Surrogate dies in childbirth, leaves behind two of her own kids

[ConfessionsOfTeenageDramaQueen]

"According to the post, Michelle and Chris decided to help another family who wasn't able to have children after they were done having kids of their own.

Michelle was on her second surrogacy for the same family when she lost her life.

Like any other pregnancy, surrogate pregnancies involve the same medical risks of carrying a child and giving birth."

This makes me really angry. Link below.

www.foxla.com/news/california-mother-of-two-dies-giving-another-family-the-gift-of-life?fbclid=IwAR2RgBrXZnWZa1DES4PQWDYMifkY7YCpLy6WVEOoHj6cD145L9Xof1Iy4mI

@AnotherEmma

The article defines "gestational surrogacy" as a pregnancy in which the surrogate mother is not the biological mother ie it is not her egg

While she is not the genetic mother, I find it hard to say how the woman who grew and nourised the baby from her own body and then pushed it out of her body is somehow not the 'biological' mother.

To me it's a way of reducing the female role in reproduction to that of the male, ie as simply a supplier of genetic material.

100 years ago and before poor women would sell actual children. eg 3 year olds
They choose to do that too.
And it could be argued that gay male couples bought them to bring up a child.
Is this right too?

Traditional surrogacy is mentioned in the Bible so yes, it has a long history.

What similarities?

I was using it as an example of how a child can be born of one parent but raised by another, without the use of donor eggs or IVF and also of how an informal arrangement could be made if surrogacy were to be banned.

You mentioned 'partners' not women.

Can women not be partners then?

The mother is the person who carries and gives birth to a child.

So, in adoption, what is the woman called who adopts and raises the child? My understanding is that person is the mother and the woman who gave birth to the child is the birth mother.

I like that the man gets to be called father while the woman who is impregnated (the old fashioned way!), carries the baby and gives birth to it is not the mother.

I'm using the term father to denote the male person raising the child. If he had provided the sperm and the child was adopted and raised by another man (or woman) I would refer to him as the sperm donor. Further to your point though, who would you consider the mother to a child conceived using a donor egg and carried by a surrogate? Is the mother the person who supplied the genetic material or the person who gives birth?

Is someone who joins the armed forces making a free choice?

From teaching experience, the kids who join the armed forces at ground level tend to not have very many choices - academically, A-levels and glitteringly lucrative careers are out of their reach. The ones who are looking to join the armed forces after A-levels/uni are aiming for pilot or officer or engineer which I would expect comes with lower risk.

There was a drive recently to open to cadet units in disadvantaged areas with the argument that such children would benefit from discipline and purpose. That may well be true but the move was also criticised as an attempt to groom cannon fodder from less-well-off groups.

IcedPurple
Yes I see what you mean, I agree the correct word is genetic (not biological) - I was struggling to explain it!

MopsRUs

Traditional surrogacy is mentioned in the Bible so yes, it has a long history

Your point being what exactly?

I intensely dislike the sheer , massive sense of entitlement that it is an absolute right to have a baby, no matter what. Even without payment the baby is turned into a "must have" commodity or accessory

Thank you.

I don't really see the difference, though, to having a child without outside assistance, if it's about a sense of entitlement you feel childless couples might feel, or a desire to treat babies like an accessory, present or thing.

My aunt struggled to conceive naturally. She had unsuccessful IVF treatments, at huge expense and went through trying to adopt in the UK, then China. That impacts my views on this, seeing the impact on my aunt and uncle, when I was a child, and this just doesn't ring true for me.

I don't think she felt entitled to a child, or like it was a must have accessory or thing, or she deserved it. I think she was in genuine pain, akin to a physical trauma. She was grieving the loss of the babies she'd never have. Like an early miscarriage, but before conception, when what is lost is mainly the dream of the child and the future with it that could have been.

My aunt spent huge sums on trying to become a mother and to give a child love...but I can't say the emotions behind it seemed to me anything like those about a thing. This was something beyond material value to her, utterly priceless and irreplaceable.

I am not trying to change your mind, just that's partly why I come at this from a slightly different viewpoint.

The article defines "gestational surrogacy" as a pregnancy in which the surrogate mother is not the biological mother ie it is not her egg, she is impregnated with another egg (either the intended mother's egg or a donor egg). 1986 was the first time that happened.

But of course that's recent because technology didn't exist to create babies via IVF much before then.

Babies born to other women with the intention of being raised by others no doubt occured throughout history. I'm quite sure I've read about royalty doing this in the same way that they used wet nurses.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-335871/Surrogate-mum-dies-giving-birth.html

Its not an isolated case, sadly

I'm at a comp[ete loss as to why anyone would feel angry about this.
Sad, yes, but angry?

She chose to have another baby and died. This is tragic. That it was a surrogate baby is irrelevant!

I was using it as an example of how a child can be born of one parent but raised by another, without the use of donor eggs or IVF and also of how an informal arrangement could be made if surrogacy were to be banned.

Yeah but as several people have told you the comparison is daft because surrogacy involves the deliberate creation of a child with the intention of separating it from its mother whereas your scenario involves making the best of an unwanted and unintended pregnancy.

If you can't see the difference, I'm not going to waste any further time pointing it out to you.

In ancient times as mentioned in bible reference above, women were simply chattel /essentially slaves or property. That makes surrogacy wrong not right.

There does need to be legislation around surrogacy to protect all involved but one tragic case shouldn't inform that legislation

You cannot, repeat CANNOT legislate to protect all involved. It’s just not possible. All you can legislate is who gives up which rights and whose rights are deemed more important. One or more of the three parties HAS to lose out somehow and be prepared to accept that. In that case of the child, the third party, they have no choice in the matter.

It just isn’t possible to legislate surrogacy fairly for everyone. Which means you accept the fact that someone will suffer if things go wrong.

You can’t view surrogacy through the lens of how great it is when it all works out. You have to view it through the lens of every conceivable problem that could wrong and then come up with legislation to solve those problems. It just ISN’T possible.

In the UK there are surrogates from various backgrounds including some who are well-off, and some who aren't. They do choose to become surrogates. If they join a reputable organisation they are fully informed about the process and supported throughput. And since you mention skin colour, many are white.

"When rich white women become surrogates for poor people, then we will be able to call it a choice."

The idea that a woman who has gestated and given birth to a baby is not a mother, really does reflect a male view of the process.

Men can only do the sperm part, and genetic relationship has long been off extreme utmost important (with the result of massive harm to women and girls all over the world for as long as we know).

The concept of the important part of the woman in the process being providing an egg, and that the woman who carries and births the child has nothing to do with it, is a male view. Because sperm is all men do. Pregnancy involves a huge interplay between the woman and the baby. The baby knows her heartbeat, hears her voice. Her body is used to nourish the body and what she eats and does impacts on the baby. Etc etc.

The current way all this is being ignored in favour of egg, sperm is a totally male perspective.

Babies born to other women with the intention of being raised by others no doubt occured throughout history. I'm quite sure I've read about royalty doing this in the same way that they used wet nurses

Royalty would not have used 'surrogates' because any child not 'born of the body' would not be allowed to inherit.

Anyway, even if they did do so in secret, you can be certain that the mother would have been coerced and probably put under guard until she gave birth, Gilead style. So I'm not sure why you're using this as an argument.

Daisy7654

In ancient times as mentioned in bible reference above, women were simply chattel /essentially slaves or property. That makes surrogacy wrong not right

Thank you Daisy. MopsRUs seemed to using the point to argue surrogacy was fine.

Traditional surrogacy being mentioned in the Bible just shows that people with wealth and power always got what they wanted, including a child.

Sure, the Bible example is not at all how it should be done today. But it was just to confirm that surrogacy isn't a recent fad.

Sure, the Bible example is not at all how it should be done today. But it was just to confirm that surrogacy isn't a recent fad.

The type of 'surrogacy' you refer to was essentially a form of slavery. That's not a recent fad either. Doesn't make it OK.

Fad?

In the context of this thread where a woman has died, describing it as a 'fad' feels really inappropriate.

Traditional surrogacy being mentioned in the Bible just shows that people with wealth and power always got what they wanted, including a child.

It also shows that it isn't a recent invention, as some posters claimed.

The idea that a woman who has gestated and given birth to a baby is not a mother, really does reflect a male view of the process.

What term do you give to a woman who has adopted a baby? Is she not a mother? How do you differentiate between the woman who gave birth and the woman who raised the child?

The current way all this is being ignored in favour of egg, sperm is a totally male perspective.

An earlier poster raised the issues of children conceived using a donor egg and being raised by the woman who gave birth. In those cases the child was carried by the mother but apparently struggled when they found out that they weren't genetically related so pregnancy and birth weren't the only important aspects to those children. Genetic identity was also important. It's clearly very complex.

Well said iced purple Bible surrogacy was more raping a woman and then stealing her baby than actual surrogacy and certainly doesn't make it any more palatable. There is nothing modern about wealthy people getting what they want at the expense of poor people.

No - I definitely don't see surrogacy as a 'fad". My comments relate to earlier posts where people didn't know when it began. It seemed they were assuming it was recent. Fad was the wrong word and I'm sorry.