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

"Why would you not want the baby's parents to take care of him/her with full responsibility from the start, though"

They are the purchasers of a baby
That is their only "qualification"

The mother is the one who carries the baby or has legally adapted a child

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?

Because there is no real way of ensuring that no money changes hands as part of a surrogacy arrangement, however 'altruistic' it claims to be. PPs have pointed out that even though all surrogacy in the UK is supposed to be 'altruistic' many of the parties involved - including your favourite twee 'friendship' site - do make substantial profits from the business of commodifying women and babies.

Realistically, how many women are desparate to undergo 9 months of pregnancy and the physical and emotional trauma of childbirth just to help total strangers, expecting nothing at all in return? So desperate that they set up a site to find 'team mates'?

As others have said these 'groups' are simply a cute way to circumvent the current ban on advertising and profit making in the surrogacy 'industry'. So if we believe that human life should not be commodified, the only sensible solution is to ban surrogacy in all its forms.

"Why does so much of the negativity and legalese seem so very far from their real experiences?"

At least one red flag:
When those friendly cuddly organisations want new laws to remove some of the mother's rights to keep her baby

If it were all kumbaya, there would be no need

The biggest red flag for me:
They are purchasing a baby like any other commodity, which avoids going through all the checks that SS would require before allowing adoption

They could be absolutely unsuited or even dangerous as parents

If people want surrogacy to be more regulated, rather than banned,

my 1st demand would be that baby-buyers - BEFORE they can be found a mother - have to go through the same approval process as if they were going to adopt

i.e. they need to be pre-vetted, to help safeguard the baby

Realistically, how many women are desparate to undergo 9 months of pregnancy and the physical and emotional trauma of childbirth just to help total strangers, expecting nothing at all in return?

If it was about money there are far easier ways to earn it! Yes, it is absolutely true that some people do want to help in this way, without expecting anything in return. They won't be "total strangers" either, as friendships are an important part of it. I realise you're very cynical about this, but it does happen, yes there really are such generous people out there, and no, it isn't "twee".

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

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Why does this require a change in the law? Labouring women can choose their birth partner.

BigChocFrenzy Has said it.

If it was about money there are far easier ways to earn it! Yes, it is absolutely true that some people do want to help in this way, without expecting anything in return. They won't be "total strangers" either, as friendships are an important part of it. I realise you're very cynical about this, but it does happen, yes there really are such generous people out there, and no, it isn't "twee".

It's not 'generous people' though, is it? It's generous women. No man will ever have to suffer in the slightest way to acquire his 'own' baby from the extreme sacrifice of his female 'friend'.

And if it's all about 'friendship' why is your beloved site so eager to change the law so that 'intended parents' force their 'friend' to forego all maternal rights to the baby in her womb? What if the 'friend' decided that she wanted to keep her baby? How does this fit into the whole 'friendship' lark?

Anyway, you still didn't answer my question. How many women are there really out there who want to subject themselves to all the risks and hardships of pregnancy and childbirth to benefit a 'friend' who paid a grand to be introduced to them? It has to be a tiny number. Most people do not make huge sacrifices to benefit strangers unless there's something in it for them.

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?

1.) I'm talking about the practices of your above board and ethical groups. Because I don't consider what they do to be ethical.

2.) Who is penalising your friends and how?

3.) Do you understand how safeguarding works?

4.) The current system works almost exactly as intended, although the legislation should be tightened to close the unforseen loopholes that have developed since it was first written. And as BigChocFrenzy says, it should also adopt the safeguarding system in place for adoption.

It is not in the interests of birth mothers and children to change the system in the direction of the Law Commission's proposals. The only ones who stand to gain are the people commissioning a child as well as all of the professionals making money in the process.

Please explain honestly and without obfuscation why the law should be changed to make surrogacy easier, when we know this will remove existing safeguards from an already harmful practise.

5.) There are also serious medical ethics issues in play here. With the proposal to allow double donation surrogacies, the demand for donor eggs will rise as it has elsewhere this is allowed. There is to date no research on longterm outcomes for egg donors for instance, despite the fact that complications are common and death as well as life-limiting conditions caused by these complications happen far too often. Increasing demand for donor eggs will lead to an increase in women adversely affected by egg donation.

Are you at all interested in protecting those women without whom there would be no gestational surrogacy?

6.) Whether genetically related or not, the baby in utero learns its mother's voice, it's rhythm, it even learns to recognise its mother tongue before it is even born. Research has shown that removing a child from its birth mother immediately after birth causes a measurable, lifelong trauma that could easily be avoided if surrogacy was brought in line with how voluntary adoption works.

Would you support protecting the child from being harmed in this way? If not, why not?

If people want surrogacy to be more regulated, rather than banned

my 1st demand would be that baby-buyers - BEFORE they can be found a mother - have to go through the same approval process as if they were going to adopt

They would have to pay for this. I’m not sure of the going rate, I’m guessing about £5,000. They already charge that to families who want to adopt from overseas.

The buying and selling of human beings is slavery surely?!

The buying and selling of human beings is slavery surely?!

Not if it's all about 'friendship' and 'altruism' and (female) 'generosity'.

People trafficking (babies), rather than slavery I would say. Bought and sold flesh market. £££££££££££££

@CharlieParley I think you are confusing legislation with regulation? There is not a regulator at present.

were the intended parents given a DBS check?

Yes. Which is more than a usual couple have to do before they fall pregnant.

Which is why most surrogates are from the lowest percentile band on the UK income brackets.

You quote this as though it were a fact - it doesn’t reflect my experience of the many surrogates I have met, do you have a source @CharleyParsley for this assertion? It certainly doesn’t reflect my own circumstance.

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.

I agree, I was a surrogate and prefer to be referred to as such in the context of the surrogacy arrangement. I do not identify as the baby’s mother. The baby’s mother is it’s mother!

Realistically, how many women are desparate to undergo 9 months of pregnancy and the physical and emotional trauma of childbirth just to help total strangers, expecting nothing at all in return?

Not many women want to be surrogates - but we do exist! Trust me I have met a fair few. Some greatly enjoy pregnancy and birth, some dream of helping create or complete a family. It’s not for everyone - but it is something a small number of people do do, for no financial gain. And what do I get in return? Deep joy at seeing my friends become parents and love and bond with their beautiful child.

The baby’s mother is it’s mother!

What if the commissioning parents are both male? Who is the baby's mother then? Someone must be.

Some greatly enjoy pregnancy and birth

Hang on.

Some women 'greatly enjoy' giving birth? As in, when asked about what their ideal day is, it would involve pushing a baby out of their body, a baby they may never see again?

Who exactly are all these women enamoured with 'giving birth'? To the point that they will set up an agency, sorry 'group', in the hope of finding 'team mates' who want to indulge them in the fantastically fun activity of giving birth?

Whatever you identify as, legally you are the baby's mother @Anon992 until you sign the paperwork. And you might want to ask your child when they're an adult how they feel about you blithely saying you're not their mother.

I've said this before on these threads and I'll say it again: if I use donor eggs to conceive a baby that I want to keep, am I that baby's mother or not? Because according to you I'm not.

The term mother is the word for a woman who gives birth. It doesn't change what it means depending on what the woman giving birth intends to did with that baby afterwards. If I give my baby away to someone else, smother it at birth or raise it with all the love and attention I can muster, it's still my baby.

Some greatly enjoy pregnancy and birth

If this were true and I'm with Iced on that one, then that's unsettling too.

Going through all that, putting a child through trafficking just because YOU enjoy giving birth?

I fully appreciate that this isn’t something that all women feel, but yes I know women who describe birth as euphoric.

I define a mother - or a parent - as the person who loves, raises, and nurtured her child. Bio parent, birth mother, adoptive parent, recipient of donor gametes - it doesn’t matter.

And I’d be very happy to ask the child recently carried by me for their perspective once old enough. I’ve met several children born through surrogacy, their parents have been very open about their origins and they are accepting, well balanced and happy children born in to loving families.

I accept there are many concerns surrounding surrogacy, as there are inherent ethical concerns and the need to safeguard all parties is so so important. However I refuse to be persuaded that children are inherently “damaged”, that surrogates in this country are universally or even mostly poor or ill educated, or that the law commission proposals re establishment of a regulatory framework and introduction of a new pathway are anything other than a positive step. I base this position on my first hand recent experience - but respect that others have different views.

I do share concerns around commercialisation and exploitation (particularly international surrogacy) and the intended and unintended consequences of this as a potential direction of travel.

I fully appreciate that this isn’t something that all women feel, but yes I know women who describe birth as euphoric.

That'll be the drugs.

Have you thought of a potential business idea? Perhaps setting up a 'virtual birth' experience destination where women can undergo the 'euphoria' of vaginal tears, PND and all the other delights of giving birth? I'm sure all these female acquaintance of yours who 'enjoy' giving birth would sign up in a flash! Who woudln't!

I define a mother - or a parent - as the person who loves, raises, and nurtured her child. Bio parent, birth mother, adoptive parent, recipient of donor gametes - it doesn’t matter.
"Parent" and "mother" are distinctly different things.

I get that you are trying to evade my question with all the cute language, but it's an important one so I'll repeat: you say that the woman who gestates and births a child isn't its mother if she donates the child to commissioning parents. But if both 'parents' are male, then who is the child's mother, if not the woman who gave birth to it?

Someone must be.

have skin-to-skin contact with their baby immediately and take care of him/her from then on like any other parents.

This comment made me want to be sick. Talking about litrially ripping the baby from its mother; in such a casual flippant way. The only thing in the world that baby knows is its mother, that babies only instinct is to be with its mother and get on the breast. But fuck that, just give it to some stranger so they can play families. I question whether anyone that thinks it's OK to do that is actually fit to be a parent. It's sick. Where's the thought for what the baby needs and wants.

The language is all about erasing the mother

Whether you believe it or not, I know more than one woman who finds giving birth incredibly empowering and enjoyable - drug free. The fact that this isn’t something you can personally imagine does not make this less true. (I’ve personally given birth three times, with no tearing, without drugs - and always been home within a few hours.)

You assert that someone must be the child’s mother - I think the argument we are having here is somewhat semantic. Of course a child needs a biological gamete of each type - one of which is an egg, from a woman. And of course the embryo/foetus needs to be gestated in utero - so a woman needs to carry the pregnancy. This could be the same woman providing the egg and carrying the pregnancy (traditional pregnancy or traditional surrogacy) or a different woman (donor egg ivf or gestational surrogacy).

You as I understand your argument are attributing the characteristic of being a “mother” to one of these elements ie the carrying of the pregnancy. Motherhood is a concept, and for me it is part of parenthood which is a broader and more complex concept. As I have described, for me this concept is more about loving nurturing and raising a child than how they came in to the world. So to answer your question, a child born to gay men arising from a surrogacy arrangements has, in my view, two parents - but no mother. Most intended parents talk openly to their children about their origins from a very young age and explain about how they came in to being.

I’m aware that @Icedpurple and I have different opinions on this and think we have posted similar opinions on another thread previously. My motive for posting this reply is not to seek to win an argument for its own sake, nor to convert all of MN into supporting surrogacy - merely to present another informed perspective to this debate.

Whether you believe it or not, I know more than one woman who finds giving birth incredibly empowering and enjoyable - drug free.

So much so that they'll go out of their way to go through 9 months of pregnancy - I guess that's "incredibly empowering and enjoyable" too - in order to experience the utter delights of childbirth only to give away the child to strangers, sorry, 'team mates'?

Maybe some such women exist. After all there are a few billion women on earth so anything is possible. But do such women exist in significant quantities? I highly doubt it.

You assert that someone must be the child’s mother

Listen to yourself. You're making it sound as though I have just come up with some subjective 'assertion'. It is in fact one of the most fundamental biological facts that every mammal that has ever existed or that will ever exist has a mother. No exceptions. None. However much the supporters of baby commissioning want to erase this fact with the use of dehumising language like 'carrier' or the horribly twee' tummy mummy', the reality does not change and will not change.

Motherhood is a concept

Motherhood is not a concept. It is a fundamental biological fact.

So to answer your question, a child born to gay men arising from a surrogacy arrangements has, in my view, two parents - but no mother.

And so here we have it.

The mother - the person who gave the child life - is erased. She does not exist. I hope you don't dare to claim that surrogacy is compatible with feminism after dropping that clanger.

And what do I get in return? Deep joy at seeing my friends become parents and love and bond with their beautiful child.

If you're such a lovley caring person, why don't you care about the baby and what the baby wants and needs. It's damaging for a baby to be removed from its mother. Whether a surrogate identifies as a mother or not as far as the baby is concerned the surrogate is its mother.

All this talk of loving giving birth and giving the gift of a family sounds very culty and fetishist.