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'm totally pro choice, like actually giving a choice. I appalled by where the US is going on women's rights generally, as well as on abortion. I'm appalled by the right wing swing in Europe. I'm a guardian and washington post subscriber, and I push myself to read right wing sites to try to understand what I'm just not understanding.

I'm a cancer survivor, an IVF mum, a lapsed Catholic, I'm excellent at candy crush... Do you want some ID? Is that enough for you? Just because I'm challenging your views?

Is that acceptable?

Who? Me? I agree no system apart from no surrogacy. I am not “pro life no choice” at all. How do you reconcile surrogacy with pro life/anti choice arguments?

Newuseroftheweek I'm probably one of those good at breeding women but not so smart to be an engineer. Even I understand the question that you don't want to answer from notbad No I don't want your I.D but I don't feel you are challanging my views, I just don't thinks yours make sense...

Pregnancy ruins your body. I’m not surprised that rich women avoid it if they have the means to do so, particularly celebrities for whom their body is their career.

Oncewasblueandyellowtwo I do understand what you mean. I'm probably being a bit more strident here that I really feel, I know there are emotions here, but I'm trying to show that the emotions are driving the debate too much. Let's start the discussion, not shut it down as it's 'wrong' or repugnant to your moral compass. Many things, you know, like women leaving the kitchen, started the same way!

I've carried a child. I know what its like. I know I could never give it away, a long long wanted child. A miracle who has transformed my life. BUT I have the imagination to know that not everyone feels that way, and they can run that race and feel happy to give the child away. I feel they should get to have that choice.

I'm not saying a baby ruins your body. I too love what my body did, even if it tried to kill me first! But, my body shape is not that important to me. Being more or less rounded or misshapen makes no difference to me, but, again, I have the empathy to see why it would matter to people, and would much more profoundly influence their physical and mental ability to provide for themselves and their child.

Notbadconsidering, she meant me I'm sure!

RaptorWhiskers I've had a c-section and a natural birth, my body is not ruined. It's grand. I'm sure other women will have a different experience but a blanket statement like that is not true.

BUT I have the imagination to know that not everyone feels that way, and they can run that race and feel happy to give the child away. I feel they should get to have that choice. Imagination is the same as my emotions getting in the way of discussion is it it not?

Newuseroftheweek

So whose rights are most important? Consider these scenarios and explain how time and consideration will sort it out:

At 12 week prenatal testing it’s discovered the fetus has a severe abnormality. The surrogate wants to abort, should she be allowed to? What if the adoptive parents are religious and don’t want her to? What if the adoptive parents want to abort but the surrogate is religious and doesn’t want to? What if the pregnancy will threaten her life but the adoptive parents don’t want to abort? What if the adoptive parents decide that if she continues with a pregnancy resulting in a child with a severe abnormality they won’t have anything to do with it?

What if the pregnant woman has a major complication like a pulmonary embolism? What if she can’t return to full functioning afterwards? What if she can never work again as a result? What if she can’t look after her own family?

What if there is a conflict between parties about timing and mode of delivery? Who gets to decide? What if there’s a severe hypoxic ischaemic injury to the baby as a result of this decision? Is it anyone’s fault? Should a woman be forced to undertake a Caesarean section?

What if after a severe hypoxic ischaemic injury the adoptive parents decide they don’t want to look after a child with severe spastic quadraplegic cerebral palsy? Who does the baby belong to?

What if the pregnant woman developed gestational diabetes and didn’t look after herself? Ditto high blood pressure?

What if there’s an intrauterine fetal death? What if it’s discovered the pregnant woman smoked and drank? What if she ate something considered high risk? What if she undertook an activity deemed high risk? Should blame be apportioned? Could someone sue someone in this scenario?

What if, in the postnatal period, the birth mother develops severe postnatal depression or psychosis? Who looks after her? For how long? What if it stays with her for years?

These are just some initial thoughts. How will time, consultation, legislation etc reconcile all of these scenarios?

NotBad If its OK with you I'm going to print out your post for when I need it. Very valid questions, without emotions or imagination involved.

Yes, I'm saving that post too.

All those scenarios have taken place. So, yes. Our won't be easy, it will take time. But, yes.

All those scenarios have taken place. So, yes. Our won't be easy, it will take time. But, yes

What is that supposed to mean. None of your posts even attempt to address the points made by Barracker - namely babies should not be a made to order commodity to satisfy a selfish, narcissistic whim.

*it won't be easy

All of those scenarios have taken place? Really? They’ve all been tested legally and there were no moral or ethical deliberations ever? If you’re saying those scenarios in my post have taken place, you’re saying somewhere a woman has been forced to have an abortion against her will or forced to have a baby against her will. I find that incredibly disturbing and equally disturbing that all that is needed to reconcile that is “more time and discussion”.

Here are some more:

What if the pregnant woman is group B strep positive? What if she doesn’t want antibiotics? What if she does but the adoptive parents don’t because they want everything natural? What if she’s given antibiotics and has an allergic reaction? What if she has a recurrence of previously unknown genital herpes? What if the baby has herpes encephalitis postnatally as a result? Is that her fault?

What if she develops antibodies to the fetus’s red blood cells or platelets? What if that results in invasive in utero procedures? What if she needs immunoglobulin as a result and has a reaction?

What if she has a severe postpartum haemorrhage? What if she needs a blood transfusion or two?

Basically, if harm results to the pregnant woman as a result of the pregnancy whose responsibility is that? Can the finances ever truly reconcile all eventualities? Can/should a pregnant woman be forced to undertake medical treatment if it’s in the best interests of a third party? What if what is in her best interests is not what is in the best interests of that third party?

Who pays for hospital parking? Who pays for petrol to get to appointments? Who attends appointments? What if there is another medical issue arises requiring confidentiality? Should a doctor disclose this information in front of adoptive parents present in an appointment? If adoptive parents are at appointments what pressure is there? Would the pregnant woman be able to openly disclose concerns? What if a doctor or midwife suspected there was coercion? Who would they report that to? What’s the burden of proof for coercion? How would the legal system address this quickly with an advancing pregnancy?

That's a trend I've been noticing in the Graun of late, where comments - in the increasingly rare cases where articles are open for them - are way out of step with the editorial viewpoint.

This has been going on for a few years with articles on social issues. I think it led up to them no longer opening any articles on feminist or women's issues - the people making the comments noticed that the picks were always biased, but also that the deletions were really wild. Finally they had a big open discussion by the editor about what could be done to make the comment sections better, and it was universally, stop moderating in such a biased way. Ironically there were scads of deletions from the discussion. Right after that, they stopped opening them, though I also noticed that the writers who were most derided stopped appearing.

Another issue is that if this becomes a possibility for people, it isn't just a choice, the possibility shapes behaviour.

So an actress now, instead of losing her figure, can pay money and avoid it. A career woman can avoid losing time at the office. If these things become normalised very quickly they can become expectations. Sorry, we don't hire actresses with stretch marks. No, if you are sick because you are pregnant and need rime off, you have no future here.

it won't be easy

I realised that. I still don't know what it is supposed to mean.

Intentionally creating a child to be separated from its mother is wrong and I don’t support it, for altruistic reasons or commercial. It isn’t just about how gross it is to use women’s bodies this way, it’s also about the child. The fact so many poor women are used by rich women who want to avoid the risk and complications of pregnancy and birth, just makes it even worse.

The fact so many poor women are used by rich women who want to avoid the risk and complications of pregnancy and birth, just makes it even worse.

Yes yes. It won’t ever be a rich woman who does this for money, because why would they? Even IF all of the ethical considerations and hypothetical scenarios I’ve posted could be successfully covered in the best legal contract ever created that didn’t leave ANY ambiguity whatsoever , let’s say there WAS a dispute. Who is going to prevail, legally? The side that can afford the best legal advice.

I’d also like to know the cut off age for buying and selling humans?

Finally they had a big open discussion by the editor about what could be done to make the comment sections better, and it was universally, stop moderating in such a biased way. Ironically there were scads of deletions from the discussion.

I must have missed that discussion - sounds interesting!

And yes, the moderation 'policy' clearly goes way beyond their stated 'community standards'. I guess it's their playground and they can do what they want, but it doesn't make them look good if they're deleting comments simply because they find them distasteful even though they conform to their own 'standards'. I used to think that they'd stopped opening articles to comments to save money on paying moderators, but now they've started pre-moderating a lot, which would be even more labour intensive.

Some of the "what if" scenarios up thread are addressed here.

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

I think "what if" the health/life of the surrogate are permanently damaged is one of the scenarios that isn't addressed as these contracts are all about protecting the buyer intended parents and ensuring they get their baby.

Maternal death is uncommon these days (although the USA has about the worst rates in the developed world and getting worse), presumably surrogates get good antenatal/obstetric care as it is in the interests of the IPs and will be in the contract.
But anyone wanting to take a look at bad things that can happen should cruise over to the confidential enquiries into maternal mortality that are released every three years in the UK. Pregnancy and childbirth are not risk free.

www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk/reports

www.hqip.org.uk/resource/mbrrace-uk-perinatal-mortality-surveillance-report-2018/

And something/someone practically no one gives consideration to is the egg donor.
This is not a pleasant procedure to go through and also carries risks. Only this week I have had dealings with a young woman who ended up in ICU after egg collection.

Intentionally creating a child to be separated from its mother is wrong and I don’t support it, for altruistic reasons or commercial.

Exactly.

And at some point that child is going to have to be told that the woman who carried and gave birth to him or her sold them. There's no knowing what effects that might have on the child's well-being.

And before someone mentions adoption, please don't. They are two very different scenarios.

FannyCann

That first link is informative but absolutely chilling. Thank you. I hope people like Newuseroftheweek read it.