Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

676 replies

ConfessionsOfTeenageDramaQueen · 18/01/2020 07:31

"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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
PlanDeRaccordement · 18/01/2020 16:52

Iced purple

Plus, surrogacy is different from the examples you mention as it involves the creation of an innocent child who did not ask to be born with the intention of being taken away from its mother at birth.

No child asks to be born. Every child is taken away from its bio mother at birth it’s called cutting the umbilical cord.

Only some children are given back to the bio mum hours after birth.

The bio mum isn’t always keeping the baby?

noblegiraffe · 18/01/2020 16:59

Should we not allow people to choose to eat unhealthy foods because of diabetes and obesity being the #1 cause of cancer?

What do you think the aim of the sugar tax is?

The slippery slope argument doesn’t wash when we have had plenty of choices curtailed by successive governments since forever and yet we do not live in a totalitarian state.

Nemosnemsis · 18/01/2020 17:08

Yes , let's treat women like brood mares.
🤦🏻‍♀️ Good grief. You know perfectly well that I only mentioned animals to explain why this particular paper will have no impact at all on current IVF practices, as you kept bringing this possibility up.

I don't think you have understood the report. The point was to research whether humans can be used as brood mares for the extraction of embryos. To test that human embryos were deliberately created, implanted and then destroyed.
I suspect I understood a little better than you did. Look, you don’t agree with this bit of research. Fine. I don’t agree with it either. There is a hell of a lot of research that’s gone on that I don’t agree with sadly. Let’s set up a pressure group and lobby the Mexican government or something. Why punish childless couples thousands of miles away?

ConfessionsOfTeenageDramaQueen · 18/01/2020 17:10

Obviously can't reply to all points but reading with interest. @MopsRUs, you write: "Non-surrogate pregnancies are also risky. Why did anyone here have more than one child, when a second/third/fourth pregnancy could have had a tragic ending?"

If someone here was offered $80,000 to have a second/third/fourth pregnancy - say by their husband or their mother, desperate to have more grandchildren - would you find that acceptable?

It is patently not the same as deciding to have more of your own children. What is particularly sickening in this case is that it was a second child for the same "purchasing" family - so you can't even argue she was allowing them to experience parenthood. They already had with the first baby they (presumably) bought from her.

Utterly tragic.

OP posts:
ConfessionsOfTeenageDramaQueen · 18/01/2020 17:14

@ClumzyOwlz You're not wrong. This is about sperm donors but I think is extremely telling about the Frankenstein industry we've created out of IVF. People so rarely think of how the donor children will eventually feel - it's all about MY RIGHT to have a child.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/magazine/sperm-donor-siblings.html

OP posts:
FrogsFrogs · 18/01/2020 17:17

'We are merely babysitting for nine months,'

Does babysitting come with risks of physical damage, possibly long term or permanent, Risk of mental health issues, risk of death.

No. This babysitting idea utterly glossed over the reality of pregnancy and birth. If it's just babysitting why do women need checks? Why are there scans? It's a nothing. Just like sitting in a house for a couple of hours and making up a bottle and changing a nappy.

The desire to minimise/ invisibilise the reality of pregnancy and childbirth, while it comes from a different place, is exactly the same as the anti abortion 'just have it adopted' crew.

FrogsFrogs · 18/01/2020 17:19

'Every child is taken away from its bio mother at birth it’s called cutting the umbilical cord.

Only some children are given back to the bio mum hours after birth.'

???

All over the world in the vast majority of cases of course the baby is with its mother :/

PlanDeRaccordement · 18/01/2020 17:20

Yes, but mothers choose to risk their lives every day.

  • extreme sports/athletes
  • cycling to work
  • serving on police force or armed forces
  • being an aid worker in Africa
And so on. Being a surrogate is merely one way in which a mother can risk her life for a pay check. Why should we ban surrogacy when there is actually less risk of death doing that than any of the above choices?
ThinEndoftheWedge · 18/01/2020 17:20

Maternal death is the biggest killer internationally of women and girls of child bearing age. 67 mothers a year die in the UK.

There is a reason why people more often go to the poorer countries... women need the cash.

Exploitation...

FannyCann · 18/01/2020 17:20

Oh thank you for that PlanDeRaccordement
That sounds interesting, I will look for it.

FrogsFrogs · 18/01/2020 17:21

There was a period in the ?50s and for a while where medical establishments took the baby away into a nursery, bringing it for a feed. This certainly doesn't happen in UK and hasn't for years. Many women don't give birth in hospital. This is a blip (imposed on women) which is not the norm globally and historically.

PlanDeRaccordement · 18/01/2020 17:29

Thinedge of the world,

No, childbirth is not even in the top 10 causes of death worldwide.

www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 18/01/2020 17:31

Someone upthread said that in a normal pregnancy the existing children are exposed to risk - yes, but also to benefit. At the end of the pregnancy, if all goes well, they'll have a sibling. That's a benefit.

Not only is being a surrogate risking a mother's health unneccessarily and exposing existing children to a risk of a parent dying or becoming permanently disabled, it also exposes them to the risk of seeing their parents give away what to them will seem to be a sibling and possibly make them feel insecure - if one baby can be sold, can they be sold and easily given away? I honestly think that it is totally unfair to existing children to be a surrogate. Given that I also believe that no woman who has not been pregnant can give informed consent to being a surrogate that means that logically I have to oppose surrogacy in it's entirety.

I notice in the article there is a go fund me to help this poor woman's husband and the kids plus also pay funeral costs. There should be at a minimum some form of mandatory insurance, paid for by the buying parents, that pays out if a surrogate dies to secure her children's future and (at the very least FFS) pay her funeral costs. It's disgusting that her death is going to cause them financial hardship on top of everything else. Should not be legal full stop.

PlanDeRaccordement · 18/01/2020 17:36

So, should we prohibit poor vulnerable mothers from driving or riding in vehicles? Because there is a 1 in 240 chance they’ll die in a road traffic accident you know. That is far more likely than a 1 in 6,900 chance of dying in childbirth.

ClumzyOwlz · 18/01/2020 17:38

Well, at least you're consistent.

bet most of the people claiming that a 'surrogate' isn't a 'real mother' - just a long-term babysitter - would twist themselves in knots trying to explain why a woman using donor eggs with the intention of keeping the child is, in fact, a 'real' mother.

I know using "real" mother is controversial. Genetic would probably be better, but that still doesn't capture how I would feel that the genetic mother was my "true" mother, iyswim. I'm consistent becuse I'd have to lie myself otherwise - I imagine adopting a child or using a donar egg during IVF, and I can't honestly say I would feel the same way about that baby as I did about my own genetic one, there would always be the niggle in the back of my head that there weren't "really" mine in the same way.

IcedPurple · 18/01/2020 17:43

Only some children are given back to the bio mum hours after birth.

Huh? Unless there is a very good reason to the contrary, babies remain with their mothers after birth. The rare exceptions to this might be if mother and/or baby is ill. However, in almost all cases it's considered in the best interests of both mother and baby to physically bond after the birth.

Except, of course, with surrogacy, where the interests of adults are priortised over those of the newborn.

The bio mum isn’t always keeping the baby?

In almost all cases, of course she is.

TheTigersBride · 18/01/2020 17:53

Why punish childless couples thousands of miles away?

Emotional blackmail. No one is being punished. Realising and accepting one can't have everything one wants satisfied isn't punishment.

The fact the researchers were in Mexico is irrelevant- it won't stop there. Or are poor Mexican women not important.

Good grief. You know perfectly well that I only mentioned animals to explain why this particular paper will have no impact at all on current IVF practices, as you kept bringing this possibility up

"Current" being the operative word. The research is to replace test tubes for real women as you point out is done with animals.

noblegiraffe · 18/01/2020 17:56

So, should we prohibit poor vulnerable mothers from driving or riding in vehicles?

Don’t be daft. There’s an obvious benefit to women in being able to take a bus.

Being a surrogate on the other hand is about the benefits to someone else. That’s why it’s ripe for exploitation and in need of regulation.

It’s also why you can’t pay people to have drugs tested on them aside from a token payment for costs.

Soontobe60 · 18/01/2020 18:17

@FannyCann

The link you've posted should be obligatory reading. The one part that made my cry was this

I don’t care why my parents or my mother did this. It looks to me like I was bought and sold.... When you exchange something for [m]oney it is called a commodity. Babies are not commodities. Babies are human beings. How do you think this makes us feel to know that there was money exchanged for us? . . .Because somewhere between [the] narcissistic, selfish or desperate need for a child and the desire to make a buck, everyone else’s needs and wants are put before the kids’ needs. We, the children of surrogacy, become lost.

Surrogacy puts the needs of the baby last. How can that ever be morally right!

Nemosnemsis · 18/01/2020 18:42

Emotional blackmail. No one is being punished. Realising and accepting one can't have everything one wants satisfied isn't punishment.
Withholding treatment for a medical condition. Punishment seems a reasonable description. And you still haven’t given any explanation of why you think they should be denied it! Or made any reply to my pointing out that the findings of stem cell research have impacted almost all areas of medicine. And you obviously haven’t the faintest idea what couples suffering from infertility go through or you wouldn’t talk about their desperate desire for a child as though it were a new car or a handbag Hmm

What do you mean ‘it won’t stop there (Mexico)’? Do you think we will be relaxing our ethical standards in this country to allow such research to take place? Obviously that would be a cause for concern, but the answer to this would surely be to campaign for tighter legislation, not ban IVF.

"Current" being the operative word. The research is to replace test tubes for real women as you point out is done with animals.
This is ludicrous. If a woman could conceive an embryo via IUI for it to be flushed from her uterus in the first place (as took place in the study) then she wouldn’t need IVF in the first place Confused the findings from this study can in no way replace or refine IVF

ThinEndoftheWedge · 18/01/2020 18:48

Plan - I’m not sure the relevance of providing data which includes causes of death of males and post menopausal women to delegitimise my point about exploitation.

Eg. “Road injuries killed 1.4 million people in 2016, about three-quarters (74%) of whom were men and boys’.

Tragic deaths - yes.

Wrong population.

My point still stands - In poorer countries where many people go for surrogacy, maternal death is the biggest killer of women and girls of child bearing age, especially marked in teenage years.

If it wasn’t about cash you would have comparable rates of volunteer stranger surrogates from richer countries.

Women in these countries need the cash. Exploitation

ArabellaDoreenFig · 18/01/2020 18:59

Nemosnemsis

Do you think having child is a human right ?

And when you says “Withholding medical treatment is a punishment” are you referring to gestating and birthing a child as medical treatment ??

Nemosnemsis · 18/01/2020 19:13

Do you think having child is a human right ?
No, I don’t. 🤷🏻‍♀️

And when you says “Withholding medical treatment is a punishment” are you referring to gestating and birthing a child as medical treatment ??
No, I’m referring to the treatment of infertility, which is a medical condition. Just in case you haven’t read my previous posts, I am talking about straight forward assisted conception such as IVF here, not surrogacy.

BickerinBrattle · 18/01/2020 19:25

If I were any good at drawing, I’d create a sketch of a woman on her hands on her knees.

Her belly would be very pregnant and we’d see the foetus inside, and the umbilical cord would stretch from her belly to a couple holding a big wad of cash.

Her breasts would be connected to tubes leading to cans labelled Nestle, and standing behind the cans would be a man with pockets overflowing with cash.

A cock would be in her mouth and another, from behind, in her vagina, and both cocks would be attached to men holding wads of cash

Women are not domesticated animals for the purpose of breedstock or riding.

We are HUMAN. As are the babies we grow in our wombs, as are our breasts, our mouths, our vaginas, and our anuses.

It is not our labour that the marketplace depicted in my drawing is buying — we are not producing goods as makers, via human imagination wedded to the skill of human hands. It is our bodily function itself that is the marketplace, the facts of our bodies, and this is why NO MAN could supply this marketplace with what it’s buying.

Whereas in every other labour marketplace, there is not one job a man could do that somehow somewhere a woman could not.

Only the female body is commodified this way, and that commodification goes all the way back to the domestication of animals, the development of private property, and the needs of men to pass on property to male children and therefore dominate and sell women as slaves or in marriage to birth those children.

All contemporary principles of human rights recoil at the sale of human bodies.

Except, it seems, women’s bodies, and their children.

As it was, so is it now.

A new marketplace term has entered the lexicon: surrogacy farms.

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 18/01/2020 19:55

Oh BickerinBrattle what a powerful post

her choice my fat angry fucking arse

anyone saying such things should be ashamed of themselves

Swipe left for the next trending thread