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?

ComeandDance

If you are saying adoptive mothers are mothers then genetics has nothing to do with parenthood and so it doesn't matter who the sperm and egg belonged to. But I don't agree with this at all. The mother is the woman who carried and birthed the baby regardless of who the egg or sperm belonged to. In the case of adoptive parents this right (ie motherhood) is passed to others because it is best for the child (or should be) not because its the best thing for the adoptive parents. Surrogacy isn't about the best think for the child - its all about what parents want.

@Barracker I disagree, the people who CREATED a baby are the two genetic parents, the ones who gave the egg and the sperm. They will always be the ones who created the baby.

The the woman does CARRY the baby, giving him/her the right envrionement for them to develop. But a woman who is carrying a foetus from a donor egg has no more created the baby than the father who has a child from a donor sperm.
'carry'
What bullshit!
The sperm and egg donor create a sperm and an egg. That's it.

Which they are entitled to right up until the moment that - microscopic- embryo is inside another woman.

Your dopey euphemisms 'carrying' a baby which 'develops' (photosynthesis, presumably) are there for you to deceive yourself about reality.

You might just as well argue that every cake you bake is the property of Mary Berry because despite providing the ingredients, labour and oven, you used her recipe so she owns your cake.

Grow up.

You can't reclaim your blood donation once it's in my body because it's now mine.

If egg and sperm donors don't want their genetic material to fall under the parental rights of someone else don't put it in another woman's body and expect her to create a human being and hand it over to you

Female humans aren't inert bags of tomato compost you plant a seed in and then harvest.
Or carrier bags that hold your shopping.

The stupid fairytales people tell themselves to justify the indefensible USING of other people like farming stock. Ugh.

ComeAndDance what do you mean "how do you deal with fathers" - fathering is an entirely different thing from mothering, in the biological sense. Becoming a father cannot kill you or leave you incontinent, for a start...
The social role of fathering should be as important as the social role of mothering, but the biological investment and demands can never remotely compare.

There are different ways of being a mother, genetic, biological, breastfeeding, legal and social. It makes life easier for the child if these roles can be consolidated into as few people as possible.

ComeandDance - adoptive mothers are mothers but they're not biological mothers. Every single adoptive parent I know is very careful in explaining that to their children from the outset because lying to your children about their biological origins has been found to be very damaging.

Explaining to a child that you are looking after them because their mother wasn't able to is one thing. Explaining that you paid your child's mother to give you a child is quite another

If the genetic parents have no one to play , why is it so important for children conceived from donor sperm to have access to who the sperm donor was??

And with IVF, the embryo is conceived out of the womb. Many people consider that this is a person already rather than a few cells. Especially imo when the embryo has reached blastocyst (when it has very high chances to develop into a fully developed baby

I disagree, the people who CREATED a baby are the two genetic parents, the ones who gave the egg and the sperm. They will always be the ones who created the baby.

I don’t underatand how you can say the mother who ‘carries’ the baby also did not create it. The egg and the sperm are the fundamental building blocks for the baby undeniably, but the woman whose womb and placenta and very breathe nourishes and grows the baby is certainly not just ‘carrying it’

Apologies for typos I’m typing one handed in between wrangling my toddler!

There are different ways of being a mother, genetic, biological, breastfeeding, legal and social. It makes life easier for the child if these roles can be consolidated into as few people as possible.

Your mother is the woman who gave birth to you. Anybody else is adoptive mother, surrogate mother etc.

yes the commissioning parent is the surrogate not the woman who gave birth. I won't have people destroying language. We've lost woman and now they want us to give up the word mother. No way

I am absolutely against surrogacy, for all the reasons given above by pps who are also against it.
Women and babies should not be bought and sold. Surrogacy is essentially prostitution of pregnancy and childbirth.
I used to think that close family members should be an exception, but I now see that this is also open to coercion and exploitation.

Blimey, those who think that the genetic parents aren't really the parents do not know what they're talking about.

I've got two half-siblings who were also donor-conceived (that I know of -- there are almost certainly many more). One recently had a colonoscopy which revealed polyps, showing him to be at higher risk of developing bowel cancer. He was advised to tell his siblings to get tested as well. Having had metres of tubing up my backside to decide whether I had cancer or not, I can tell you that genes most definitely do matter.

Disclaimer: I am NC with my social father and almost NC with my mother for reasons not directly connected with being donor conceived -- so I am very jaded on the subject. I do realise that some people may have a happy "adoptive" family in these circumstances. But even if they do, they still need to be aware of the genetic issues.

I love the way one woman put it on another surrogacy thread.

The genetic parents ( donor egg/sperm) simply provide the knitting pattern. It is the woman who is pregnant and gives birth who knits the baby using the resources of her own body. She is the mother

We can confirm that this content page is not an advertisement - its purpose is solely to provide factual information to anyone seeking guidance on surrogacy.

Well it reads like an advertisment, for one thing you fail to mention the many, many countries in which surrogacy is illegal and the reasons for this. In France, from what I've read one of the main objections is that surrogacy denies the human right to dignity in that it places the rights of the commissioning adults above the rights of the child.

The fact is in any surrogacy situation the adults CAN'T know the impact on the child. They are intentionally creating a situation which could be enormously damaging to the child because of their desire to be a parent. This seems blatantly wrong to me, and seems to raise red flags for their ability to be good parents. If they're putting their own desires before a child's needs at the start - and a child needs their gestational mother at birth, that's just biology and years of evolution - what hope is there once the child gets older and develops a mind of their own and perhaps isn't happy about how they were created through surrogacy. How they feel they were bought and sold?

The discussion is very adult centric in this country (and in the MN article). What about the rights of the child? There is evidence that sperm donor conceived children have a problem with the way they were brought into the world and also some evidence that children of surrogacy (those brave enough to speak out and risk alienation from all parents) do too (there was a great video in a previous thread on the consultation) . slate.com/human-interest/2010/06/new-study-shows-sperm-donor-kids-suffer.html

Great posts Jessica also Lass and really appreciate your views Donor.

I think an article truly seeking to provide 'factual information' might want to mention the rights of the child - and the fact that many donor conceived children have issues - as any prospective commissioning parent should at the very least consider how their child might feel when they grow up.

I've just read the "infomercial" referenced in the OP. Wow. Just wow. Absolutely zero information about possible downsides for the surrogate mother, or the child -- or the parents whose kid may struggle with having come in to the world this way but who are totally unprepared for it.

Was this sponsored by Surrogacy UK? Or some other lobby group? I'm genuinely shocked that this propaganda is being presented as factual info. In fact, perhaps @MNHQ could clarify who actually wrote it?

What a weird thing to say sakura. If what you say is true there would be no surrogacy because the person who carries the baby would keep the baby. Spectacularly missing the point there.

As for the genetic parents not mattering -- also complete rubbish from the point of view of the person created by donor egg or sperm. It is a really horrible feeling not to know where half your genetic identity comes from, where you get certain features or traits from, and it can be literally life-threatening. The law changed on donor anonymity in Australia after a donor-conceived woman died of cancer in her 20s. She could have been saved if she had received crucial health info from her "sperm donor" ie father.
Narelle's law

I am pretty much 100% anti-surrogacy, but in an editorial I expect to hear someone's opinion. Not the same sort of overview I would expect in a more journalistic piece.

It’s presented as an information piece.

A significant percentage of female children who have to undergo cancer treatment pre-puberty are rendered unable to carry a pregnancy. So by your own standards if they survive they get the double whammy of also being unable to have their own biological child and well, fuck 'em, suck it up, buttercup, because I don't like altruistic surrogacy. Okay .

OralBElectricToothbrush, I get your point but there are many people unable to have children for one reason or another, in some cases IVF is not an option even if they wanted it. It's sad but there are other things they can do if they cannot have kids; lots of people live fulfilling and useful lives without children and are happy. I would think a girl who has known since childhood that she cannot bear a child would be better prepared than someone who didn't know until being investigated for infertility.

Altruistic (unpaid apart from expenses) surrogacy is legal in the uk. Commercial (paid) is illegal. The demand is far higher than altruistic can provide so most people seeking surrogacy have to go overseas. As a result it's generally only the well off who can afford surrogacy.

I think if commercial surrogacy was made legal in the uk then overseas surrogacy from some countries would still be cheaper.

The main reason for making it legal would be to regulate it and reduce the demand for overseas surrogacy and make things less stressful.

I doubt the govt would ban overseas surrogacy - after all, imagine the press they'd get denying entry when the parents (uk citizens) arrive home with a child that's 50 or 100% genetically theirs.

Given the large surplus of children waiting for adoption, the govt should be concentrating on reducing that before legalising commercial surrogacy.

Wow, Blue, what a callous attitude. 'Sorry, you had cancer and now you'll never have your own biological child, but of course, you can take your infertility better because you've known about it longer and just make the best of it.' Fucking hell. Cannot imagine feeling that cavalier about my daughter, for example.

Goosefoot I think this is important because where an editorial is unsigned it is always a reflection of the official view of the publication (or website). Is this strongly pro surrogacy view the official @MNHQ line on this very controversial and problematic topic?

hinely that's identical to the arguments for legalising open street prostitution and brothels. Was that your intention?

OralBElectricToothbrush one woman's emotional pain is not an argument for the reduction of another woman to a womb for hire/ for hire on an expenses only basis. The scope for coercion and manipulation is huge in these very sad cases.

If we're doing the "what about" scenarios - if you had two daughters and no other female cousins etc of child bearing age, and one sister was infertile due to childhood cancer treatment should the other be obliged to be her surrogate? Even if she didn't want to? Even if she had bonded with her own babies immediately and knew she would find giving a baby up unbearable? Even if she had had serious complications in a pregnancy and birth of her own? Even if she was child free by choice and did not ever want to be pregnant? Even if she was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse for whom being pregnant would be traumatic?

The enormous burden of expectation on the sister expected to be a surrogate would be almost unbearable in many situations and could break a family apart - if it was illegal the pressure would be removed.

If she just didn't want to be her sister's surrogate for no dramatic reason how could she say no? If she was left with life changing birth injuries and emotional problems impacting her ability to work and care for her other children after being pushed by her parents to be "kind" and go against her own wishes for bodily autonomy to give her sister the "gift" of a baby would that be an acceptable price to pay?

Babies aren't gifts. Chocolate or wine or even a brand new car are gifts. Pregnancy isn't carrying luggage for a few months for someone.