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.

No, I am not saying that. I don't think all women would willingly abandon their babies at all (although here you have one who obviously does not want to be the mother). I am just saying that families come in many forms and that the phrase 'deprivation of a mother' is often based on an idealised version of what the family should be. If there is a woman who wants to be the mother and she is prevented from doing that, that is deprivation and it is very bad. Ditto for fathers. But where the person who gave birth does not want to be a mother and the child can be brought up by those who want to be caregivers, I don't think it's deprivation because there is no willing mother there.

Also, as grandmother, I presume that this woman will be involved in the child's life and will have a close bond with him/her. So the child is not even being deprived of a relationship with this person.

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.

Which is why commercial surrogacy is wrong. Here, the grandmother will not disappear.

Do babies brought up by two fathers tend to grow up happy and well-adjusted, or does the lack of a mother in infancy have a significant adverse effect?

I don’t know the answer (has this been studied?) but if it’s the former, I don’t feel I have the right to judge. It’s altruistic surrogacy and the surrogate mother presumably knew far more about pregnancy and childbirth than the fathers. Also, she didn’t use her own eggs. I can’t help thinking that it’s nice that the baby is related to both fathers.

It's clearly not breaking any incest taboo. It isn't incest. Sisters do it for each other all the time.

Incest is wrong because it is usually abusive and always a risk for the child borne of it neither of which is an issue here.

I don't support surrogacy but I would say that at least in this case the mother probably didn't see it as "altruistic" she probably saw this as her best chance of extending her family line. So in a sense a sense "selfish". I dont mean that in a bad way, but having a child isn't an altruistic act it's selfish. I had children because I wanted them . She wanted grandchildren. I find this less offensive than maybe any other form of surrogacy because she actually benefited.

Deprivation of a mother is not about the women though, it’s about the child. For newborns, what happens to their ability to bond when they are taken away from their gestational mother at birth? We are still learning about the importance of the fourth trimester and the interdependence of the relationship between mother and baby especially in the earliest months.

There is no evidence from research that children brought up by gay or lesbian parents fare any worse than those brought up by heterosexual ones. Just the same as how people used to say single mothers were the scum of the earth and their children were very disadvantaged, when we know now that that is not true. If you can provide evidence that there is measurable disadvantage, please provide it.

whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

All that said I wouldn't want to give birth at 35.

60 is she must be very fit

"this person" = the baby's mother, you're fading her into the background right there

The mother is both mother and grandmother to the baby (yet another problem with this set up). Her primary relationship however is being the baby's mother. She doesn't stop existing because two men take over.

Funky I don't think this is a productive discussion so I'm going to withdraw now. I'm disturbed by your willingness to erase the reality of motherhood and its meaning for women and children., but I don't think my arguments are having any effect so I won't continue.

To be honest that gives me the creeps. It just doesn't seem right.

Molten she may well have been heavily involved at the outset. You don't know the circumstances. It's pretty clear that there will be an ongoing relationship here in any event. Children will bond with their primary caregiver even if that person did not necessarily gestate them.

"this person" = the baby's mother, you're fading her into the background right there

FFS. Mumsnet feminism feels like the Christian Right these days tbh. Have been avoiding coming on here due to the marked change in tone and think I will head off once more.

I think it's an act of love. I can see the implications for women in other surrogacy scenarios, but this family arrangement seems perfect fine. I imagine (optimistically) the baby will have a close bond with their aunty and grandmother.

What kind of a selfish bloke would even think of putting his 61 year old mother through pregnancy and childbirth to create and then give away her child, his birth brother, to him?

This is horrendous.
How I wish men and women would stop endorsing the most awful exploitation of female bodies.

Our ultimate worth is not in being the most angelic martyred walking fecking uterus.

I don't agree with surrogacy in general but there are circumstances when I do think it is acceptable and this is one example.
It is genuinely altruistic. She wouldn't have done it for anyone else. There was no money involved.

I see it similarly to donating a kidney. It's fine to do it for altruistic reasons but never for money. (Yes I know that needing a kidney isn't the same as wanting a baby I just see the issue in a similar vein)

Which is why commercial surrogacy is wrong. Here, the grandmother will not disappear

But in this case the grandmother is also the mother. What is the child to be told of all of this? Explaining to children their origins is really a deeply important thing, and can often be profoundly difficult.

I would do this for either of my children, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

But in this case the grandmother is also the mother. What is the child to be told of all of this? Explaining to children their origins is really a deeply important thing, and can often be profoundly difficult.

Ivf is weird to explain.

Sperm donoation is weird to explain.

Sex is awkward to explain for many of us!

I truly hated pregnancy. I mean I fucking hated it. But I remember the feeling of desperation that I had when I wanted children and struggled to get pregnant and I think if I saw that pain in my child's face I might consider it.

We've been through lots of failed IVF and losses and my uterus is now too damaged to sustain a pregnancy.

A family member has offered (we certainly didn't ask) to be a surrogate for us (our frozen embryos were conceived using my eggs and my husbands sperm). I don't know how we will proceed, as I'm acutely aware of the ethical questions.

She's said she loved being pregnant but has no desire for any more kids herself. In this hypothetical scenario, a deeply wanted and loved child would be raised by their genetic mother and father, growing up with their birth mother very much part of their life. But as much as she may say she wants to help to bring a new child into our family, to proceed would be taking advantage of her kindness - as she'd be putting herself through pregnancy and birth - and all the risks that entails - purely to help us selfishly have a child.

The rational part of me is very much aware of all the reasons why lots of people oppose surrogacy in any form. The selfish, emotional part of me that knows this is the only way we will ever be able to have a child of our own (we wouldn't pursue commercial surrogacy). I don't know how we will proceed.

I would do this in a heartbeat for my children. It's my body and would be my choice!

I'm aware this surrogacy was an act of love from mother to her grown up son - what an amazing woman - but I still feel it is wrong.

Maternal mother was way to old to give birth and the baby will have the confusion of knowing her mother is her aunt, no grandmother, no, she has two dads instead.

Just too weird.

@uberbarrensclub It's interesting really. I read your post and I feel instinctively that it would be unfair to ask that from this other relative. But as I said in my previous post, I can imagine doing it for my own child.

Surrogacy makes me uncomfortable at the best of times, but this gives me the heebie jeebies. It’s not even that she gave birth to her own grandchild, it’s the thought of a 61 year old being pregnant. I get a real feeling of revulsion when I read about women in their 50s and 60s getting pregnant via egg donation and giving birth.

I seriously don't see an issue with surrogacy (excluding where it is exploitation in poorer countries) or this situation. In this case it certainly isn't incest and the grandmother obviously was fit enough. It is, as others have said, an act of love. The grandmother was an incubator for the baby, not blood related but obviously wanting the very best for her son and grandchild.

Uberbarren - i really think you should go for it but with the best private clinic in terms of frozen embryos that you can find, some have a 70%+ success rate. We did ivf but would absolutely have tried surrogacy if I couldn't have carried myself.