Guardian: the rise of “social” surrogacy

[Haworthia]

Absolutely not surprised by this at all. Celebs have been blazing the trail for a long time.

US doctors are seeing an increase in patients avoiding pregnancy or time off work by paying someone else to carry their baby – with no medical need to do so

amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/having-a-child-doesnt-fit-womens-schedule-the-future-of-surrogacy

And as the range of fertility options open to clients has diversified, so have their requests. Now, a growing number of women are coming to Sahakian for “social” surrogacy: they want to have babies that are biologically their own, but don’t want to carry them. There is no medical reason for them to use a surrogate; they just choose not to be pregnant, so they conceive babies through IVF and then hire another woman to gestate and give birth to their baby. It is the ultimate in outsourced labour.

I would also be angry on behalf of the hard work and relationship building that goes into altruistic surrogacy. Many UK surrogates, and the people who support them and the IPs they help are genuinely empowered and amazing individuals giving gifts to others who cannot have children.

The surrogacy support agencies in the UK will not recommend you if you don't have a legit medical reason to need a surrogate. Having a baby by surrogacy, in a transactional way, for convenience's sake makes me so angry. Some of us have 12 rounds of IVF and countless miscarriages and stillbirths and the people who help us are genuinely generous and kind. This makes a mockery of the whole thing.

@yourostar, finally someone talking sense.

I’m sorry but all this talk of women being exploited, walking womb blah blah blah is frankly highly offensive to those of us in the surrogacy world. That is the case abroad, but couldn’t be further from the truth when talking about surrogacy in the U.K.

The drewitts are what I like to refer to as the surrogacy outcasts, they have no place in U.K. surrogacy, are not part of our communities and conduct their “bussiness” abroad primarily.

As for surrogacy expenses becoming payments as like America, it’s highly unlikely. We were asked for our views via lengthy surveys and the consensus amongst us all was that it wouldn’t be a good thing, it would attract the wrong people, doing it for the wrong reasons, people also forget that when talking about America and how much their surrogates get paid, that they have massive medical and legal bills, which is generally included in the big figures that are bandied around.

giving gifts to others who cannot have children.

human beings are not presents. People have a right not to be commissioned as gifts and made to order as newborns then removed from their mother as part of a planned transaction. Even if money doesn't change hands. Even if the mother is happy to give her child up at birth. Society shouldn't enable the gifting of humans made to order. We shouldn't be facilitating this.

makingmiracles

I have an initial question for those involved or those who are familiar with this process:

Whose rights are paramount? Is it the surrogate woman, the adopting parent(s) or the fetus?

This reminds me of people saying IVF would be used as a way to allow you to have a career and would be just used by aggressive career types. Or those awful women who haven't found the right partner early enough, or just dare to want more while they are young.

Because making the choice to use IVF, or surrogate, is so easy!! So much easier than just having a baby!

Actually it's an incredibly painful decision, full of heartache and the VAST majority of people who use either do it as a very last resort. Making it more socially acceptable and easier is a good thing surely. Giving us choice? Why is letting women have choice and control seen as a negative?

Rising to clickbait extreme examples and thereby denying the many women and families who benefit from this is hardly feminism. "Just be grateful for your 2 kids." "If you don't have time for pregnancy you don't have time for kids". FFS...

Also, these woman use their body to make a living. If you said to be I had to ruin my brain, long term reducing my ability to do complex engineering, to have a child, literally brain damage, then I'd probably look for other options too! She got looks, I got brains. Why is my biological advantage more valuable/esteemed than hers?

Making it more socially acceptable and easier is a good thing surely. Giving us choice? Why is letting women have choice and control seen as a negative?

Because the actual question is whether the surrogate woman has a choice and control, particularly when money gets involved. It’s abour protecting their rights, not celebrating increased fertility options for other women. I’ll ask the same question: in a surrogate arrangement, whose rights are paramount?

I remember watching her dads talk about how they picked the eggs for their kids and they basically went for a model so the kids would look good.

Thank goodness that worked out so well. Can you imagine how hard it would be if your dads were so invested in you being a great beauty and you were in fact rather plain.

Newuser You talked at the first part of your post about how it's an incredibly painful decision but then go on to say . If you said to be I had to ruin my brain, long term reducing my ability to do complex engineering, to have a child, literally brain damage to have a child
Is this an extreme example? Or do you think women who don't have a higher IQ should be surrogates? I don't get what you mean here at all? Brain damage because you can't be an engineer?

And this these women use their body to make a living Can you ever imagine the same being said about a man. I can't imagine a situation in which it would be appropriate to say these men use their body to make a living. There's something not right about saying a woman uses their body to make a living. Yes we all use our bodys every day but in that context it's very weird to me.

We are all just bundles of biological processes. Why are women whose neurones factory is strong allowed to use that, but not those whose biological variety means their reproductive system is strong? If someone is strong, they can use that skill. If they are clever, they can use that skill. Within legal bounds and agreed social norms.

Why is using your own bodies biological skill, of having a baby, so maligned? But every other random chance of biological ability is allowed to be commodified and used? But if you are good at having babies, then you get to be a mother, with all the social limitations that inevitably has, but the moral machine will slam down on you if you dare to commodity that ability. Under the guise of 'protecting' you.

any relaxation on the current surrogacy laws will just lead to more exploitation of women, it;s got to be fought.

This can't be repeated often enough. Surrogacy is unethical and a form of buying/trading humans.

human beings are not presents. People have a right not to be commissioned as gifts and made to order as newborns then removed from their mother as part of a planned transaction

100% true.

Also, these woman use their body to make a living. If you said to be I had to ruin my brain, long term reducing my ability to do complex engineering, to have a child, literally brain damage, then I'd probably look for other options too! She got looks, I got brains. Why is my biological advantage more valuable/esteemed than hers?

It's late and I've had more than I usually drink and I can't honestly be bothered unpacking why this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on MN. I suppose it comes back to Barracker's point about babies not actually being made to order gifts.

Because it is not a commodity. It can't be given and then taken away. The hormones that fill your body when pregnant, the emotions, the colostrium, the butterflies and the kicks, the belly growing. That is not something to be bought. It's not at all like being good at computers or a good teacher or anything else. Although I'm starting to think you have other motives here op...

Under the guise of 'protecting' you.

In a surrogacy agreement, whose rights are paramount? The surrogate mother, the adopting parent(s) or the fetus?

I didn't mean op of course.

Oncewas. They are two separate reasons for using surrogacy. One, physical need/infertility, and second where the impact on you future life is disproportionately large, due to what you do for a living.

Looking only at the second scenario:

I'm saying that for these women the shape and look of their body drives their ability to work. And you are telling them they have to risk damaging their livelihood in order to meet your moral standard. Men use their bodies too of course, we all do. But not in a way that's damaged by having kids.

I use my body to make a living, it's just that I use my brain. Others use their arms, or their legs. You'd not say they must sacrifice those skills to have kids, because we aren't asked to make that choice. But if your living is your look, then it's has to be a factor in your decision making.

Notbadconsidering, it's not my job to answer that question. You clearly have a view, just say it. Don't hide behind a question. Who do you think should be?

But if your living is your look That is very different from saying its an incredibly painful decision.

And as I said above, Because it is not a commodity. It can't be given and then taken away. The hormones that fill your body when pregnant, the emotions, the colostrium, the butterflies and the kicks, the belly growing. That is not something to be bought. It's not at all like being good at computers or a good teacher or anything else. Although I'm starting to think you have other motives here op...

My answer is there are multiple scenarios from conception to the postnatal period where the rights of three parties could come into significant conflict resulting in harm one way or another, and no system can reconcile that.

I’m asking your opinion on that? When rights collide in a surrogacy agreement, how do you think it should be reconciled? I’ve given my view, what’s yours?

And also my body is not damaged by having kids! If anything it's better, I understand it so much more and I love it so much more.

Although I'm starting to think you have other motives here op..

Like what? I'm sitting at home on a sunny Sunday in Sydney. My child is at cricket with my husband. I'm just, for reasons I'm not sure of(!), engaging with some randoms on the net whose view I disagree with.

no system can reconcile that. except not having surrogacy in the first place?

Not sure why but for some reason I'm getting a, pro life no choice, feeling from your posts. Could be completely wrong of course.

Then why keep asking the question like it's some kind of trump card? When your view is basically 'its complex'.

My view is that it's like any new change, it needs time to work out, and clever and thoughtful consideration. Adoption laws vary and evolve over time. IVF rules have varied and evolved over time. If we said at the start 'its too hard to summarise in one line, so let's give up' then lots of technological advances would be restrained.