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.

That's what my point is, why should YOU decide that they can't?

I shouldn't. But the law should. And the law should never ever allow someone's selfish wish to have 'their own' child to take priority over human dignity and the wishes of a person's loved ones.

BTW you never answered my question - this is becoming a pattern - as to why a mother should not be allowed to sign a contract giving away her 5 month old to share the 'joy of parenthood'. After all, some women might choose to do this and why should YOU decide that they can't?

I’m pro not taking other women’s choices away.

Some people are all about freedom TO, not freedom FROM aren’t they?

And mypuddin, I can only hope you’re playing devils advocate. Otherwise.......Jesus

Lots of 5 month old child, and older , are adopted for many reasons.

I'm really not playing devils advocate and I'm as horrified at the views that oppose mine as they are to my views.

You’re cool with your brain dead sister being used as a human incubator?

Are you Charlie Brooker researching for the next series of Black Mirror?

Lots of 5 month old child, and older , are adopted for many reasons.

Evading my question yet again....

Sure, lots of children are adopted, but this is done through the state, and only as a last resort, and only with extensive vetting and interviewing.

You believe it's all up to the individual, so much so that (you claim) you'd be perfectly happy for your brain dead sister to be kept artificially alive indefinitly to provide gestational services to strangers. So why would you not also believe that a mother can give away her 5 month old to a stanger so long as she signs that all-important contract? No need for all that faffy oversight by the state? Who are YOU to tell her she can't, eh?

Lots of 5 month old child, and older , are adopted for many reasons

What about if the reason is that a rich person is really sad that they don’t have children and offers the child’s mother a bunch of money to take the child off her hands?

Because that’s what is being talked about here

I'm not saying I'd be happy with it, but if it was my brain dead sisters choice that that's what her body was used for, then whether I'd be happy about it or not is irrelevant to her choice of what she wanted to do with her body.

Now what I would consider an argument against allowing that is the issue of consent. Can a brain dead person consent and if consent was given prior to becoming brain dead, would the fact that because they are brain dead remove consent because they are no longer capable of physically withdrawing consent? Or should the consent be passed to next of kin etc.

I think the woman herself has the right to make decisions over what happens to her body, ahead of what the ‘people who love her’ want.

If she has made the decision that she’d rather keep life support on to keep the fetus alive, personally I think her wishes should be respected. I would be upset if it was my sister but if she expressed her wish then I wouldn’t go against that.

If she hasn’t explicitly said that, it goes to her next of kin to make the decision.

At no point should the parents have any say in the mother’s health unless she becomes incapable of making decisions and has explicitly said and signed something - even then I’d imagine it would be hard to uphold and it’s a very hypothetical question.

Surrogacy for money should be illegal worldwide, i think the UK has it right. Likewise people going to poor countries for surrogates, it doesn’t sit right. Altruistic surrogacy is no one else’s business but the woman and the parents.

It’s sad how little faith people have in women to make their own informed choices. No wonder we’re going backwards in this part.

Suggesting the law should change to prevent women from having a choice in what they do with their bodies, as if they’re too thick to decide themselves, does not sit right.

Any aspects that mean the woman does not have a choice in the matter, is already illegal in the UK. So you are, essentially, saying a woman shouldn’t be able to decide what she can do with her body and that makes me feel very uneasy.

Completely agree @Taxtaxtax

I'm not saying I'd be happy with it, but if it was my brain dead sisters choice that that's what her body was used for, then whether I'd be happy about it or not is irrelevant to her choice of what she wanted to do with her body.

Well, you were giving a pretty good pretence of being 'happy' with it for several posts.

Your attitude seems to be that legal contracts should cover everything - including the above horrible scenario - and that such things as the love of family members and a mother's unforeseen fierce attachment to her newborn are irrelevant in the light of such contracts. To the point that you see it as quite OK for your own brain dead sister to become an incubator so that multiple strangers get to experience the 'joy of parenthood'.

Sounds like a warped view of the world to me, to be perfectly frank. Thankfully, no UK court would consent to such a 'contract'. Some things just can't and shouldn't be legislated for, despite what you seem to think.

Some people on this thread seem to be all about the rights of the woman - what about the rights of the child?

And no it is not the same as the abortion rights question for the person who is going to raise that old chestnut - go back to page 16 where we dealt with it.

No answer to the difference between selling a new born and selling a 5 month old I see.....

I'd really appreciate it if people who know fuck-all about adoption stopped using the 'loads of lucky happy adopted kids frolicking about the fields of Britain' argument as a gotcha on this one.

Cheers.

So if there's no contract then surrogacy arrangements should be done on a handshake?!

My point is, that people should be free to enter surrogacy situations if they chose too , and if they chose to , all parties should enter into a detailed contract so that they all know exactly where they stand in different eventualities. What my personal view of what these strangers to me chose to put in their contracts is none of my business.

What you seem to think though, is that because you don't morally agree with surrogacy then no one should be allowed to do it. This is what I disagree with.

For the record, I have no children. 2 good friends and a cousin have all offered to be a surrogate for me, in full knowledge of what they would be putting themselves through. They all have more than one child. I have declined their kind offers, partly because I don't want to be put into some of those very emotive possibilities. But the fact is that there are some women, such as my friends and cousin, who , with their eyes open, would want to be a surrogate for me. I don't see why you get to choose what they want to do.

and as for the choosy choice argument (how fucking neo liberal can you get by the way?)

we've already established through the judgement I linked to upthread, that even in the UK, some women are incentivised with money to act as surrogates

why is it illegal for people to sell a kidney here?

why can't they choosy choice to sell an eye? It's their body after all. They know what they're doing with it. nothing to do with you or I.

So if there's no contract then surrogacy arrangements should be done on a handshake?!

it's amazing how the possibility of women's bodies not being commodities doesn't even occur to some people.....

I don't see why you get to choose what they want to do.

No I don't see why I get to choose what other people do.

However, the law does get to make that choice. Your friends would not be legally allowed to shoot up heroin, or walk around naked in a public place, or sell a kidney. Or all sorts of other things. One of the more inane and very faux feminist lines of argument in these discussions is 'Women can do what they like with their own bodies'. Thing is they can't. Neither can men. Freedom to 'choose to do what you like with your body' is not absolute.

I take it you also think your friends should be allowed to take all sorts of now-illegal drugs should they so choose? Because who are YOU to tell them not to do so?

It's not got anything to do with not respecting a woman's informed choice, because that "informed choice" potentially causes harm to the child. We don't allow people to potentially cause harm just because they want to. I'm sure many drunk drivers have never had an accident. But as others have said we don't make laws thinking of the good outcomes, we're thinking of the worst cases and the effect on all the people involved, and precedents set.

I know there are several strands to those of us objecting. The key one for me is that there's not enough long term research into adulthood about the effects of surrogate separation from birth mother etc. You can tell a child that a stork brought them or their mummy was a friendly oven, and that's all lovely, but adults have had longer to process things. We know adopted children frequently have a desire to find their birth parents when they're grown. It just seems inevitable the same will be the case.

It's about the potential for harm to the child.

I'd never thought of surrogacy as a negative thing, I thought it was wonderful and how selfless some women are to help couples.
I then had my own child.
I then recently saw the Westlife picture of the baby in the hospital wheeled crib being pulled along by the two men. It didn't matter they were men. It would have broke my heart seeing a man and woman wheel the baby away.
That poor baby, it's mother smell, her touch, her voice, her warmth, the skin to skin, her breast, her milk.
It absolutely completely broke my heart

@IcedPurple I wrote a lengthy post about how I feel each country should legislate so I'm not sure why you think, that I think, people should do what is illegal? At no point have I said that people should do anything illegal.

At no point have I said that people should do anything illegal.

So you believe that the state has a right to tell people what they do with their own bodies? Your previous posts suggested otherwise.

The talk of it not being best for the child... does your opinion change if it’s not two men?

If the adoptive mother is also the egg donor?

iced you’re just being goady now.
It’s clear that was not what was meant.

iced you’re just being goady now.
It’s clear that was not what was meant.

I don't believe I've interacted with you. Are you taking it upon yourself to speak on someone else's behalf?