Radio 4 now - Surrogacy/Gay couples

[twelvecolourfulbirds]

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

Another relevant thread The Rumplestiltskin Law
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3606313-The-Rumplestiltskin-Law

I don’t think the powers that be actually care all that much about the needs of gay men.

I think that, just as with the T, the G provides a convenient Means to further the backlash against women.

There is a concerted pincer movement taking place against women, from both the right and the left, with the glorification of porn and prostitution as “work” for women, the removal of private space for women in public, the threats in the US to reproductive control, and the push for paid surrogacy — ALL of it works to drive women out of the labour force at a time when economists are predicting 50% unemployment rates in developed countries within the next 1-2 generations.

It’s very clear, from a bird’s eye view, how men of varying political persuasions want more women to receive economic support: as wives with no control of their own over reproduction, as prostitutes, as surrogates. NOT in direct competition with them.

I’ve just looked at the Rumplestiltskin thread and what strikes me is that if you look to America, the “buyers” seem to have far more rights than in other areas.

For example, over here, if someone is selling a pedigree puppy, they set all the rules. They say when you can pick the puppy up, they can insist you get the puppy neutered or breed it once it’s mature, they can rule that you can never sell the dog on or give it up without coming back to them first. The buyer doesn’t get to waltz in at the moment of the puppy’s birth and take it, the buyer doesn’t get to insist on how the puppy is raised prior to taking it home. We have these rules in place in the dogs best interest.

So why do mothers, who grow the baby, who nurture the baby, who give birth to the baby, seem to have less rights, less of a voice, than someone selling puppies? Why is the “buyer” the one setting all the rules rather than the mother?

Because the mother isn’t a person, she is a factory.

Marx said it: women are the means of reproduction, just as factories are the means of production.

The real contract takes place between the buyer and the leasing agent, and the contract stipulates how the factory is to perform in order to produce the quality object the buyer is contracting for.

It is the leasing agent and buyer who have rights. The factory only has duties to perform.

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

Well said Happy.

Deliberately causing a baby the trauma of loss of the birth mother is not good parenting. Also, the rights of the baby seem to be nowhere in this discussion (unlike in other countries, particularly those who've banned surrogacy).

On the matter of contract and non disclosure: the woman was talking to the person she gave birth for, so the contract that was preventing her from speaking was with the agency that introduced them, not the contract between "parent' and surrogate. I imagine you have 2 layers of contractual relations in these situation:

1. that between agency and surrogate. This might be an overarching contract that covers more than 1 birth. I imagine agencies don't want their surrogates whinging about how it all feels as that would be bad for business. Don't want to put off other surrogates, don't want to make parent clients feel guilty, don't want to bring bad publicity to your company;

1. that between surrogate and "parent" for the individual pregnancy and birth; which could include anything I guess, e.g., the requirement to only eat vegetarian food, to have a C section, to agree to filming, as with the example linked above.

This is one of the sinister aspects to surrogacy, the exploitation by middlemen agencies. Would that be allowed under UK law? How would it be regulated/policed? How would English law prevent unfair contract terms? How would they define unfair? Who would hold the balance of power under contract? Eg, if the parent wanted a 'no meat" clause, but the surrogate found they needed to eat it during pregnancy, would this clause be enforceable? What if the parents wanted to be present at birth, had this as a contractual clause, but when push came to shove (pardon the pun), the surrogate found this too distressing. Would NHS staff be drawn into contractual disputes if they enforced the surrogate's wishes?

What is it with the use of egg donors?

Is it for some legal purpose or does a woman giving birth really feel differently about their baby because it is genetically different? I somehow doubt it.

What is it with the use of egg donors?

Easy. The buyers do not want a biological connection with the birth mother. It makes the contract "safer" in the words of Dustin Black: there will be less chance of the birth mother winning a custody battle if she decides to keep the baby. Also they definitely do not want shared parenting. It completely shuts out the mother in every way.

And in the USA where egg donors are chosen from a catalogue they are likely to have excellent genetic attributes, college students finding a way to help pay their fees for instance.

The surrogate mother meh - a breeder class of woman. Just a walking incubator. Let's face it, intelligent successful career women will not be pursuing this line of work after all.

Anyone know if the surrogate is named as the mother on the birth certificate? Or is the egg donor? This is so complicated.

(Interesting other thread on the 'Seahorse' Dad who wants to be named as the father on the birth certificate so this would be the first child not to have a mother, officially speaking?)

Is anybody thinking of going to the Birmimgham event?

The buyers do not want a biological connection with the birth mother. It makes the contract "safer" in the words of Dustin Black: there will be less chance of the birth mother winning a custody battle if she decides to keep the baby

It's so disgusting really, because we are talking major medical procedures for both the surrogate mother and the egg donor, just to satisfy this legal nicety.

What is it about egg donors? Many healthy women who need to have their ovaries stimulated to produce the eggs they need because they have other problems conceiving will donate their eggs to couples with different problems. Is this wrong?

Many healthy women who need to have their ovaries stimulated to produce the eggs they need because they have other problems conceiving will donate their eggs to couples with different problems. Is this wrong?

I don't think it's wrong if they are being donated to a woman who will carry them and raise the baby herself. That way (a) her body is not being exploited and (b) the baby is not removed from the mother (I still see her as the mother, even if not genetically her egg) at birth, which must be hugely traumatic for a newborn.

The problem lies with surrogacy, not with egg donation in itself.

If you think egg donation is not a problem:

There is little research about how egg donation may harm the donor. The whole surrogacy experiment is a can of worms which doesn't take the health or well being of women or children into account. www.objectnow.org/surrogacy

I'm against get adoption let alone gay surrogacy! I think both are leaves from the same tree : women/mothers are irrelevant to babies/children and are expendable

Tens of thousands protested in Israel recently for gay men's right to hire a surrogate. The misogyny is unbearable

There might be a link between higher risk pregnancies to the mothers using donor eggs too as well as the risk to the donor

I don't think I've ever read so many posts I agree with on one thread. Just yes to everything you've all said.

Also, I really abhor the idea that if you aren't a surrogate/ intended parent then you aren't a "stake holder" in this. Part of the consultation is about allowing payment for surrogacy and also lifting the advertising ban on it. I have a daughter. I don't want her growing up in a world where she sees actual adverts persuading her to rent her uterus. The idea that people in her future might eye her up as good breeding stock is, and that this will be championed as progressive and pro gay rights etc, is appalling, it makes me shake with anger to think of it. So I consider myself a bloody stakeholder.

Will definitely try and make the Cardiff event!

BickerinBrattle 15:17

You are so right, I absolutely agree. It's terrifying.

thefirstmrsdewinter

Thanks for posting that. I don’t feel as though I got enough information from it, but I saw enough to realise that egg donation must be more risky for the donor medically than I was aware of.

A few years ago, I was pro-surrogacy (altruistic) but have changed my mind since learning and understanding more about it. It looks like I will be changing my view about egg donation once I find out more about that. I was horrified to see women claiming to have lost their own fertility and ability to have a family as a consequence of donating eggs.

I will ponder further what I think about women donating eggs which have been harvested as a “by-product” (horrible term) of their own fertility treatment. Or a woman being donated eggs from (e.g.) her sister, completely altruistically, with the sister being fully aware of all risks.

Also, I really abhor the idea that if you aren't a surrogate/ intended parent then you aren't a "stake holder" in this. Part of the consultation is about allowing payment for surrogacy and also lifting the advertising ban on it. I have a daughter. I don't want her growing up in a world where she sees actual adverts persuading her to rent her uterus. The idea that people in her future might eye her up as good breeding stock is, and that this will be championed as progressive and pro gay rights etc, is appalling, it makes me shake with anger to think of it. So I consider myself a bloody stakeholder.

Yes, this is awful. I feel as though we need to try and spread the word somehow, and get as many people as possible to fill in the consultation and attend the meetings. Should we see if WPUK are involved, or want to be?

There was a 17 year old girl in India who died from hyper ovarian stimulation ( I think it's called) from the drugs she was taking to donate her eggs . I will try to find the article

This is interesting:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127205858.htm