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

@Barracker I think we do that because as significant as the act of giving birth is the act of raising a child from birth to adult is also a pretty significant undertaking. I think it’s done more to avoid feelings of diminishment amongst the adopted rather than just the erasure of women.

'IcedPurple the intended parents bond with the baby during the pregnancy as much as possible with regular visits, supporting the surrogate, attending appointments and so on. '

Except in this case of course where the mother is dead of course.

And there is a crowdfunder to pay for her funeral (and medical costs?). So not sure whether/ if the people who have the baby are still involved at all or just paid the agreed money, and went home with the baby.

Can you get insurance for this in USA? Medical costs are so high.

I'm not quite sure what a 'fertility lawyer' is but the article describes Ms Gamble thus:

Natalie Gamble is a founding partner of Natalie Gamble Associates, and surrogacy agency Brilliant Beginnings

In other words, someone with a vested interest in the commodification of women and children. How did you manage to leave that bit out?

you've been banging on about biblical precedents over several posts as if the fact it had always existed was some sort of bizarre justification.

No need to be rude. If people hadn't read extra words where they weren't there, I'd have only said it once. As has been pointed out many times, it was simply because someone thought surrogacy might be purely a recent phenomenon.

And there is a crowdfunder to pay for her funeral (and medical costs?). So not sure whether/ if the people who have the baby are still involved at all or just paid the agreed money, and went home with the baby.

Do you remember after the earthquake in Nepal a few years ago, the 'intended parents' - mostly gay couples from Israel - when out to Nepal to rescue 'their' babies, but left the mothers behind to fend for themselves?

I remember seeing pictures of them arriving at the airport with well-wishers clapping and waving 'It's a girl!' flags, and feeling slightly nauseated.

Yes I remember that well.

Ukraine, full of poor desperate women. It's a huge hub of prostitution, mail order brides and now surrogate mothers.

This is what makes me so mad about all the 'her body her choice' blurting in this context, and also in the context of prostitution. Choice doesn't happen in a vacuum. There is a reason Western European brothels are filled with Eastern European women and the reason is not that Eastern European women enjoy prostitution more than their Western European sisters. When you are dirt poor, you do not have much of a choice.
In this context I do wonder, what the economic pressures were on this woman to take the risk of surrogacy. And, whatever money was paid, you bet it won't be enough for her children's loss of their mother, even in strictly economic terms.
(And, yes, I doubt very much that anyone - let alone on the US West coast - would do that for free outside family. Economic pressures are way too strong for that to 'gift' this amount of lost potential earning time).
This is just wrong.

Do you think that policing should be banned as well? What about firefighting or motor racing? It’s very sad but many people are paid to risk their lives. Either all jobs with a risk to life are unacceptable or they are all acceptable.

Can you explain what your problem is with straight-forward IVF?

It is all part and parcel of
"gimme, gimme, gimme"
"I want so I must have"

Semen donation by donor is the most innocuous but it is just one end of the line until you get to what is in the link below.

The link below relates to a research project paying poor women to get pregnant so the fertilised embryos could be flushed out for research with the aim of making it easier to order up a baby.

I'm pro choice on abortion but what happened in this experiment is vile, immoral and indefensible. And it comes directly from thinking IVF is ok.

academic.oup.com/humrep/advance-article/doi/10.1093/humrep/dez242/5678546?searchresult=1

I'm not saying I agree with Natalie Gamble's organisation. It was just to point out that the situation in the USA doesn't necessarily preclude friendship.

Do you think that policing should be banned as well? What about firefighting or motor racing? It’s very sad but many people are paid to risk their lives. Either all jobs with a risk to life are unacceptable or they are all acceptable

Ridiculous comparison. Firefighting and police benefit society as a whole and are essential for the good of society.

Surrogacy benefits no one apart from the individual, massively entitled couples who think their selfish want trumps everything.

Selling your kidney to someone on dialysis would also be "seen as a good thing" but it's illegal.

You can donate tho can't you? I don't know about kidneys, but living voluntary donars exist. So is surrogacy only wrong if the woman is paid? What about if she does it for free, voluntarily?

Barracker
Very interesting point about animal v human surrogates.

I'm not saying I agree with Natalie Gamble's organisation.

It was a bit remiss of you not to mention it though, wasn't it?

And what exactly is a 'fertility lawyer'?

It was just to point out that the situation in the USA doesn't necessarily preclude friendship.

'Friends' don't demand that women give up all maternal rights to the child they are growing in their own body.

Absolute standing ovation for @thecatfromjapan from me. Spot on

Altruistic surrogacy is the same bullshit minimization that brought us the false concept of the happy hooker.
Total bollocks designed to make it more palatable. Neither exist.

Altruistic surrogacy absolutely does exist. People have done it for their family members for no payment before, how is that not altruistic surrogacy? Oh they must have been emotionally exploited somewhere along the lines, I mean they are a woman right...

I'm angry too OP. Women's bodies and babies are not commodities.

Women’s bodies are whatever they say they are.

This is very sad.

If people hadn't read extra words where they weren't there, I'd have only said it once

You mentioned biblical once but you were going on about it having a long history in 4 posts. What your point was beyond was some sort of weird justification that it has always happened isn't clear.

Surrogacy is as old as the hills

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

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

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

Fieldofgreycorn

What about the baby?

It is all part and parcel of
"gimme, gimme, gimme"
"I want so I must have"

This is your explanation? You sound heartless. I fail to see why the ethics of embryo experimentation in Mexico should mean that childless couples in the uk shouldn’t have a chance at parenthood. You can have one without the other you know? I’m pro-choice on abortion too, but only up to a certain gestation. By your logic, we should all be anti-abortion because allowing it at all is a ‘slippery slope’ to infanticide!

Even without payment the baby is turned into a "must have" commodity or accessory

Why does a baby suddenly turn into a ‘commodity’ just because a woman needs help to have a baby. It’s still the same want. You’re playing with semantics.

What about the baby?

What makes you think there would be a bad outcome for the baby?

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

You mean Rachel and Leah? Where the slave was raped by the husband and her baby stolen?

"someone thought surrogacy might be purely a recent phenomenon"

Surrogacy as we know it - namely, gestational surrogacy - is a recent phenomenon.

The thing which is apparently called "traditional surrogacy" I wouldn't call surrogacy at all, it seems more like enforced adoption or slavery to me. A real life Handmaid's Tale.

I cannot imagine why a woman would willingly and intentionally conceive, birth and give away a child which is biologically hers in both senses of the word - genetically and because she physically bears the child.

(Unplanned pregnancies resulting in adoption are different.)

I struggle to understand why a woman would be a surrogate at all, but if conceiving with the intention of giving the baby away, it would seem logical to me to use an egg which is not your own, to help you see the baby as "theirs" not "yours".

What makes you think there would be a bad outcome for the baby?

there is some evidence that surrogacy can have a negative on the child. it's in the surrogacy resource thread.