The feminism argument against surrogacy?

[XXVaginaAndAUterus]

There's a program on radio 4 about surrogacy at the moment (trigger warning it talks about termination, miscarriage and ethics of testing procedures).

It reminded me that I've seen people on this board say quite strongly that surrogacy is wrong from a feminism point of view. Could you break it down for me and help me to understand?

I can see the argument that women's bodies aren't for rent on the surface of it. What troubles me is that isn't it just a different form of the same thing as many jobs? Lots of work involves effectively exchanging use of your body for money - builders for example, or waiting on staff. Lots of work involves the "rent" of a body in conjunction with a mind. So what makes a womb different? The danger? In which case are you against working on oil rigs or in war zones, and the military?

I'm genuinely seeking to understand this a bit better, I'm not looking for an argument.

Do you mean that surrogacy and prostitution stops women sleeping in the streets?

To be fair many a homeless woman has been offered a bed for the night in return for a blow job (or more). Presumably @Seaseasea thinks thats fine and dandy.

That woman may find alternative ways to avoid homelessness. Bloody hell, the Privilege jumps out of posters, I’m not sure if they realise it.

It’s like they’re sat their going ‘Why would you rent your womb, haven’t you received your trust fund yet?’

Iced have you hit your head or did you never learn to read in context?

Seems I'm not the only one failing to see the 'context' connecting homeless men and making babies available for purchase as a valid 'choice' for women.

MRA alert! Stand by for a mention of male suicide rates.

Goodness knows we wouldn't want people to talk about that under any circumstances.

Goodness knows we wouldn't want people to talk about that under any circumstances.

By all means start a thread on it if you find it such a compelling topic. Though preferably not on the 'Feminism' board.

So you’re suggesting that impoverished women selling their bodies and their babies in order to avoid destitution is... a good thing?

And avoiding the fact that life on the streets is so particularly dangerous for women that they may feel compelled to take the most desperate measure.

But hey it's all about 'choice' innit?

In the UK currently only altruistic surrogacy is legal. I struggle to find a sound argument against this.

Absolutely there should be, and is, a strong duty of care required from IPs (and fertility clinics) to surrogates - a duty to make sure all parties are fully aware of all legal consequences of their decision, all potential health implications, as well as how they are likely to feel during and after the pregnancy. This in clinics is governed by the clinic’s ethics committee, and usually takes the form of a requirement for counselling and independent legal advice, as well as a consultation with a consultant without the IPs present.

But - applying John Stuart Mill’s harm principle - if the surrogate has taken a full and informed decision, and the IPs are happy, why is it anyone else’s business?

But - applying John Stuart Mill’s harm principle - if the surrogate has taken a full and informed decision, and the IPs are happy, why is it anyone else’s business?

Because there’s another human being involved.

Yes there is - a much loved and wanted child.

I never said that was a good thing, why make things up? I said the opposite.

There’s another human involved in the case of adoption and abortion too, who should make the decision on that? The woman’s who’s body it is? Or ‘feminists’ on her behalf?

Theres a difference between willingly choosing to do something of your own volition and being forced by circumstances to make a choice you would never make.

Oh dear God, a child is not a possession. Why can't people see this? I struggle to understand how we can have the UN convention on the rights of the child and yet most of the UN countries support surrogacy - where is the child's right there?

How do we know these people are loving and stable parents? I won't go into names on this site but google some of the famous people who have used surrogates and see if you really believe they are potential good parents.

Peach you mentioned your children upthread. How old are they? If they are older, what do they think? Do they/will they have a relationship with their sibling?

But - applying John Stuart Mill’s harm principle - if the surrogate has taken a full and informed decision, and the IPs are happy, why is it anyone else’s business?

I agree with AgileLass here. You are forgetting that there is a child at the centre of this. Any potential harm to the child is not considered.

The surrogate isn’t biologically related to the child though, so is it the same as removing mother and child?

Ok, I am going to come at this left field. I compete horses and for competition mares, it is increasingly common to do embryo transfer, so you can breed from a successful mare while she continues to compete - you put her fertilised eggs into another mare. Equine surrogacy, if you will.

I can tell you research has show that the size of the foal at birth, and through to full maturity, is influenced by the size of the host mare, in addition to size of its the genetic parents. So the experience in utero has a permanent influence of the foals growth. I can only conclude that the in utero experience for mammals is significant and the biological parents cannot treat surrogate mothers as a walking incubator - she will also influence the future of their child, so she may not be 'biologically related' but her biological influence is significant.

Babies born 30 years ago were routinely taken away from mothers, popped into cribs, left to cry in faraway wards, bottle fed by nurses.

I struggle to see how my baby had a worse outcome. My amazing surrogate, who gave birth onto me, allowed me skin to skin with the baby, I breastfed her straight away. The baby was mine genetically. The surrogacy was altruistic. I knew my surrogate was ok. I talked to her every day.

The effects of epigenetics may be discernable- I suppose it's feasible that in the moment of moving from womb to outside world, my baby felt a terrible attachment rupture as I smelled and felt different from the woman who carried her.

i can only say she otherwise would never had a life at all. she is loved and securely attached to me. I, and my surrogate, judged the risk to be worth it.

There’s another human involved in the case of adoption and abortion too, who should make the decision on that? The woman’s who’s body it is? Or ‘feminists’ on her behalf?

It shows a lack of critical thinking to not see the difference between surrogacy, abortion and adoption.

Surrogacy intentionally creates a child, usually paid for, that is to be separated from its mother.

Neither abortion or adoption is intentional. It’s making the best choice in an undesirable situation.

I knew my surrogate was ok

She’s not ‘your’ anything. She is the mother of the child. And if she wasn’t ok? What if she died or suffered long lasting injury or damage from pregnancy or birth? How on earth could you possibly repay someone for their life or their health? just so you could have ‘your own’ baby.

There’s another human involved in the case of adoption and abortion too, who should make the decision on that? The woman’s who’s body it is? Or ‘feminists’ on her behalf?

The fact that there is a choice to make at all in the case of abortion is almost entirely down to 'feminists' who tend to be against forced birthing. Women should only become pregnant of their own free will, that is, not because they are compelled to by a man or financial circumstances.

I'm not actually against altruistic surrogacy but as usual on these things, we give an inch, they take a mile.

The surrogate isn’t biologically related to the child though, so is it the same as removing mother and child?

So women that use donor eggs aren’t really the child’s mother?

^
That is a huge number of children entering the woefully underfunded care system. If people wish to raise a child why not adopt

Do you feel the same way about IVF?^

Pretty much yes.

There’s another human involved in the case of adoption and abortion too, who should make the decision on that? The woman’s who’s body it is? Or ‘feminists’ on her behalf?

You're not even trying to hide your agenda anymore, are you? Not that some of us were ever fooled to begin with.

In the UK currently only altruistic surrogacy is legal. I struggle to find a sound argument against this.

The intentional creation of a child to be separated from its mother.
Using a woman’s body for the above.

I can tell you research has show that the size of the foal at birth, and through to full maturity, is influenced by the size of the host mare, in addition to size of its the genetic parents.

That's fascinating, thanks for this info.

The very idea that a woman can be reduced to being some sort of human oven that 'bakes' a baby until it's ready to be served to its 'real' parents is profoundly sinister.