Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

MN editorial on how wonderful surrogacy is

259 replies

anothernotherone · 03/07/2019 22:09

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?

OP posts:
Original poster
anothernotherone · 04/07/2019 06:24

DecomposingComposers adoption of newborns isn't very common in Britain, but where it does happen it's an attempt to make the best of an existing bad situation (an existing pregnancy where the mother wishes to continue but will be unable to keep the baby). It's not deliberate creating the situation in order to give someone a baby.

LadyGardens what country did that happen in?

OP posts:
Coyoacan · 04/07/2019 06:44

Do you think that adoption should be banned to then?

All kinds unhappy situations arise but that is not equivalent to the planning that goes into surrogacy.

TabbyStar · 04/07/2019 06:51

To intentionally create a child that is to be separated from its mother, is immoral in my opinion

This is my opinion too, we know that this can cause lasting trauma to the child.

TitianaTitsling · 04/07/2019 06:54

You can't sell a kidney, its unethical. The risks to you are too high.

Yet you can altruistically donate a kidney as a living donor.

Equating an organ and a potential human life?... Really?
I noticed that on the opt out list that one of the 'not for donation at present' list was also womb and feotus.... This 'at present' really worries me!

LadyGardens · 04/07/2019 06:57

@anothernotherone it happened in Oregon in the USA.

I’m not sure that the fourth trimester is denied. My friend did all sorts of skin to skin and baby mooning. She couldn’t breast feed but bottle feeding not an act of deprivation.

Original poster
anothernotherone · 04/07/2019 07:19

LadyGardens can't you see the potential for exploitation where one person can afford to and is legally allowed to pay a woman a year's salary for the use of, control over, and risk to her body incurred by hiring her body including womb 24/7 for 9 months? The relationship between payer and payee is completely asymmetrical.

OP posts:
GlitchStitch · 04/07/2019 07:26

My best friend used a surrogate as she could produce eggs but not carry a pregnancy. The surrogate wanted a year at home with her own kids but could not afford it. The surrogacy paid for her year at home

How would your friend have felt if the surrogate had been left disabled by the pregnancy? Or even killed, leaving those children she wanted to be at home with motherless? I get the feeling this anecdote is supposed to be a positive spin on surrogacy but it's just really grim IMO. It's literally buying the body of a woman who needs money.

Original poster
anothernotherone · 04/07/2019 07:27

Babies learn to recognise their mother's voices in the womb. Even babies adopted as newborns by loving parents have been found to have attachment issues. I'm not sure the fourth trimester can be carried out by a different adult any more than the third can. Being given the best available care and kangaroo care if born at 26 weeks is the best anyone can do if a baby is born at the end of the second trimester, but it's not actually identical to the third trimester. Same is true of a baby removed from it's mother permanently at birth. Skin to skin with another adult and bottle feeding is making the best of a non ideal situation and certainly better than not doing anything, but it isn't the same as the fourth trimester.

OP posts:
LassOfFyvie · 04/07/2019 07:33

The surrogacy paid for her year at home

yes there are risks but why is her using her body to earn a year’s wage

Is your friend in the UK? If she is, the UK does not allow commercial surrogacy- which is exactly what happened here.

JessicaWakefieldSV · 04/07/2019 07:35

It's literally buying the body of a woman who needs money.

Yes it is! It’s pretty grim all round.

JessicaWakefieldSV · 04/07/2019 07:35

the UK does not allow commercial surrogacy

Good point Lass.

LassOfFyvie · 04/07/2019 07:44

Do you think that adoption should be banned to then? I can't see the difference between adoption and surrogacy as regards the 4th trimester

It's not remotely the same. Adoption in the UK is a last resort option involving social workers and the courts. If a baby is removed for adoption at birth it is because the mother is either a danger to the child or incapable of looking after it. The child is removed because that is in the best interests of the child- the wants of adoptive parents don't come into it.

VikingVolva · 04/07/2019 07:45

"Are MN picking sides"

Yes, I think they are. They are choosing to adhere to their policy of being supportive to all parents. And that applies however the DC arrived.

drspouse · 04/07/2019 07:58

Even babies adopted as newborns by loving parents have been found to have attachment issues
While as an adoptive parent, I completely agree with all of what people have said about the non-equivalence of surrogacy and adoption, this isn't actually true.
It's traumatic to be adopted for a wide variety of reasons but attachment happens as a result of good, consistent care in the first few months of life.

LadyGardens · 04/07/2019 08:17

@anothernotherone of course I can see it’s complicated and potentially problematic. I see that, I just don’t agree with making it illegal. Life long infertility in a country that fetishes parenthood and makes adoption exceptionally hard is also complicated and problematic. Having seen at close hand a surrogacy that worked well for all involved I wouldn’t ban it outright. I do think it needs heavy regulation and protections built in for both sides.

Some on this thread are saying that adoption in this country is less complicated than surrogacy because it’s rarely newborns. You do know that’s because we have high rates of abortion compared to countries with high rates of newborn adoption? I wholeheartedly support the right to choose but I am surprised some on this thread suggest adoption is less problematic than surrogacy because it’s rarely newborns. The logical conclusion of that argument is that you are saying it’s cruel to deny a baby a fourth trimester and better to keep newborn adoption rates low through abortion. I’m not sure I agree with that logic.

LadyGardens · 04/07/2019 08:18

@LassOfFyvie no my friend was in the US as I explained up thread.

JessicaWakefieldSV · 04/07/2019 08:19

Life long infertility in a country that fetishes parenthood and makes adoption exceptionally hard is also complicated and problematic.

Having a child isn’t a right.

JoyceJeffries · 04/07/2019 08:20

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

DecomposingComposers · 04/07/2019 08:24

Adoption in the UK is a last resort option involving social workers and the courts. If a baby is removed for adoption at birth it is because the mother is either a danger to the child or incapable of looking after it. The child is removed because that is in the best interests of the child- the wants of adoptive parents don't come into it.

Babies can be surrendered at birth by the parents though can't they? It's not always a best interest removal of the child. Sometimes it's the result of an unwanted pregnancy.

My question was purely in regards to the point about the 4th trimester - if that is so important how do babies removed from their mother at birth for adoption manage?

DecomposingComposers · 04/07/2019 08:29

It's traumatic to be adopted for a wide variety of reasons but attachment happens as a result of good, consistent care in the first few months of life.

And hopefully this also happens with a much wanted child carried by a surrogate? I am against the idea of commercial surrogacy but I don't see altruistic, heavily regulated surrogacy as any worse than babies being adopted at birth because their parents didn't want the child but opted not to have an abortion.

JessicaWakefieldSV · 04/07/2019 08:36

My question was purely in regards to the point about the 4th trimester - if that is so important how do babies removed from their mother at birth for adoption manage?

Adoption isn’t planned like surrogacy. It’s making the best of an unplanned or difficult situation.

JessicaWakefieldSV · 04/07/2019 08:37

I am against the idea of commercial surrogacy but I don't see altruistic, heavily regulated surrogacy as any worse than babies being adopted at birth because their parents didn't want the child but opted not to have an abortion.

Well it is because surrogacy is planned. You are intentionally creating the situation which is not in the best interests of a child.

DecomposingComposers · 04/07/2019 08:44

But you are creating a very much loved and wanted child hopefully born into a living and caring family.

Why isn't that better than a child possibly conceived deliberately into an unloving or possibly harmful environment, or simply not wanted?

Has anyone studied the effects on the child of being born to a surrogate? What are the long term effects on the children? Is it known to be detrimental to them?

qinsi · 04/07/2019 08:51

What if they're not loving and caring? What if they're like that adoptive dad in Cardiff who murdered the little girl he adopted?

We don't allow children or adults to be bought and sold so why is it acceptable because they're babies?

SittingAround1 · 04/07/2019 09:00

I agree there's no guarantee for the parents to be loving and caring. I know a family where the father sexually abused the adopted daughter.

I'm against commercial surrogacy. The potential for exploitation is just too big. More on the fence about altruistic surrogacy, but it needs to be heavily regulated.