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.

@Anytime thank you - we have 5 perfect genetically screened blastocysts remaining from our IVF treatment on ice at our former clinic. We can't do any more transfers as my uterine issues are now too severe, so if we don't proceed with a surrogacy journey they will in due course be donated to scientific research. We aren't comfortable donating them to another couple, can't imagine there being a child who was 100% genetically ours somewhere, whilst we remained childless.

@FerdinandAndHisMassiveBalls thank you

I actually think surrogacy via a relative is very dangerous. Just because it's medically possible doesn't mean that it's ethically responsible. Yes, it can easily be explained to the child but there are all sorts of psychological implications for that child in the future. It's really selfish of the men in this instance to go down this path in pursuit of parenthood.
An obvious complication is what would happen should the men split up with a degree of animosity? Possibly with DV involved? The woman who gave birth is going to expect her son to keep the child, the other man's sister, the genetic mother, is going to want him to keep the child. It could get totally fucked up!
I'm afraid that not everyone can be a genetic parent.

What a lovely thing to do! She wasn't forced to do it and it wasn't incest.
Even better, the surrogate stays in the childs life.

Who will volunteer to sit the child down and explain that their grandmother is also their mother because they gave birth to them. This woman also gave birth to their father. But their father is not their brother, although the same person did gestate them and give birth to them both.

Their other dad is related to them in as much as the egg of his sister was fertilised by the sperm of their dad. So, your other dad's sister is your aunt, but she's also biologically your mother. So she's your mum, your aunt, and your dad's sister in law - and also a woman he's created a child with. But they've never had sex, or been in a relationship, and she was never going to be your mother. Neither was your grandmother.

Absolute disgrace.

Is it really any more difficult than explaining to a child that they were adopted (at least this child was borne out of love and intended rather than some of the tragic circumstances of adoption) or born as a result of egg or sperm donation, where that might be donated by a family member? I've heard of a sister donating an egg to her sister so the child was technically the aunt's genetic child.

I haven't read the article. But they could have saved a lot of time and money if the one guy had just done the deed with the sister in law!

But I guess then they would have to recognize the sister in law is properly the mother then and cannot play their little fantasy game of two male biological parents.

Isn't the child going to be told her aunt is actually her mother?

I don't get it.

In my opinion a human being should never be a gift any more than a human should be bought and sold. Surrogacy always fundamentally treats the baby like an object to be traded amongst adults.

In my eyes they failed in their first decision in becoming parents. Choosing a 61year old as a gestational surrogate is choosing higher risks of complications- miscarriage, stillbirth, pre term birth, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes. I'm glad the outcome was a healthy mother and baby but a parent shouldn't choose to put their child in such a risky situation

It's not the same as adoption - at all.

MagicMix totally agree. Just because something can be done it doesn't mean that it should be, where there are huge ethical implications for a child.

Nice reading this thread / story all I was thinking about was the child in this, and their relationship to all the adults and how bloody messed up is that child going to feel / be ( I'm hoping the adults don't try and lie by omission), so thanks for your post.

I hadn't even thought about what'll happen if the couple splits up

For me this is less about the rights and wrongs of surrogacy in general, because I can see arguments for both due to circumstance. I just feel any decision should start and end with the welfare of the resultant child.

Logically, I suppose there's no reason not to.
But on an emotional, instinctive level I feel it's not right.

But Emotions and instincts play a huge part in being a parent, a child, a grandmother, or an aunt, though.

Being able to rationalise and articulate positions on something so primal, doesn t trump the primal response. I think.

Isn't medical ethics a thing anymore? How can it be right for a 61 year old woman to undergo IVF and be impregnated with her grandchild? And a child now has a grandmother who is also their birth mother, an aunt who is their genetic mother, but also no mother at all. This isn't lovely or heartwarming, it's fucked up.

The grandmother was an incubator for the baby, not blood related....
Okay, she didn't provide a bit of genetic programming and a few cells, but she did provide, the material and processes that made that baby, from her own blood and bone. Mothers are not incubators, and frankly entitled gay men should just get used to the fact they can't gestate, and shouldn't expect their female relatives/friends/neighbours to offer their wombs so the poor chaps don't have to go through the whole process of renting one from somewhere else.

Our wombs and the children they produce aren't commodities, or gifts, or the bestest christmas present ever............

And makes me a bit ashamed of gay men that go along with this, frankly.

frankly entitled gay men should just get used to the fact they can't gestate,

Well yes. Do you also agree that entitled women should get used to the fact that they can't get pregnant on their own?

I think it's wrong. The child's legal mother and father will be mother and son. That is confusing and potentially damaging for the child involved. Especially the fact that it's his sperm, it's gross.

But usually the child is adopted aren't they by the other partner? So the "mother" is then explained as the grandmother who helped the dads to have a baby etc just as egg and sperm donors are described to the children that they help create.

No one introduces an egg donor to the child as "technically your genetic mother".

Okay, she didn't provide a bit of genetic programming and a few cells

More genetic impact than people realise...

Present in the endometrial fluid during the time of embryo implantation were multiple micro RNAs, which are the molecules that encode information for how the embryo’s (and ultimately the fetus’s and the child’s) genes will be expressed.
What this means is that it’s the gestational carrier’s DNA (because RNA is a portion of a person’s DNA) that effectively directs the embryo’s genetic development, because RNA affects genetic coding, decoding, regulation and expression. It’s the gestational carrier’s DNA, then, that influences the way the baby develops, because it’s her genetic material that helps determines which of the baby’s genes get turned on and off. The gestational carrier passes these micro RNAs to the embryo via chemical molecules in the endometrial fluid, and it’s thought that they can influence the activity levels of the baby’s genes throughout life.

but she did provide, the material and processes that made that baby, from her own blood and bone. Mothers are not incubators

Exactly. We're not sycamore trees and we don't photosynthesise. A baby isn't created by a chemical reaction with sunlight and chlorophyll.
Babies are built out of us. Out of our bodies.
Made from us, by us, of us.

And that's why I hate that word 'carrier'.

I am also opposed to surrogacy in all forms. I did spend some time mulling over the mother daughter thing though, as our mothers grow all the eggs we have, along with us, so if a mother gestated her daughter’s egg, she would essentially be getting something back. I used to be accepting of surrogacy within families, but now I feel even altruistic surrogacy like this is too vulnerable to coercion, most women would go to some lengths to make a child happy. Surrogacy could end in someone’s death, and although that might be similar to the risks of kidney donation, a kidney is needed to save a life, whereas a baby is a desire, rather than a need.
Altruistic surrogacy also gives the message that it is fine to use a
woman’s body in this way.
On a basic level I also believe that babies need their mother, and that to deprive a baby of their mother deliberately is absolutely wrong.

Grotesque, and the medical team who facilitated this are ethically bankrupt.

Yes they do Little, that's exactly what they do.

My heart goes out to women who can't bear their own children and desperately want them. However, I feel like altruistic surrogacy normalises commercial surrogacy and the exploitation of women's bodies as a resource. I once considered altruistic surrogacy for a relative who has suffered multiple pregnancy losses but ultimately I am glad I didn't do it- children should never be gifted.

So two women get treated like guinea pigs to bring a child into the world they have no rights over. I suppose emotional labour just isn’t enough sometimes. Surrogacy is disturbing, and some people have to accept they can’t biologically bring children into the world.

My newsfeed clearly knew I'd been following this surrogacy thread because it just threw this case up for me.

Horrifying.

Commercial surrogate becomes pregnant with male embryo from Chinese couple.
Then she conceives naturally again by ovulating whilst already pregnant (very rare), ends up carrying twin boys, one genetically Chinese, the other hers.
The doctors don't realise, assume the embryo split.
Babies born and whipped off to commissioning parents without her seeing them. They return to China, but since babies look different, a DNA test reveals the truth.
At which point the commissioning parents reject the baby that isn't theirs genetically, hand him back to the agency and start demanding $$$ from the surrogate. The surrogate is told their child will be adopted, and they can't object because their son is legally the Chinese couple's.

They finally got him back after a battle but are now hugely in debt.

So that little boy not only had a horrific start in life, but at some point he'll find out that he shared a womb with a biologically unrelated twin who he'll be completely separated from his whole life, and that his intended parents rejected him once they discovered his genetics, that he was actually removed from his natural, genetic and birth mother because of a contract being honoured and money changing hands. Whereas his brother and womb-mate was successfully purchased, his sale fell through.