Famous men and surrogacy

[Annasgirl]

OK, so this is not to bash the specific person involved but last night I was heading to bed and a story came up on my phone - a person from Westlife was announcing the birth of their baby - through surrogacy (he is gay) and showed a pic of him, his boyfriend and the baby - there was no mother.

So, I totally lost it and poor DH had to listen to me rant for about an hour - but when, oh God, when, are we going to stand up and be counted and take back the rights of women and children?????

DH mentioned that there will always be women poor enough to agree to do this and I countered that you cannot sell a kidney (legally) or buy one so why should you be able to buy or sell a baby???????

BTW, DH agrees with me, but why do I feel I am the only person alive who is angry about this?

And I live in Wokesville (AKA Ireland) and I am worried that we are so keen to be woke and the most liberal place to be gay in the world, that we will soon legalise surrogacy or at least make it easy for people to legally buy a baby overseas and then take it home here. That is what the person was arguing for on his gushing post.

It will be women who have signed up to an agency who want to do it. Maybe because they enjoy being pregnant, maybe they want to give the joy of parenthood to someone else,

I find this bizarre.

I've never been pregnant, but if what I've heard is correct, very very few women find pregnancy and childbirth to be an entirely positive experience that they 'enjoy'. And I'd imagine this 'enjoyment' would be different if it was a baby you very much wanted rather than one you intended to give away and perhaps never see again after enduring the 'enjoyable' experience of pushing it out of your body.

Also, the fact is that very few people are prepared to put themselves out for complete strangers. Yet here you're saying that women sign up to an agency in order to inflict pregnancy and childbirth on themselves, purely to give the 'joy of parenthood' to strangers? Not having children isn't a life or even a health threatening thing, so it's hard to believe that women are queueing up to carry and birth children for complete strangers, purely from altruism.

"Abortion saves a woman from becoming a mother when she doesn't want to be. It can save her from poverty, from developing in her own life, education, career, or protect her from a difficult pregnancy and impacts on her existing family. It also prevents a child from being born so that person doesn't need to grow up as an unwanted child.

Surrogacy brings a life into the word, a wanted child, but for it to be removed from the one source of food, comfort, love and life it knows. It denies the baby what it knows and could also lead to a life of gaslighting where he/she doesn't know his or her biological origins. (There's a bit in the consultation where a person born of a surrogate can find out on a register if he or she is related to their partner!) "

Very poor arguments to be honest.

Pregnancy and having a baby doesn't stop you having an education or career. Stop telling women they have to abort their baby to have an education or career. I do not believe it still happens in the UK but if any employer still this day and age is refusing to hire/promote or an employer is firing a woman because they are or could become pregnant stop going along with this shit. Fight against it. That's not choice. No-one should be forced into an abortion for these reasons. Or because of poverty actually - that's economic coercion and a form of eugenics. Anyone having abortion for these reasons doesn't really want an abortion, their circumstances FORCE them to. That's nothing to be glad about. That's not "pro-choice" . Also, you know if she doesn't want to become a mother she can prevent it, and, an unwanted baby can grow up in a family who does want them and loves them immensely, it's called adoption. And regardless of what you reply, saying how terrible it is to be adopted, no dear, not buying it. I would rather be alive and adopted than dead. There are soooo many happyily adopted kids, and many people waiting wanting to adopt babies so also don't act like baby will be languishing waiting to be adopted. False. Stop trying to act like a child cannot have a happy life being raised by someone who didn't birth it, whether by adoption or surrogacy, that is a complete lie.

"and could also lead to a life of gaslighting where he/she doesn't know his or her biological origins. "

• so surrogacy shouldn't happen because some people may pick on the kid? the problem there is not the kid or their family or the surrogate, it's the one picking on them. You don't live your life based on if someone will pick on you or not.

U said this about surrogacy but it sounds like abortion, but with abortion you also kill it:
"removed from the one source of food, comfort, love and life it knows." "It denies the baby what it knows "

Don't pretend to care about babies and their comfort , food source and love, and "what it knows" implying an attachment formed with its mother during pregnancy if you support it being ripped, dismembered, and vacuumed out of the womb at any point during pregnancy. That's hypocritical.

"Body autonomy is essential for women to be in control. Making truly autonomous decisions about your body when you are vulnerable, or being persuaded or paid becomes difficult and sometimes impossible."

• stop acting like women can't make their own decisions about surrogacy . Assuming they are all vulnerable, being persuaded or doing it for money. How do you know a woman can make a "truly autonomous decision" to have an abortion?? With all the pressures and circumstances that can lead a woman to have an abortion, including the ones you listed, these abortions are NOT truly autonomous decisions.

No-one should support hypocrites, who pretend to care for the baby, claim it develops such a bond with the mother during pregnancy, talk about what it can hear from 18 weeks onwards , mothers heartbeat that calms it after birth , and recognising its mother's voice at around 24 weeks. But if the mother wants to kill it you think that's great, and the baby doesn't matter anymore, but if a mother wants to be a surrogate and give the baby to a loving family, you hate that. You claim it's selfish for the intended parents to want a baby , that it's selfish for the surrogate mother to give the baby to them, you plead "won't someone please think of the baby, and the bond it has created through pregnancy, it's so attached to the mother" , but if a mother decides she doesn't want the baby, she wants to kill it and dismember it with an abortion, you cheer for that, suddenly the baby doesn't matter one bit, somehow we don't need to think of the baby, it can't hear anything then, her heartbeat, her voice, the vacuum ripping it out of the womb, somehow apparently the mother isn't selfish for not considering the baby and killing her baby just because she wants to. The baby doesn't matter anymore. It's not even a human to you anymore. it's not even a fetus to you , it's "a clump of cells", until birth apparently. Magic. Go back to class. The separate human being in the womb apparently doesn't exist now. It's just part of her body like a kidney or other organ not a separate living unique entity inside her attached by a cord. Pretend it has no heartbeat or brain activity, pretend it isn t moving,.blinking and even sucking it's thumb, yeh it's true. Pretend spina bifida surgery can't be performed on it. let's pretend premature babies born when they are still at the age they can still be aborted don't survive. Pretend babies haven't survived abortion either. It's nothing, just "a clump of cells" , "her body". You know its not,.and that "her body her choice" can't apply when there's another body in there, unless you're happy and openly being a murderer. You know its legal murder, especially when the fetus is developing past 8 weeks but you have to rationalise this to yourself. As time goes on and medical advances, knowledge and imaging improves abortion will be seen as less and less acceptable. You're still in the dark ages. Strangely (unless.something goes wrong) the woman doesn't die when you kill the baby. But keep telling yourselves all that stuff if it makes you feel better. Lots of murderers in history have to dehumanise their victims first. The same baby only matters based on the thought in the mothers head. Wanted or not wanted. Same baby. If not wanted , die. You want us to believe that it's only human and only a baby the minute it pops out the vagina or c-section, before this it was nothing. Yaaaaah. Right. You still believe babies come from the stork? Ahh what's happening , does the clumps of cells magically turn into this at contact with the air? mobile.twitter.com/MEDlCALVIDOEOS/status/1096279143661088768

Just be honest, if a woman wants to kill her baby, you think she should be able to because it's inside her. At least this pro-abortion activist is honest mobile.twitter.com/VersoBooks/status/1136981132396957696 See also, www.thetimes.co.uk/article/yes-abortion-is-killing-but-its-the-lesser-evil-f7v2k2ngvf8

Strangely you are mad that someone is bringing a wanted baby into the world. Are you all just mad that these gay men love and want a baby that you would support being killed? I'd rather a baby be alive with loving parents than killed before it even got the chance to be born. Don't come and attack gay men and transgender people who actually want to love a baby that you wouldn't care about in an instant. act ing like these women are being pressured and used by the gays and transgender.

"They belong to your body, they feel safe with your body."
"They belong to their birth mother is all they know, instinctively, and is it proven time and again to be the safest place."
But if you want to kill them and rip them out, dismember, crush their skulls it's ok

Stop acting like a child cannot thrive if it isn't with its birth mother. That's total crap. Stop acting like a woman can't make a decision to be a surrogate, without some evil forcing her. Stfu. Patronising..homophobic, transphobic, hypocritical bigots.

Bye mumsnet.

Also... we're told that in commercial surrogacy (ugh) is illegal in GB, at least for now.

However, even if on paper the surrogate only gets her 'expenses' what's to stop a wealthy couple slipping her £10K (or even more) off the record? Like I said, I find it very very hard to believe that women undergo pregnancy and childbirth as a pure act of 'kindness' to complete strangers.

Bye mumsnet.

Bye to you too. Nice knowing you from your one and only post on MN.

Clearly some pro-surrogacy group has been alerted to this thread. And they think it's not blindingly obvious?

Bye Yallhy - have been too busy to reply and since you've gone I won't bother.

I do think women have body autonomy and can make their own decisions, but not ALL women sadly.

Babies? Babies can't really tell us what they think, at lest not with words. What does a cry sound like when they want to say "where's my mum, where has she gone, I miss her, why did she give me away?".

Does it sound different to a "I'm hungry" cry?

Clearly some pro-surrogacy group has been alerted to this thread. And they think it's not blindingly obvious?

I fear you're right Iced.

Pro tip for our new visitors. Try to make your post short and to the point.

Rather than a wall of text which goes "straw man, straw man, straw man, wah you're all meanies, goodbye."

(I also wonder whether the site is an American one, given that there seems to be a recurring theme developing of "spurious analogy with abortion, utterly unconvincing claim to be pro choice, sequence of anti abortion lines (rather giving the lie to the claim of being pro choice), then move to conclusion of 'see, you're not just meanies, you're hypocritical meanies.'"

Bye Mumsnet

Uh, buh bye.

For anyone who gives a shit, I’m totally infertile and absolutely, completely and totally opposed to surrogacy.

Still interested to know at what age it stops being acceptable to give away a baby though. A day? Week? Month? Year? They’ll just form a bond with their new primary care-giver, right?

Could be an American site - after all abortion hasn't really been a controversial topic in the UK (other than in NI) for quite a long time now. However, the links are British and I've not noticed any US spellings, which I normally do as they irrationally annoy me!

Bye mumsnet

I think ploppers should be deleted

Being fucking rude should be against guidelines

I’m not arguing against adoption or surrogacy btw just describing the evidence for optimal development. We know good enough is ok...

Ahh well Field I don't actually think breastfeeding is all that important. Feeding yes, of course, but breast or bottle is basically equal in a developed country with clean water.

No this is blatantly incorrect. And dangerous. For you to have written that basically discredits everything you’ve written as unreliable to my mind.

You have reframed Bowlby to erase the importance of breastfeeding. Bonding starts before birth and is widely encouraged (Solihull approach, unicef bfi etc).

The evidence is clear that human babies require human milk for optimal development.

Choosing not to bf increases the risk of poorer health outcomes for babies and mothers. That may be difficult for some to hear but it is factually correct evidence-based information.

You can improve af with eye contact, skin to skin, responsive feeding etc. But the benefits to the immune system and cognitive development etc. cannot be simulated with formula. Eg the way the fat content of breastmilk changes throughout a feed develops a babies ability to regulate its satiety. Paced feed is an improvement but not the same.

Human baby digestive system expects human milk as the biological norm, it does not cope as well with cows milk, it takes longer to digest and builds growth quicker than breastmilk. Because it was designed to turn calfs into adult cows. It’s not just about volume.

Breastmilk is a living fluid, nothing like processed cows’ milk. It populates the gut biome which together with the immune benefits confers life long health benefits. It is far more than just about clean water supply.

I won’t insult women here by posting links to evidence as this is well publicised and freely available.

Of those who are anti-surrogacy some will be pro-life and some will be pro choice. I doubt every single poster here is a vehement pro-choice advocate, or the contrary. As always there's a presumption that we're an amorphous blob of one opinion, it's just not the case.

There may be a separate discussion about whether you can coherently be pro choice and anti surrogacy... but this discussion has naff all to do with that. It's purely looking at the morality and consequences of surrogacy in and by itself.

Bloody hell! Have I stepped into a daily mail comments page?!! Can't believe how many are so anti surrogacy. A loving couple, one of whom is the biological parent , have a baby with the help of a woman, who, for whatever reason (in uk can't be financial incentive) chose to help. How is that wrong?

Many women are crap mums, giving birth doesn't automatically mean the baby will have a bond with the birth mother. In this case it will have that bond with its fathers.

All this talk of ‘what’s to stop a rich couple sending her extra money off the record’ type stuff is just bizarre.

What’s to stop a driver, driving drunk and running over a child? Conscience? Respect for the law?

We don’t say no one is allowed a licence because you might drink drive.

Let people make their own decisions. Why do people find it so hard to trust women and trust that they can make the right decision for them, and don’t need other people making decisions for them?

Her body, her choice, not your business.

If she’s enslaved/forced/blackmailed that’s a different story, already against the law and would/should be dealt with.

Do any of you who are against it, know someone who’s been a surrogate?

mypuddin and Taxtaxtax

I posted this a few pages ago and it’s gone unanswered. Could you try, given your pro-surrogacy stance?

I posted this on a thread a while back. I’d be grateful to those who are pro-surrogacy if they could tell me how they would address the conflict of rights in these scenarios. These are based on common things I see:

At 12 week prenatal testing it’s discovered the fetus has a severe abnormality. The surrogate wants to abort, should she be allowed to? What if the adoptive parents are religious and don’t want her to? What if the adoptive parents want to abort but the surrogate is religious and doesn’t want to? What if the pregnancy will threaten her life but the adoptive parents don’t want to abort? What if the adoptive parents decide that if she continues with a pregnancy resulting in a child with a severe abnormality they won’t have anything to do with it?

What if the pregnant woman has a major complication like a pulmonary embolism? What if she can’t return to full functioning afterwards? What if she can never work again as a result? What if she can’t look after her own family?

What if there is a conflict between parties about timing and mode of delivery? Who gets to decide? What if there’s a severe hypoxic ischaemic injury to the baby as a result of this decision? Is it anyone’s fault? Should a woman be forced to undertake a Caesarean section?

What if after a severe hypoxic ischaemic injury the adoptive parents decide they don’t want to look after a child with severe spastic quadraplegic cerebral palsy? Who does the baby belong to?

What if the pregnant woman developed gestational diabetes and didn’t look after herself? Ditto high blood pressure?

What if there’s an intrauterine fetal death? What if it’s discovered the pregnant woman smoked and drank? What if she ate something considered high risk? What if she undertook an activity deemed high risk? Should blame be apportioned? Could someone sue someone in this scenario?

What if, in the postnatal period, the birth mother develops severe postnatal depression or psychosis? Who looks after her? For how long? What if it stays with her for years?

What if the pregnant woman is group B strep positive? What if she doesn’t want antibiotics? What if she does but the adoptive parents don’t because they want everything natural? What if she’s given antibiotics and has an allergic reaction? What if she has a recurrence of previously unknown genital herpes? What if the baby has herpes encephalitis postnatally as a result? Is that her fault?

What if she develops antibodies to the fetus’s red blood cells or platelets? What if that results in invasive in utero procedures? What if she needs immunoglobulin as a result and has a reaction?

What if she has a severe postpartum haemorrhage? What if she needs a blood transfusion or two?

Basically, if harm results to the pregnant woman as a result of the pregnancy whose responsibility is that? Can the finances ever truly reconcile all eventualities? Can/should a pregnant woman be forced to undertake medical treatment if it’s in the best interests of a third party? What if what is in her best interests is not what is in the best interests of that third party?

Who pays for hospital parking? Who pays for petrol to get to appointments? Who attends appointments? What if there is another medical issue arises requiring confidentiality? Should a doctor disclose this information in front of adoptive parents present in an appointment? If adoptive parents are at appointments what pressure is there? Would the pregnant woman be able to openly disclose concerns? What if a doctor or midwife suspected there was coercion? Who would they report that to? What’s the burden of proof for coercion? How would the legal system address this quickly with an advancing pregnancy?

Any suggestions of how these potential conflicts in common clinical scenarios could be dealt with would be interesting to hear.

All this talk of ‘what’s to stop a rich couple sending her extra money off the record’ type stuff is just bizarre.

Not half as bizarre as the notion that women sign up to agencies, volunteer to undergo morning sickness, swollen ankles and all the various other side-effects of pregnancy, not to mention the almost inevitable pain of childbirth, simply in order to gift the 'joy of parenthood' to total and complete strangers.

Like I said, how often do people undergo personal sacrifice purely out of kindness towards strangers? Very rarely.

@NotBadConsidering I'd say that before the conception took place a contract covering all of these aspects be drawn up and agreed protocols be stated for eventualities. I don't think it can be a one size fits all document as different couples/surrogates may want control of different aspects, but as with any complex contract, it should be discussed and written up before the event takes place.

Just FYI - You say ‘pro-surrogacy’ I think it’s more ‘pro-choice’.
I wouldn’t personally be a surrogate, but I’m pro not taking other women’s choices away.

Surrogacy contracts do exist but are not enforceable by law. Whilst the fetus is in the woman’s womb, it is her choice entirely what she does with her own body and the fetus.

Pregnancy is a risk, we all know this and any surrogate entering it will be aware of that. Let’s not assume she’s a dumb child who doesn’t know that she may have a PPH or similar.

I would assume a midwife speaks to the pregnant woman alone at the initial appointment, as they do with traditional booking in appointments to grasp if there is abuse or similar. Who do Midwife’s report this too? I’d assume it would be the same people? The police?

In your scenarios, you appear to be acting as if the woman herself would be clueless and incapable of thinking of these things herself prior to entering into the agreement - is this your overall view of women in general or just when they decide to be a surrogate?

So you think it’s possible to draw up a contract for every available possibility? By doing that, one of the three parties - the mother, the adopting couple or the baby - gives up some rights. Do you think they should give up rights equally by a third? Or does someone get priority? If it’s not financial, how do you have a contract that protects a birth mother from lifelong disability and the financial loss that could result from a catastrophic incident?

My view is, worldwide, surrogacy takes advantage of vulnerable women. There may be occasions when a woman is fully consenting to all the risks and willing to undertake surrogacy. But I want to protect those vulnerable women who would see this as their only option and would take risks they might not otherwise take.

The “empowered woman” surrogacy argument is neglectful if the fact that most surrogacy to date has been poor women in developing countries used as baby making machines for rich westerners because life holds nothing else for them in terms of prospects.

And it’s naive to think that, if laws were relaxed in places like the UK around finances, it wouldn’t be poor women looking for a way out who would be at risk of exploitation. As someone said previously, if surrogacy is such an amazing gift, why aren’t rich, healthy women with access to amazing obstetric care, providing babies for poor women who can’t afford IVF?

So you think it’s possible to draw up a contract for every available possibility?

Surely no such 'contract' would be recognised in the UK.... at least not yet.

Like any other contract you can't list every possible outcome, what you use broad terms that cover wide possibilities.

As I said, it can't be a one size fits all so it's would need to be agreed and discussed prior to signing, and in those discussions/negotiations in some points one party will have the advantage and on other points the other party will have the advantage. As a surrogate you would I should think be aware of long term health risks , same as any pregnant woman. Maybe there's a gap in the market there for insurance companies?

Exactly. No such contract could ever been drawn up because of everything that can vary and go wrong with a pregnancy. Ergo, you can’t have a contract that’s enforceable, which means that someone has to give up their rights in the agreement. At some stage a birth mother will suffer. At some stage an adopting couple will suffer. At some stage, a baby will suffer. It’s inevitable. If you accept surrogacy, you’re accepting that, at some stage, there will be an aggrieved party and there is no logical way to reconcile the situation without immense harm one way or another. It’s bonkers to think every single surrogacy arrangement will be a perfect blend of female empowerment and a blissfully happy couple getting the baby they’ve always wanted.

For example, if I employ a roofer and they fall off the roof and become paralysed, the law and insurance would decide who would be liable.

If a nanny injured their back by picking up a toddler regularly should the parents be responsible? All can be covered with proper contracts and insurance prior to the event.

Like any other contract you can't list every possible outcome, what you use broad terms that cover wide possibilities.

"Wide possiblities" which cover permanent disability or even death?

No UK court would even look at such a 'contract'. Nor should they.