Radio 4 now - Surrogacy/Gay couples

[twelvecolourfulbirds]

On now. Supposedly focussing on the surrogates rather than the gay couples.

The reporter and his husband paid a surrogate via an agency. I think she said her contract doesn't allow her to talk about the toll on her body! Need to listen back to that bit.

Surrogate lady said that with a previous couple, they just dropped her because she had a medical problem and she didn't hear from them again. Left heartbroken.

Says that as it wasn't her egg she carried, she just felt like.a babysitter for 9 months!

Apparently the embryo was just "popped in"

The gay couple had skin to skin, not the surrogate. She didn't care about this, was just happy it was over. She didn't feel it was her baby. She says, "It was all your guys experience". She's adamant it wasn't her baby. She had no motherly instincts or bond (unlike with her own kids).

This is a BBC propaganda piece, isn't it.

She may well have disassociated from the baby but the baby hasn't from her.

It takes a lot of work by social services to remove a baby at birth from a potentially dangerous situation because babies are better off with their mothers.

She's carrying again for another couple. Then is willing to do one more and agreeing to do this with the reporter and his husband. She will keep going to the age of 41, she thinks. She gets a lot of joy from the experience.

And that's it. No balance to hear any other experience that's not as rosy, but the programme is a short one called One To One, so I guess it is about an inherently biased personal experience.

I think there's something very disturbing about a birth mother saying she felt so dissociated from the baby she carried.

I wonder how these kids feel knowing that their mother couldn't wait to give them away?

I need to listen back on iPlayer. If it's true that she is contractually unable to talk about the physical toll, I think that's what I heard, that's very telling about the whole surrogacy "industry".

She may well have disassociated from the baby but the baby hasn't from her.

This.

Surrogacy has a lot of issues and many of the negatives have been explored on tv (in particular see if House of Surrogates is on a streaming service. I'll listen to this later but mostly media is anti surrogacy in the U.K. or neutral

She may well have disassociated from the baby but the baby hasn't from her.

Well quite, nobody ever seems to think of the effect on the babies. To be fair, I had zero feelings for by eldest for about a year. Despite a lovely pregnancy during which I felt like a lioness, and I felt like she was my little pal, I had a really long and traumatic birth experience which left me very depressed. However, I bloody well faked it until I felt it to ensure my baby felt the bond.

They're really ramping up the propaganda in readiness the the consultation in autumn.

Some public meetings this week and next, I've signed up to go to the one in Cardiff next week.

I shall be interested to know what compensation is planned in the event of death of the surrogate.

Not sure that it matters that, in the past, this country has had a negative view of surrogacy. The discourse has shifted. Gay couples, in particular, male gay couples, are feted in the media, something that would never have happened even 10 years ago. There is a huge amount of hand-wringing about the falling birthrate, especially in mainland Europe. Women's bodies being viewed as a legitimate economic and social commodity is at an all time high in modern times. Programmes like this are part of the slow drip feed. Nothing to see here.

Link. It's a long consultation. I plan to devote most of this weekend to working through it.

s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2019/06/Surrogacy-summary.pdf

Sorry, that should have been male gay couples who are fathers via surrogacy. Nowt wrong with male gay couples per se, very happy for them to be celebrated!

X post with FannyCann. Yes, they are softening up the public with these pieces.

This. 60,000 (mostly gay men I assume) marching for the right to use women as walking incubators and buy babies.

slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/tens-of-thousands-protest-in-israel-over-denial-of-surrogacy-rights-for-gay-men.html

Fannycan it looks as though only “stakeholders” (i.e. surrogates and adopters) are being asked for their views?

Honestly I think it is intended to be discouraging to general public comments.
I was a midwife for twenty years, I'm a mother of two daughters. I work in the NHS. I count myself a Stakeholder.

I oppose surrogacy in all instances full stop.

However, in so far as this is a review of the law and there seems to be no discussion of banning it full stop then I have many concerns.

One is the financial and service implications for the NHS. For instance whilst egg collection (donation/sale) will be done privately presumably, who picks up the pieces when there are complications? NHS of course. I recently had dealings with a young woman who ended up in ICU and nearly died as a result of complications of egg retrieval. (For her own use).

I am waiting for finalised cabinet reshuffle to write letters to a range of people like the health secretary and plan to gird my loins and visit my MP. He may be a massive snobby misogynist but he's also staunchly Catholic so I would expect him to be anti surrogacy in principle.

FannyCann, what is the thing in Cardiff ?

It's not on Iplayer. The journalist/father asks the surrogate whether the money was important? Was it fair compensation? Did we pay enough? How much di you think about all of that?

She replies:

"Going into it, the money was not the reason why I do (sic) it. Don't get me wrong, money is a good perk; and it's definitely not anywhere near what having a baby is worth, the toll that it puts on your body, you know, having a baby really is, it's priceless. People ask me all the time but contract wise, I'm not allowed to discuss any of that."

And then the presenter/dad moves swiftly on...

So, totally glossed over the "grubby stuff" - the commoditisation of women's reproduction capacity, the toll that might take, her own feelings. All discussion of this embargoed by "contract". But lots of discussion about how she's happy to be giving the gift of parenthood blah blah. So. not really a programme about the surrogate, is it?

How many desperate for money women will go through this and not be able to discuss the real price because of contract (which I presume means a non disclosure agreement). Law being used to silence women.

It's now in Iplayer!

Next week's programme is the same bloke on "Being a Gay Dad".

I haven't heard the programme but they way you're describing it sounds a lot like sex-positive pro-prostitution gabble.
A woman who 'gets a lot of joy' out of fulfilling men's desires but feels no connection to/ownership of the experience or desire to participate in any way that is not entirely passive. Surrogacy described as an industry, like it's an established, productive entity.
I don't understand how you can get a lot of joy from an experience that you've also described as not belonging to you. The narrative is all over the place: it's not emotional, purely a business arrangement, no connection with the baby, but also joyful. So I guess the joy is in doing what these total strangers have paid you to do?
And don't get me started on pay being described as a perk.

thefirstmrsdewinter absolutely!

It is all part of the same narrative, which is all about making men feel better - or the exploiter, of either sex, who has the resources to exploit a female with a need, i.e., money. It suits the narrative to say that the woman suffers no harm, that she is doing it altruistically, that she even takes joy from it, but feels no personal pain, be it physical or psychological. To me, it goes hand in hand with the normalisation of sex work.

But if you were a casual listener, if you weren't listening to what she is not allowed to say, if you hadn't thought about the issue, then it would be, "Ahh, bless them all."