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?

@OralBElectricToothbrush it may be hard to believe but I have a daughter who had cancer in childhood and had chemo which can lead to infertility. If she does have to face that awful struggle I have no qualms at all in opposing her using surrogacy, for the reasons outlined by @anothernotherone.

(If you think I’m trolling I can easily prove to MN that I do have a daughter who had cancer.)

I’m going to say it again.

Having children is not a right. You are not entitled to biological children, regardless of your personal health situation. Trying to emotionally manipulate the situation and the intentions of others, is unacceptable. I find it incredibly insulting to those who suffer ill health.

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.

It reads like a sneaky guide on how to exploit loopholes to extend the spirit of the existing law.

If its information it should reflect both sides of the debate rather than just how wonderful it is for everyone.

MN has helped me more critically appraise surrogacy. I think I still support the choice of the individual woman to be an altruistic surrogate rather than have the law tell her what she can and can’t do with her body.

You are not entitled to biological children, regardless of your personal health situation.

No, of course not, but children are an extremely emotive issue - it's not possible to discuss this in a vacuum. DD crumpled when she received the dx she could not bear children.

Well of course it's an emotional issue. This site and my life is full of women living with infertility. I don't know a single one who has thought that getting another women to bear a child for her is a solution to that terrible pain.

SimplySteveRedux

While I’m always sorry if anyone suffers pain or distress, that’s not the topic here right now and it’s also not a good reason to allow surrogacy. I had one child and then couldn’t have any more. I also found it upsetting and hard. That still does not mean I’m entitled to use another women’s body and submit her to the risks of pregnancy, or to disregard the effects on the child of creating it in order to separate it from its mother.

Your DD can adopt, yes it’s a hard process but it’s an option that is available and there are many children who need and deserve good parents.

I've read some accounts of supposed 'altruistic' surrogacy occurring in the UK that tbh I'm struggling to see how they differentiate from commercial surrogacy. Seeking out women online, paying several thousand in 'expenses' (not the extortionate amounts paid in the US but not to be sniffed at if you are in debt, sanctioned by the job centre or in poverty).

This is the judgement of a perfectly legal, apparently altruistic surrogacy agreement in the UK. It's long but worth a read although it's quite upsetting as it clearly involves the exploitation of a vulnerable woman.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/34.html

Your DD can adopt, yes it’s a hard process but it’s an option that is available and there are many children who need and deserve good parents.

That's a very glib response. Adoption is an incredibly difficult journey and many of the children have significant extra needs. I don't think it's as easy as saying "oh just adopt" to anyone who can't have children.

Reproducing is a biological imperative, it's the reason we are here at an evolutionary level. I can't imagine how hard it must be to want children but not be able to have them. I'm not saying that means those people have the right to use others in order to have children but a little bit of compassion wouldn't go amiss. Not just a "well she can adopt".

The thing is, people who are dying from organ failure would really like to live, does this mean they are allowed to buy organs? No. The number of people waiting for kidneys outstrips the number of donors, and people actually die waiting for a kidney transplant. But we still don't allow sale of organs for money.

The emotional argument always centres on the adults too. What about the child? What if the child born of surrogacy is unhappy about it? What about their right to have a life free from emotional pain?

And I was infertile for many years and told I couldn't have children, I never would have considered buying one.

From what I can see given what's online, emotional outcomes for surrogate children as children are pretty good (via Wikipedia, can't easily link on my phone but can dig it out) but not much data on outcomes for them as adults not least as many have not yet reached adulthood, presumably as the practice being comparatively recent.

Really interesting to see the perspective of the poster here who has personal experience as the child, now adult. Their voice is really crucial, I'd like to hear more from them.

A child born of surrogacy cannot consent to the imposed burden of their unnatural conception and birth. They cannot consent to being denied the 4th trimester, which research tells us is very important to development.

It's possible that may scar them more emotionally than natural infertility which no one person has imposed.

Being infertile was shit, it would have been more shit if a person had foisted that state upon me. As it was it was just the luck of the biological draw (and luckily for me the doctors were wrong).

That is a desperate story Glitch and yet there is almost nothing to prevent this happening again.
In particular the fact that the "host" mum has learning disabilities, that they never met until they signed the surrogacy agreement, and that the agreement was just made up by them.
And of course the expenses - I am reminded of the current Archers storyline.

That's a very glib response. Adoption is an incredibly difficult journey and many of the children have significant extra needs. I don't think it's as easy as saying "oh just adopt" to anyone who can't have children.

It’s good I didn’t say ‘just adopt’ then isn’t it? You have a persistent problem actually reading people’s words and twisting them, it’s irritating. I acknowledged it’s difficult, I’ve said it’s an option.

You can’t imagine how hard it is to want children and not have them, well I know as I was in that position. My feelings aren’t more important than the basic rights of humans not to be exploited. It’s not a right or entitlement to have children. Reproduction is essential for the continuation of our species, that’s true. But we don’t have a global problem with finding fertile men and women do we, so that’s another irrelevant whataboutery point from you.

The number of people waiting for kidneys outstrips the number of donors, and people actually die waiting for a kidney transplant. But we still don't allow sale of organs for money.

What I find interesting in this comparison is you can altruistically donate a kidney and receive no information about the recipient, whereas in altruistic surrogacy this isn't the case.

MAR 06, 2019
Truthdig article by Julie Bindel
"A Surrogate Mother’s Cautionary Tale"
(extract)
"In a number of countries, including the U.K., there are moves to legalize commercial surrogacy, which would allow the surrogates to receive a fee, as well as expenses, and give legal rights to the commissioning parents. Lawyers and campaigners lobbying for such changes often use California as a “best practice” model. Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow, for example, a U.K. gay couple who have five children through surrogacy, now run the British Surrogacy Centre of California, which allows British commissioning parents to sidestep current U.K. surrogacy laws.

I asked Annie what she would like to see happen to educate potential surrogates about the realities of the experience.

“I want surrogacy to be illegal,” she says. “If I had known what I know now, I never would have done it.” (continues)

www.truthdig.com/articles/a-surrogate-mothers-cautionary-tale/

Im shocked MN posted such a clearly biased editorial at a time when UK surrogacy laws are under review. Its very clear elsewhere how powerful a lobby group there is to move UK laws nearer to US commercial ones. UK laws currently centre the rights of child, rather than 'commisioning' adults.

But we don’t have a global problem with finding fertile men and women do we, so that’s another irrelevant whataboutery point from you.

And I'm the one having a problem with basic understanding and twisting of words?

I wasn't talking about a global problem. I was talking about on an individual level. Why does a woman facing infertility care that globally enough people are fertile to carry on the human race?

And yes, it is glib to say that a girl facing infertility through illness should adopt, without once acknowledging the distress that she may feel.

If that were my dd I would be a surrogate for her in a heartbeat. Just as I would donate an organ to them if they needed it.

And yes, it is glib to say that a girl facing infertility through illness should adopt, without once acknowledging the distress that she may feel.

I AM INFERTILE! I also DID acknowledge how hard that is. I also didn’t say anyone SHOULD adopt, I said it’s AN OPTION.

I’m writing in capitals because you, as per usual here, completely and utterly misrepresent others actual words.

The reason I referenced global reproductive levels is because you mentioned it being a biological imperative. It is, but NOT on an individual level! JFC.

And again, the distress of an infertile person should not be prioritised over the exploitation of women’s bodies, the risk you’re asking other women to undertake, and the rights of the child. None of which you actually acknowledge or seem to care a jot about.

The reason I referenced global reproductive levels is because you mentioned it being a biological imperative. It is, but NOT on an individual level! JFC.

Of course it's a biological imperative on an individual level. What drives us to want to have children? The desire for an Instagram moment? JFC!!

And again, the distress of an infertile person should not be prioritised over the exploitation of women’s bodies, the risk you’re asking other women to undertake, and the rights of the child. None of which you actually acknowledge or seem to care a jot about.

You have no idea what I think so it's quite presumptuous of you to assume that you do.

Jessica, you mentioned you were able to have a child before infertility. People like my daughter don't have that opportunity to begin with.

SimplySteveRedux

Are you trying to say that it’s not a big deal if you already had a child? That’s rude and lacks compassion.

You have no idea what I think

Yes we do, you’re writing your thoughts here and have only one focus. We have every idea, since you’ve contributed quite a few comments. What a silly thing to say!