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?

DonorConceivedMe

And I think stories like yours should widen the debate to look at the impact of donor conception and adoption too as well as surrogacy.

I guess children who don't know who their father is may also be affected but society pays little regard to them.

How do you define altruistic surrogacy though?

Exactly. Paid surrogacy is illegal in Canada. It is all “altruistic”. It is still ripe for abuse, dishonesty, misogyny, and greed, usually at the cost of the surrogates and the babies.

I know of two families in my “circle” who used surrogacy.

One was a gay couple who used their “this is our dream” story to crowdfund costs to move their baby from one province to another (born with medical needs that required ambulatory transport) while not telling their donors they also were in process of buying millions in personal and commercial real estate.

Another couple had three failed adoptions before her 60+ year old mother acted as a surrogate. I don’t know all the circumstances of the latter as to how they agreed to that, but it was a high risk pregnancy. Baby is as far as I know okay but it could have gone very differently.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/01/couples-paying-60000-surrogates-despite-uk-system-reasonable/

There is no upper limit for 'reasonable expenses' it seems. So basicall, paid surrogacy is legal in the UK, despite what is claimed. The average seems to be 12-15k to be paid, but some pay much much more. These cases would be classed as 'altruistic', when clearly, they are not.

I know maternal death rates vary from country to country. The USA had a particularly high maternal death rate, the UK isn't so bad.
When death is a possible risk, I question why anyone thinks their right to have a baby is more important than a woman's life. Misogyny pure and simple and an utter devaluation of women as people.

I don't know that I find chance of death a convincing argument. My brother in law is a clearance diver, a very dangerous occupation. We don't generally stop people from being astronauts, arctic fishermen, underwater welders, or anything else, because it is too dangerous. Most of those jobs are almost exclusively male occupations, too.

I don't think that is where the issues around surrogacy lie.

Being pregnant and giving birth are not occupations.

I imagine the numbers of actually “altruistic” surrogacy are tiny. Mothers for daughters, or sisters for sisters etc. Even though commercial surrogacy is illegal here, “expenses” are allowed.
How many affluent and emotionally healthy women act as surrogates for strangers ?

Being pregnant and giving birth are not occupations.

That's the question, isn't it. Those who think they aren't don't think it should be allowed.

But it can't be the argument and the premise it's begging the question.

If risk of death is given as an argument for disallowing it as an occupation, it's reasonable to see how it compares to other sorts of occupations. tHe fact is, we don't stop people from getting paid for work that is very dangerous, can maim you for life, etc. We might put conditions on it but we don't say it is therefore not legitimate work.

If surrogacy is not legitimate work, that is not the reason.

Should have said, it can't be the question and the premise, or it's begging the question.

I guess children who don't know who their father is may also be affected but society pays little regard to them.

But this is not an intentional, planned, situation. If a couple splits up soon after a child is born (as mentioned upthread) this isn't the intention from the start. In surrogacy it is the explicit intention that the baby will be separated from it's mother at birth.

It seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges. Like if someone buys a gun, plans to kill a person then kills them that is worse than someone who accidentally runs over and kills someone - because of the intention and planning vs what is an accident and not intended.

It seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges.

That’s because it is. ‘What about these other people over here who also have it tough but don’t get enough help’ is a rather pointless and annoying derailment. We’re not here to fix everything right now, we are concentrating on surrogacy, a completely unique situation. I also think society actually has a lot to say about absent or unknown fathers and the effects thus has in children and in their adulthood.

It's really one-sided. Surrogacy is very exploitative - yes there's circumstances where it's truly altruistic but it's quite rare, most is commercial. The closest industry to can compare it to is prostitution, it's probably worse though! at least with the sex industry some do choose with complete free will to earn an income that way and you aren't locked into a "client" for 10+ months performing a "service" that still kills women every year even in high income countries. I'm not actually suggesting that surrogacy should be banned, more it needs way more regulation

We don't generally stop people from being astronauts, arctic fishermen, underwater welders, or anything else, because it is too dangerous.

I couldn't walk into one of these types of jobs tomorrow though if I found myself in dire straits. A woman with learning disabilities and desperate for cash isn't going to be offered a job as a deep sea diver. She was however offered 'expenses' to become a surrogate.

The point I'm trying to make is that highly skilled, trained jobs don't have the potential to be as exploitative as a 'service' that many women, even those who are disadvantaged or vulnerable, are able to provide.

Yes, I think there is a lot more potential for exploitation on many levels. And that can be a good reason to ban or regulate an industry. And for that matter so can the direct danger, if the work itself isn't important. So in that view the work might be legitimate but isn't worth the risks involved or the cost to manage them on a societal level. Enough so that it is ok to restrict people's freedom to do the legitimate work.

For me, the most important idea is totally diferent, I think it isn't legitimate work, that it comes down to selling, or gifting, children, as if they were possessions. Which more and more seems to be how our society thinks of children, but fundamentally it's wrong.

If you can't sell or give away a person the whole basis of surrogacy comes apart. In a way it doesn't with adoption which is about duty of care and how that is managed when the parent is unable or unwilling to take that on. It's really society and the state making accommodation to fulfil the needs of the child and his or her rights as a vulnerable citizen. It's not about the parents really, either the biological or adopted ones, its not done for their good, though that may be the accidental effect.

In surrogacy it's a transaction of a person created for that purpose, and separated from elements of their most intimate human relationships. All for the good of the adults making the transaction.

In surrogacy it's a transaction of a person created for that purpose, and separated from elements of their most intimate human relationships. All for the good of the adults making the transaction.

Absolutely, well said.

Transaction is a great word for it. A transaction takes place where the baby is the commodity being traded. How can that be ethical?

As has been shown, paid surrogacy is illegal but the loopholes regarding expenses allow it to go ahead. Even with the few truly altruistic surragacies the baby is still a commodity.

It seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges.

But why? People are putting forward reasons for objecting to it, but when it's pointed out that those reasons apply to other situations too the reply is "yes, but". As was mentioned above about there being a risk of death and injury - why is that unacceptable in the case if surrogacy but acceptable in say rock climbing? If someone willingly enters into surrogacy through their own free will why aren't they free to take on the risk?

Many of the objections that are being stated here apply to children full stop. Why are people less bothered that say, a child conceived following a one night stand won't know their father? The effect on the child will potentially be the same as a child born via surrogacy, or it might be worse because the child of a surrogate might well know all of the people involved in its conception and birth.

If you raise objections to something you can't be surprised if people ask why it's a problem in example A but not in B.

Often things are comparable in some ways and not others Nothing wrong with that. I think you can compare organ donation and selling with surrogacy in some ways. It's often useful when people try to take the tack that it is there body, they can do what they like, use it for any labour they like. Because no, there are reasons we restrict certain transactions around bodies. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that we allow people to make very risky decisions, even for fun, so why should surrogacy be different.

Comparisons like this are limited, but they often help make the question clearer. If we know its not so much that it is a dangerous job, what is it?

Transaction is a great word for it. A transaction takes place where the baby is the commodity being traded. How can that be ethical?

Exactly. This is a planned situation, not an intimate relationship, so there is no comparison to consensual sexual relationships between adults. It’s a transaction, exactly.

decomposibgcomposers

There is no 'Yes but' here. Adoption is fundamentally for the good of a child who finds themselves in a position where they need parents . Surrogacy is not for the good of the child because they don't exist at the point decisions are made. It is all about the needs of adults not children.

This is all besides the point. Can you buy and sell adults and children? No. Why can you buy and sell babies?

There is no 'Yes but' here.

The yes buts occur if you look at the concern about depriving a child of knowing its genetic parents for example. That could also happen with children conceived with a donor egg or sperm or even naturally, and this is sometimes intentional. If you raise that point you get a "yes, but"

Saying that the surrogate mother risks death or injury, yes that's true. As do altruistic organ donors. Again, that gets a "yes, but", but where's the difference?

As long as both are aware of the risks and are doing it of their own free will, what is the difference?

This is all besides the point. Can you buy and sell adults and children? No. Why can you buy and sell babies?

And I don't think you should be able to do it. The only form that I find in any way acceptable is where it is truly altruistic and done freely, with no obligation or coercion - in those cases I don't think there's evidence that it is harmful.

The bar for altruistic seems rather low when it comes to this