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

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

I didn’t say there would be a “bad” outcome, but it’s certainly not the ideal outcome for a baby. Surrogacy intentionally creates a situation where there is going to be trauma for the baby. To me, that is not desirable.

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

Removing a baby from it's mother at birth is harmful. You are disrupting the attachment that builds in utero. It's a primal injury.

Present day UK traditional surrogates aren't 'slaves' and they aren't 'forced' to become surrogates. There have been many, many successful, happy arrangements taking place in Surrogacy UK for example, which is based on altruism and friendship.

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

No surrogate would go into it in order to have another child themselves. In nearly all cases they've completed their family already. They don't see the baby as 'theirs', they consider themselves to be taking care of the baby before giving it back to its parents.

You sound heartless

I really don't care

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

Really? I find it quite astonishing that you can't see that the results of that vile experiment will get incorporated into mainstream infertility treatment. That is what the intention is. The word "Nazi" gets thrown out far too often but that experiment is every bit as bad as the experiments Nazi doctors carried out.

But hey ho, if paying a poor woman in Mexico to get pregnant, stripping the embryo (and actually why not call it a baby?) out of her and killing it makes it easier for a UK couple to order up a baby why quibble?

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

Generally speaking, we avoid separating a newborn from its mothers at almost all costs. This is true not just for humans but animals too. Critics of the dairy industry point to the enforced separation of calves from their mothers as a form of cruelty - which it is.

But with surrogacy, a child is created with the explicit intention of separating it from its mother at birth. Do all the negative effects of such an act magically disappear just because adults get what they want?

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

Well said Emma. Adding "traditional" is just a prettyifying whitewash.

No surrogate would go into it in order to have another child themselves. In nearly all cases they've completed their family already. They don't see the baby as 'theirs', they consider themselves to be taking care of the baby before giving it back to its parents.

You really love the twee language, don't you? And you're still speaking on behalf of all 'surrogates'?

If they're just 'taking care of the baby' (and not, you know, growing it from their body, sharing its bloodstream and then pushing it out of their body) why do we need a woman to do this job? Why couldn't a man 'take care' of the baby too?

stripey
Thank you for mentioning the resource thread. Just looking at it now.
Tbh I am astonished that "traditional surrogacy" is happening and that the new consultation proposes removing the requirement for at least one of the intended parents to have a genetic link with the child (ie by providing egg or sperm).
I thought that being able to have a genetic link with the child was THE WHOLE POINT of using a surrogate. Otherwise why not simply adopt a child?! Or is there a short supply of cute newborns for all the people who want to bypass the adoption process and get a readymade newborn as soon as possible?!

"a woman needs help to have a baby"

She isn't 'having a baby'.
Another woman is.
She's planning to continue to convince the mother to give up her maternal rights after she's given birth so that the baby can then be removed from its actual (and legal) mother.

Using obscuring language and euphemisms like "X is helping someone have a baby" instead of "X is having a baby. She plans to relinquish it after it's born"; "we're pregnant" instead of "she's pregnant" all diminish the role of an actual mother. Which begs the question. Why is it so important to use such obscuring euphemisms?
If this practice was as acceptable as its advocates claim, then why not call a spade a spade?

The comforting lies we tell ourselves to justify our actions.

On the subject of outcomes, recent studies (link) have shown that there are no major psychological differences between children born through surrogacy and those born after other assisted reproduction techniques or natural conception.

@MopsRus

You seem to be doing a lot of hasty googling on this thread, without neccessarily reading the links you post.

Did you miss where it said "Most studies reporting on surrogacy have serious methodological limitations" and "However, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution. To date, there are no studies on children born after cross-border surrogacy or growing up with gay fathers"? The same way you 'missed' that the 'fertility lawyer' you quoted actually had a business interest in promoting baby buying?

I really don't care
Well that says it all doesn’t it

Really? I find it quite astonishing that you can't see that the results of that vile experiment will get incorporated into mainstream infertility treatment. That is what the intention is. The word "Nazi" gets thrown out far too often but that experiment is every bit as bad as the experiments Nazi doctors carried out.
Don’t be ridiculous. There have been hideously unethical experiments carried out in all areas of medicine. Medical research is a continuum, and sadly many modern drugs and procedures have been developed through unethical practices. But that’s not a reason to stop using them. I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying the Mexican experiment was ok or didn’t matter. But given that the HFEA has no jurisdiction in Mexico, what do you suggest is done?

No surrogate would go into it in order to have another child themselves. In nearly all cases they've completed their family already. They don't see the baby as 'theirs', they consider themselves to be taking care of the baby before giving it back to its parents.

And you're still speaking on behalf of all 'surrogates'?

I've never said that, so please don't make this assumption. I'm not speaking "on behalf" of anyone. However, that's how things work with a reputable altruistic organisation in the UK, and the information is openly available.

And yes, "growing it from their body, sharing its bloodstream and then pushing it out of their body" IS taking care of the baby until it meets its parents.

However, that's how things work with a reputable altruistic organisation in the UK, and the information is openly available.

How are you so sure they're 'reputable' and 'altruistic' after a quick Google search? As I've said before, they want to change the law so that mothers are deprived of rights to the children in their wombs. Doesn't sound too 'altruistic' to me.

And yes, "growing it from their body, sharing its bloodstream and then pushing it out of their body" IS taking care of the baby until it meets its parents.

Right. So that's why roughly 50% of 'surrogates' are male, correct? Because why should only women be asked to be so 'altruistic' if this whole surrogacy lark is nothing more than extended babysitting?

FFS.

I didn’t say there would be a “bad” outcome, but it’s certainly not the ideal outcome for a baby

Babies are born into many situations where there isn't an ideal outcome for the baby. Is being born to a surrogate worse than being born into an abusive family, or into poverty, or to a drug addicted mother, or to a mother that's emotionally detached or any number of situations where the child is likely to be harmed? Surely the outcome of a child adopted at birth to decent, living parents is going to be better than a child who remains with its mother but is neglected?

I'd rather a child be so very wanted than a child conceived by accident to indifferent parents.

Iced, actually the link was in connection with comments on UK surrogacy, not cross-border surrogacy. Surrogacy for gay male couples has only been legal since 2010, so at the time the other studies were made, the statistics weren't available.

There have been a lot of negative myths about surrogacy repeated on this thread, based on gut reactions and misinformation. Of course, there are negative surrogacy experiences in the world. No-one would deny that for a minute, least of all the ethical groups who wish to see things done properly for the benefit of all.

In the right context and with the right support surrogacy can be a wonderful thing. In this country there are some charlatans, of course - but in the main, there are many dedicated, caring people who favour ethical surrogacy.

If anyone wishes to find out more, then there's the Surrogacy UK Facebook Group at www.facebook.com/SurrogacyUK.org/

Babies are born into many situations where there isn't an ideal outcome for the baby. Is being born to a surrogate worse than being born into an abusive family, or into poverty, or to a drug addicted mother, or to a mother that's emotionally detached or any number of situations where the child is likely to be harmed?

Sorry, but you are continually showing that you don't grasp the fundamentals of this discussion.

Yes, lots of babies are born into situations which are very far from ideal. However, since women are allowed to become pregnant even if their circumstances are very imperfect, there is little we can do about this. However, with surrogacy children are created with the express intention of separating them from their mothers at birth, something which, as I mentioned above, we try to avoid at almost all costs in other contexts. Why is this done? To meet the selfish wishes of the 'intended parents' to get their 'own' baby asap.

But the fact that you are comparing surrogacy to being born into an abusive family is kind of telling.

If anyone wishes to find out more, then there's the Surrogacy UK Facebook Group at www.facebook.com/SurrogacyUK.org/

Are you promoting this group? You seem to manage to find a way to bring it into every post.

But since you're obviously familiar with said group, can you tell me, just as a matter of interest, how many men they have on their books who 'altruistically' choose to 'look after a baby until it's born'?

I wasn’t saying the Mexican experiment was ok or didn’t matter. But given that the HFEA has no jurisdiction in Mexico, what do you suggest is done?

It matters because it will become part of mainstream infertility treatment. I have said several times I would ban this type of research and I would ban surrogacy.

The article was published on a website called Oxford Academic. You think it won't be become mainstream and accepted? And for what? Infertility falls well within the category of "deal with it and get on with your life"

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

So very wanted they are prepared to risk the health and in this case life of another woman to get it.

Yes that's beautiful.

Iced has it. Surrogacy intentionally creates a traumatic situation for the baby. Intentionally.

Mops negative myths? It is not a “negative myth” to say that surrogacy is not good for women and babies. I’d say that was demonstrably the case just by looking at how many countries ban it outright.

I wasn’t saying the Mexican experiment was ok or didn’t matter

So what is your view?

Are you quite relaxed about poor Mexican women being paid little more than a pittance to be impregnated, have the baby (and after all that is what surrogacy procedures produce so let's call it a baby) forcibly removed, killed and tested to try to find a way to make it easier for rich people to have babies?

Your point about it happening in Mexico is beyond irrelevant. The experiment has happened, its results are known and will be used.

Yes, lots of babies are born into situations which are very far from ideal. However, since women are allowed to become pregnant even if their circumstances are very imperfect, there is little we can do about this.

So when outcomes for babies born to surrogates are researched who are they measured against? Who is the control group by which these children are judged to have faired better or worse?

So very wanted they are prepared to risk the health and in this case life of another woman to get it.

Also, it's still pretty rare but among elite classes in the US, it's becoming more common for women to have babies through surrogacy not because they are infertile, but because they can't be arsed to go through pregnancy themselves and can afford to pay another woman to do it for them. Lucy Liu said openly that she had her son via 'gestational carrier' because she was 'too busy' to get pregnant herself.

Although it's only a tiny number of women choosing this route right now, what if employers put pressure on women in high-powered jobs not to 'waste time' with all that pregnancy and childbirth malarky when they can get a poor woman to do that for them? I know it sounds a bit extreme now, but Gilead didn't happen overnight either.

So when outcomes for babies born to surrogates are researched who are they measured against? Who is the control group by which these children are judged to have faired better or worse?

I'm not sure why you're asking me this question but I would expect for any such study to be reliable they would have to be measured against babies born into a variety of circumstances and tracked over several years. Very hard to do, which is why there are few reliable studies on such matters.

But you again miss the point spectacularly - we live in an imperfect world and babies will be born into imperfect circumstances. However, we don't go out of our way to create babies with the express and unavoidable intention of being born into less than ideal circumstances - except when it comes to satisfying the selfish desires of adults in surrogacy.