that the mother carried a baby for her son rather than her daughter?

You are conflating 2 completely different points. There is no benefit to a child to sticking with an abusive father but that does not follow to mean that because some fathers are abusive no child needs to have a father in their life.

Nope, all I am saying is that the nuclear family is a social construct. We as a society have decided that that is the best way to live. It doesn't make it inherently better than anything else. Also, children need love and stability and if they have that, they are not being deprived by not having the person who donated the sperm in their lives. Someone who donates sperm does not generally want to have a relationship with the children that it results from. So given that the sperm donor wants no involvement or relationship, what precisely is the child being deprived of?

"You either agree with surrogacy or you don't"

Very true. I don't agree with surrogacy.

Motherhood isn't a social construct, it's a physical reality. We all came from our mothers.

I already said I don't support surrogacy, but there's a special kind of awful in a man fathering a child with his own mother.

And presumably a special kind of awful in a woman whose mother carries her baby for her, potentially fertilised with her egg?

I also don't see how you can say you don't support using women as incubators for babies and then say but it's fine when it happens within a family. That's contradictory.

No, it isn't necessarily. Pregnancy is incubation. What I oppose is where people want to buy a woman's pregnancy services and deprive her of any rights in the process- so she is 'just' an incubator. I think it's a bit different if a family member agrees to do it. Same as how I oppose selling organs but would totally understand and support someone who wanted to donate a kidney to a family member. Surely this woman made this decision herself, or are we suggesting she was coerced? If it's okay for women to help out daughters, why not sons? I don't think anyone has a 'right' to a child, whether they are male or female.

Motherhood isn't a social construct, it's a physical reality. We all came from our mothers.

Biologically, it is of course a reality. We all need to be gestated by a woman. But once we are born, we do not necessarily have to be raised by that same person who gestated us. It is possible for us to be raised by someone else and to have equally loving bonds. So saying that 'all kids need a mum' is not talking about gestation- it is saying that all kids need a female caregiver who also gestated them. That is the bit that is socially constructed.

The mother and son didn't have sex and the mother's eggs weren't used so what relevance does it have that the mother carried a baby for her son rather than her daughter?

For me , no relevance- both are equally wrong.

Well if you're born in parts of the world where there's no access to infant formula or pretty much at any other time in human history you need the woman who gave birth to you to feed you or you'll die Funky. That isn't socially constructed either is it?

It's really weird to reduce human bonds of love, care and attachment down to social constructions. Do you really believe that if it wasn't for social rules women would abandon their babies and leave them to fend for themselves because motherhood is nothing more than incubating a baby? That's what I'm talking about when I talk about reducing women to incubators, as if women and their children don't have human feelings and attachment to one another. It's dehumanising and regressive.

Yes that is true although throughout history babies have been breastfed by women who did not give birth to them- it’s a necessity given that childbirth killed so many and in developing countries still does. Look I am not trying to reduce anything. Just saying that because a family doesn’t fit what you think it should be doesn’t make it bad necessarily. Also social construct doesn’t mean it’s not real. Social constructs are very powerful.

I am against commercial surrogacy but I think this is a bit different to Kim K and Kanye buying a fourth baby because she can’t be arsed to go through pregnancy.

And Eryth here we had a woman who obviously didn’t want to take on the mother role. She will be in the child’s life so there is no deprivation of relationship. If the child is loved and cared for, does it really matter that the person who gave birth to them is not ‘mum’?

I know what socially constructed means and what it involves, feminists created the analysis after all. Do you really believe that women would just abandon their children after birth if it wasn't for social rules and pressures or is there something else at work, like the mother-baby bond which exists in all mammals as far as I know?

I'm not arguing about what I think a family should be (subtle accusation of homophobia there I think), I'm arguing against using women mere bodies because of our ability to gestate and birth a baby.

Men can't give birth, it's a fact of life. Not being able to do that doesn't entitle them to use a woman to provide a baby and then get her to fade into the background or disappear afterwards.

"using women as mere bodies"