MN editorial on how wonderful surrogacy is

[anothernotherone]

This is on the MN homepage: www.mumsnet.com/pregnancy/surrogacy

Isn't this a massively controversial issue related to the exploitation of the female body as an incubator?

Are MN picking sides on a massively controversial issue, or has whoever's written and selected this rosey whitewash coverage of surrogacy not engaged their brain fully?

I don't know if lesbian couples use surrogates rather than 1 of them carrying the implanted embryo. However if this is a thing that is , as far as I'm concerned as unacceptable as a heterosexual couple or male homosexual couple (or indeed single person of any persuasion ) using a surrogate.

I'm against gay men adopting and hiring surrogates. It's not anti gay because I'm also against lesbians hiring surrogates ( though not adopting)

Women are oppressed by our sex. It's gross that 2 people of the oppressor class would get babies out of the oppressed group because they're financially more stable due to their privilege. Plus I also think babies need a mother, preferably their birth mother but at a push an adoptive mother.

@sakura184 there are some children who need adopting but, usually due to their relationship with their birth mother, would be better off with one or two dads. Not babies though, but few children in the UK are adopted as babies.

What Lass said, I'm against surrogacy whoever is doing it. My opposition to it is applied equally to any and all humans who wish to engage in buying babies and renting wombs.

The fourth trimester is something that is shaped by millions of years of evolution. ALL mammal species (including humans) need their mothers to begin with, for varying lengths of time depending on species. You see problems in many mammals taken from their mothers too young. It's biology, it's evolution, it just is.

And of course, sadly, often there are circumstances where babies are separated too early from their mothers. This is sad, and often adoptive parents can step in and help but it's not planned, it's not the explicit intention to deny the babies that important experience.

Understanding the difference between unintended and intended really isn't hard.

ComeandDance - are you purposely missing the point of Barracker's post? It is quite clear that she was talking about people who purposely deny a child access to their mother.

Here's the rest of her post for the hard of understanding:

• Every baby animal has a need to be with the mother in whom they grew, knowing her heartbeat, her voice, the sway of her body. We'd empathise if her mother had died. We'd feel grief for her. We'd understand she would be suffering a loss that would impact her life.

Yet we seem to be manufacturing these babies and engineering their losses purposefully.*

Surrogacy is engineering a baby's loss of their biological mother. There are no circumstances in which that can be morally justifiable. None.

And yes, thanks Barracker for putting it so very clearly.

All I'll say is that adult adoptees are absolutely seething at the adoption industry, they think the language used in adoption is a gross violation of their human rights. They also say their voices are silenced and their blogs and so on are shut down.
We shall see how babies born of surrogates analyze what happened to them

Sakura, that's really sad. Adoption does tend to get a very rose tinted narrative.

Thread I have started to discuss the proposals for new laws to regulate surrogacy in the UK.

Building families through surrogacy: A new Law - Consultation www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3649812-building-families-through-surrogacy-a-new-law-consultation