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

Altruistic refers to the fact that no surrogacy contract is legally enforceable btw as opposed to commercial surrogacy where a surrogacy agreement is treated as any other contract.

It is not altruistic in the traditional sense of the word where you're doing something out of the goodness of your heart even if it disadvantages yourself. Money changes hands. In exchange for a human being. And it's a lot of money for someone on minimum wage. Which is why most surrogates are from the lowest percentile band on the UK income brackets.

"were the intended parents given a DBS check?"

Yes, it's far more important to check the couple - or single person - who will be bringing up the child for the next 18 years

Checks on the surrogate mother are to protect baby-buyers from not receiving what they paid for, or the risk of receiving a defective product

The risk of abusers buying a child should be the overwhelming concern here

In addition to DBS, do baby-buyers avoid the usual SS adoption checks on whether they would actually be good parents ?

That usually takes several months and is to a far higher standard than just ensuring they aren't out and out abusers

It would be outrageous if wealthier people can not only buy a newborn - almost never available for adoption -
but also avoid all the requirements that people on ordinary incomes have to satisfy to adopt.

Outrageous for the babies especially

Altruistic refers to the fact that no surrogacy contract is legally enforceable btw as opposed to commercial surrogacy where a surrogacy agreement is treated as any other contract.

Thanks for the clarification - I had no idea that was the case. In which case I strongly object to both kinds of surrogacy! I am only pro truly "out of the goodness of your heart" surrogacy. With extremely limited expenses being allowable.

Surrogacy will happen one way or another,

So will murder.

So will rape.

So will many dreadful things.

Doesn't mean we have to legalise it.

The change of law to enable parental responsibility from birth is not about whether anyone "changes their mind". It's more to do with both parents being legally able to make decisions about the baby's care immediately, rather than having to make an urgent application to the family court to acquire parental responsibility via a child arrangements order.

If the surrogate agrees, the parents may be there at the birth, have skin-to-skin contact with their baby immediately and take care of him/her from then on like any other parents.

Religious traditions may be a factor in why surrogacy is banned in some European countries. This may in some cases go hand in hand with other restrictions on women's fertility choices, such as abortion.

In France there has been fierce opposition by Catholic groups to gay couples undertaking surrogacy overseas. France even refused to recognise surrogate children as French citizens, until the European Court of Human Rights stepped in. This would have been unnecessary had there been a safe, legal and ethical framework in place in France.

I'm struggling to understand what you mean mops. Currently, in the UK, labouring women choose who they want as birth partner. Do you mean that is not allowed if the woman is acting as a surrogate?

As for decisions about a baby's care - we don't allow adoptive parents to take on that role from the moment of birth, so I don't see why it should be different for people who are becoming parents via surrogacy.

God I really really hate the removal of the term mother when it relates to a woman who has had a baby for someone else to raise. She is still that baby's mother, no matter whose genetic material was used. Calling her the surrogate is so dehumanising and erasing.

I just do not believe that typical pregnancy costs are £7-£15k

Being pregnant as a surrogate will often incur more costs than someone who's expecting their own baby. No surrogate should be left out of pocket, obviously.

The intended parents will need to cover costs such as the surrogate's travel, childcare, clothes, loss of earnings, vitamins, appointments, a cleaner, ovulation tests, pregnancy tests. Each surrogate will have her own expenses so there isn't "one size fits all". Only legitimate expenses will be accepted for a Parental Order to be made.

Calling her the surrogate is so dehumanising and erasing.

This is normally by the woman's own preferred choice, though. "Surrogate Mother" is no longer used, because most surrogates are clear they are not the baby's mother. They wouldn't go into an arrangement otherwise.

Religious traditions may be a factor in why surrogacy is banned in some European countries. This may in some cases go hand in hand with other restrictions on women's fertility choices, such as abortion.

So how do you explain the fact that surrogacy is banned in all its forms in countries such as Norway, Iceland and Finland? All known for being among the most feminist and least religious societies in Europe?

All of the countries in Europe who have banned surrogacy outright are also countries which allow abortion for any reason the woman chooses.

in the UK, labouring women choose who they want as birth partner. Do you mean that is not allowed if the woman is acting as a surrogate?

No, not at all. The surrogate's wishes during pregnancy and birth are put first. If she chooses to have no-one else in the room it's definitely her decision. However, many actively want one or both of the parents to be there.

We don't allow adoptive parents to take on that role from the moment of birth, so I don't see why it should be different for people who are becoming parents via surrogacy.

Why would you not want the baby's parents to take care of him/her with full responsibility from the start, though? Why would a surrogate want to be making all the choices about a baby which they've never considered to be theirs?

However, many actively want one or both of the parents to be there.

One of the parents is always there at the birth of the child, and that is the child's mother. There have never been any exceptions to this rule throughout human history, and there never will be.

Excerpt they are the baby's mother. In any other birth situation - and legally - they are the baby's mother. Perhaps someone should talk to the children who are born through surrogacy arrangements. Because I cannot find a single study which has a positive outcome for them.

The change of law to enable parental responsibility from birth is not about whether anyone "changes their mind". It's more to do with both parents being legally able to make decisions about the baby's care immediately, rather than having to make an urgent application to the family court to acquire parental responsibility via a child arrangements order.

Complete nonsense, MopsRUs. You seem to be forgetting that you're talking to people here who've spent considerable time and effort studying the law as it works right now and the proposals.

As is your insinuation that rejection of surrogacy is motivated by religion. The French state is a secular state like many others who have banned surrogacy. In none of these states does the clergy hold the same high positions of power as they do in the UK through the House of Lords and the non-separation of church and state.

I'm a feminist and an atheist, I object to surrogacy because it is harmful to birth mothers and children, not because I adhere to some religion. None of you cheerleaders for commodifying birth mothers and children ever address our objections, instead you're flooding threads with disingenuous nonsense. If not to say downright lies.

The UN's Special Rapporteur on Surrogacy looked at all the evidence available and made the complete opposite recommendations to those proposed by the UK Law Commission. You might want to think about why that might be.

I'm a feminist too, and in my view this is completely compatible with being pro-surrogacy. This article from someone with personal experience of surrogacy might address some of this thread better than I can:

Surrogacy and Feminism: can the two go hand in hand?

I'm a feminist too, and in my view this is completely compatible with being pro-surrogacy. This article from someone with personal experience of surrogacy might address some of this thread better than I can

That banal article has already been posted. It adds little to the debate since it only addresses the superficial 'choosy choice I can do what I like with my body' arguments and doesn't delve into the deeper ethical issues of commodifying women and babies.

But since it's posted by an organisation which profits from that commodification, that's to be expected.

The organisation doesn't "profit" from surrogacy, it's a non-profit organisation. There is some payment to the office staff but that's all.

The organisation doesn't "profit" from surrogacy, it's a non-profit organisation. There is some payment to the office staff but that's all.

Again I note that you seem to know a lot about this organisation you link to so frequently. Are you promoting them and their 'altruistic' baby making services?

And previous posters have made some interesting points about how the words 'altruistic' and 'not for profit' don't mean what most people think they mean when it comes to surrogacy.

Are we really supposed to believe that women are so desperate to undergo pregnancy and childbirth to benefit total strangers (sorry 'team mates') that they went to the trouble of setting up a 'not for profit' business to do so?

"non-profit" refers to a particular tax status, not literally to making no profit. Non-profit organisations actually have to make a profit if they want to be sustainable, let alone grow. And of course the people involved with non-profit organisations can and very often do profit handsomely.

you're talking to people here who've spent considerable time and effort studying the law as it works right now and the proposals.

No-one wants to see unscrupulous, money-grabbing arrangements, of course. However there's also much to learn from those with positive altruistic experiences, and how the safeguards and practices worked.

Out of interest, how much time have you/they spent talking to people who have completed a surrogacy arrangement with a friendship based non-profit UK organisation? Why does so much of the negativity and legalese seem so very far from their real experiences?

Her uterus wasn't stolen, she chose to do it. Another unnecessarily angry "feminist"! It's sad that someone died, no need for blame and anger!!

And of course the people involved with non-profit organisations can and very often do profit handsomely.

That's true, and there are certainly some surrogacy groups where unfortunately this may be the case. But why should the above-board and ethical groups, which are into helping not profiteering, be penalised due to the less scrupulous?

Are you promoting them and their 'altruistic' baby making services?

No (as I've said already).