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

Every time I enter into this sort of conversation I’m disappointed to encounter the “I can’t imagine it myself so it couldn’t possibly be true for anyone else” arguments and unnecessary use of emotive language - “ripped from its mother” etc. Neither are helpful to an educated debate.

Yes there are women who enjoy pregnancy and birth. I have met many surrogates. How many have you met?

All births are traumatic for the child. As long as they are warm fed and loved from the start, then I genuinely don’t believe that there is any additional or lasting trauma from going straight into the arms of loving intended parents. It’s impossible to meaningfully measure this in my opinion. The baby wants care and love, which the baby I carried has in abundance.

Of course I care about the child. The child has been deeply loved and wanted from before birth, went straight to its parents and is an incredibly happy contented child whom I see regularly. I have not been “erased” - what nonsense.

And as for feminism - see the Jessica Smart article I previously linked, which mirrors my views nicely.

Fwiw I have know a surrogate. Not that the choices or experiences of one person are relevant to a debate on surrogacy as a whole and the ethics around it but;

I worked with a girl, she was a young single mum on minium wage. She decided to become a surrogate so she could stay at home with her son for 9 months and not have to work a shit job in a shop for sod all money. She quit her job as soon as she was pregnant and claimed the equivalent of her wage for the 9 months as an expense. She told me she didn't mind being pregnant, she'd already lost her figure from her own child, it was easier than working and she could claim all her food/bills etc on expenses. I saw her once again when she was near the end of her pregnancy and she said she would probably do it again as it was better than working in a shop.

I found the whole thing very sad. She was the same age as me, we where both 19.

*Yes there are women who enjoy pregnancy and birth.

Exceedingly few I would imagine. How many rich women are going through the raptures of childbirth to benefit poor women?

I have not been “erased” - what nonsense.

You said yourself that when a woman gestates and births a child for 2 male commissioning parents, then there is no mother. That is what you said. That is erasing the mother's existence, quite literally.

And as for feminism - see the Jessica Smart article I previously linked, which mirrors my views nicely.

Is that the 'choosy choice I do what I want with my body but let's not even think about the unpleasant ethical dilemmas of surrogacy' 'article' on the website of the 'group' which charges people a thousand quid to be introduced to 'team mates'?

From Anon 06:11

*Reform

Yes the Law Commission have proposed that parental rights are vested in the intended parents from birth with a six week objection period. An important point is that this pathway can only kick in if some key steps have been followed BEFORE seeking to get pregnant - including counselling, health screening and legal advice. This enhances current education/safeguarding arrangements to offer greater protection for all parties.

No legislative or regulatory changes are going to cover all the what ifs - but the proposed changes are designed to make surrogacy safer for all involved.*

I have many objections to the new proposals but I think the point you make about the new pathway only applying to those who follow the key steps is possibly the most offensive. This is because these new proposals are being presented as making surrogacy "safer" (for whom? I'll come back to that) , also it is suggested that by having a new, "safer" framework commissioning parents will prefer to stay in the UK and seeking foreign arrangements will be less attractive.

Seriously, do they think we are all stupid? It's insulting.

The new pathway, which culminates in the commissioning parents becoming the legal parents at birth, will be for the rich only. As mentioned upthread in various posts, the agency costs that Natalie Gamble quotes are £13k, the surrogate mother's fees are now averaging a tad under £15k with increasing numbers topping £20k, then there are the IVF costs, I posted a link earlier, they are eyewatering,
so the going rate currently won't leave much change from £50k.
If these proposals go through, opening up advertising and agencies free to charge the prices will only go up.

So those who cannot afford it will be forced to seek cheaper arrangements, either by going abroad or going DIY, maybe a back of an envelope "contract" with someone they met on Facebook, DIY home insemination or going to somewhere cheap like Greece for the IVF.

This whole proposal is all about enabling the rich to buy their babies "safe" in the knowledge they will get their baby at birth.

Meanwhile people trafficking and exploitation of women in poor countries will increase. And the state will be left trying to sort out the problems of people who tried to do it on the cheap.

Safety? Dustin Lance Black talked a lot about the new proposals keeping everyone "safe" in his radio programs , what he means is keeping the buyers safe.
The woman giving birth isn't safe physically, there are no proposals to protect mothers offering this service. For instance I have seen some USA (yes, the USA) Drs commenting that it should be law that no more than one embryo be transferred, but lots of commissioning parents think having twins is a cheap option, or one each or something and don't give a thought to the woman going through the more complicated pregnancy and birth or indeed to the fact that twin pregnancies statistically mean more premature /low birthweight and other complications for the babies they profess to want to much.
There are no proposals to limit the number of surrogate pregnancies a woman can undertake, so the Carol Horlocks (14 surrogate babies) of the world are free to make a career out of being a brood mare.
There will be no oversight of egg "donation" apart from HFEA regulation of the clinics.
No protections for those impoverished women in poor countries, from exploitation.

Dustin alludes that "Safety" for the surrogate mother means they are assured the baby they give birth to won't be dumped on them as the commissioning parents will be the legal parents. But deep in the 500 page consultation the law commissioners briefly dismiss this possibility as being no different than if a normally conceived baby is rejected by its parent/s and social services have to step in.

The entire premise of these nw proposals is an insult, do they think we are all stupid?

Every child bod has a mother. Legally as well as factually.

And can you find me any articles/studies/anything all at that demonstrates this: "I genuinely don’t believe that there is any additional or lasting trauma from going straight into the arms of loving intended parents."

Because there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise, whether you want to believe it or not.

At a time when we are ever more conscious of the bond between baby and mother, when the first 3 months of life are now being referred to as the 4th trimester, there must be a huge amount of cognitive dissonance involved in discarding all of that as nonsense.

And while I understand the motivation of those who want to buy a baby in doing that, i do question the reasons behind anyone else wanting to join in.

I'm been reading and posting on this thread for days now and scenes from the Handmaid's Tale keep coming back to me.

I am trying but really struggling to understand how a woman could choose to do this.

I am sure that for women who are happy with their choice it doesn't feel wrong but I still think it is so very, very wrong to use a woman as an incubator.

I'm been reading and posting on this thread for days now and scenes from the Handmaid's Tale keep coming back to me.

Even in Gilead, nobody claimed that babies didn't have mothers.

And even in Gilead it was standard practice for the Handmaid to stay in the house with the baby and breastfed and leave at 6 months when they started weaning.

Even a dystopian fictional state that rapes, destroys and silences women cares enough about newborn babies to keep the mothers close by for their comfort and wellbeing. Even when the 'Intended Parents' don't like it, the baby comes first. Sort of.

Anon992

Every time I enter into this sort of conversation I’m disappointed to encounter the “I can’t imagine it myself so it couldn’t possibly be true for anyone else” arguments and unnecessary use of emotive language - “ripped from its mother” etc. Neither are helpful to an educated debate.

The greatest single flaw in all of your posts reflecting your experience Anon992 is the failure to recognise that legal framework for surrogacy needs to exist to protect people who aren’t you. It needs to protect people who are a bit poor, a bit desperate, don’t love being pregnant, might be open to exploitation, might think they’re being altruistic but it’s really a coercive arrangement etc etc, plus a pregnancy that doesn’t have any complications that bring up any wavering of commitment, doesn’t lead someone to change their mind, etc etc.

If every surrogacy arrangement was always going to be someone like you who does it out of remarkable generosity, with a loving arrangement, a safe pregnancy, a safe birth, a baby going to a safe home and no concerns about the trauma of that for the child then yes I can see how surrogacy looks lovely.

But to think that it’s always like this, or you can legislate it so it’s always like this in every case from now on is either naive, wilfully misleading or uncaring towards those for whom surrogacy won’t end well.

Your experience, compared to those reported worldwide is incredibly rare and I’m baffled as to how anyone can think we can make sure your perfect experience is the norm with surrogacy through legislation.

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

Nope, Anon992 I am confusing nothing. The proposal is to change the law forbidding commercial surrogacy. That at the same time, the Law Commission also proposes to establish a regulator is no more than a smokescreen. Because as that dense 500-page proposal makes clear, what they seek to achieve through this new regulator is to make the process much easier for the people commissioning a child.

And that you're dismissing the research about the harm done to babies by removing them from their birth mother immediately after birth by saying you don't believe it while berating other posters for dismissing your claims by also stating their disbelief in them is deliciously ironic.

I'd still love to hear an answer to my questions. Any chance of sharing your thoughts on protecting egg donors or the removal of safeguards?

On the socio-economic status of birth mothers I stated that they tend to come from the lowest income percentiles, which you challenged with:

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

Aside from copious amounts of research providing empirical evidence of this being tge case, how about the Law Commission's very own report? They acknowledge that exploitation is a concern, precisely because birth mothers tend to be much poorer than the people commissioning a child.

Page 36f:

2.57 In the UK, there may in some instances be an unequal distribution of knowledge and wealth, and therefore ultimately of power, between the surrogate and the intended parents. [...] it has also been acknowledged that surrogates are generally economically and socially less well off than intended parents.

Page 46:

^3.24 There was near universal agreement among those to whom we spoke that the
majority of surrogates tend to come from a lower socio-economic group than the
intended parents.^

But feel free to dismiss this, too.

Brilliant point, OhHolyJesus. I was thinking about that as well. But then again, in Gilead children are the most valuable commodity of all. More valuable even than the couples assigned a Handmaid.

That’s so sad. She was a mother to those children. I don’t agree with surrogacy. It can’t be properly policed. It turns us into just vessels.

Every question I answer provokes a new barrage of questions which I do not have the time to respond to at present, however in brief:

• I have challenged statements made as though they were facts eg re the existence of a regulator (there isn’t one) and re the “lowest income percentiles” (that means bottom few %). I did not ever say that there was no legislative framework, nor did I say that surrogates do not tend to be on lower incomes than intended parents.
• Where I have facts I have stated these as facts. Where I have only my opinion I have clearly stated what is my opinion e.g. “I genuinely believe”. This is because I think it is important not to confuse facts and opinions.
• I also note the continued use of emotive language - brood mare, dumped, Gilead - which reflect the high emotions but don’t lend themselves to rationale discourse.
• Of course I recognise the need to protect people more vulnerable than I am. I mention the need to safeguard appropriately all involved. To imply I had not considered this has either missed one of the key tenants of my argument or is disingenuous.

I also note the continued use of emotive language - brood mare, dumped, Gilead - which reflect the high emotions but don’t lend themselves to rationale discourse.

Unlike, say, claiming that women find childbirth 'euphoric' and 'empowering'? Or Hallmark card language about the "Deep joy at seeing my friends become parents and love and bond with their beautiful child"?

This document from 2018, outlines extensive recent research on surrogacy in the UK. The report is by Dr K. Horsey of Kent Law School. No doubt some here have read it before but IMHO it's a good insight into recent developments.

(Yes Iced, the Surrogacy UK Working Group on Surrogacy Law Reform were involved; as were Kent Law School, the Director of the Progress Educational Trust, and barrister Andrew Powell. As you're anti-surrogacy, you'll probably disagree with chunks of the report but I doubt you'll find all 83 pages too too "twee" ).

Support for the report was expressed by the philosopher Baroness Mary Warnock, Prof. Margaret Brazier (of Manchester School of Law) and Professor Susan Golombok (Professor of Family Research, Director of the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge and Professorial Fellow at Newnham College).

Every question I answer provokes a new barrage of questions which I do not have the time to respond to at present

I know the feeling

Each of those examples you have given of me using emotive language were me providing my response to specific assertions which relate to how people feel.

• Firstly that no one enjoys childbirth. I was giving examples of how it makes some women feel, and the words empowering and euphoric have both been used by surrogates I know to describe childbirth.
• Secondly to respond to the question as to why anyone would do it. My “Hallmark response” is my personal reason for doing it. I did it because of how it made me feel - happy and proud.

I was responding to questions as to why people do things. People are guided by their feelings, so emotions were relevant to both my responses here.

Describing a baby as being “ripped away” or “dumped” is not accurate or representative of what happens - so I don’t believe we’re comparing like with like.

@MopsRUs these threads are always exhausting!

The Handmaid's Tale is deliberately dystopian and chilling, of course. A male-dominated, religious, totalitarian miltary dictatorship where women are forced to become pregnant, for people they don't like, giving birth to babies which are taken without their consent.

It is very different to a free country where a woman (surrogacy is obviously female-dominated) may freely choose to become pregnant, for people they like and want to help, giving birth to babies whom they never see as "theirs" with the sole intent of helping the intended parents, by carefully considered agreement.

Firstly that no one enjoys childbirth. I was giving examples of how it makes some women feel, and the words empowering and euphoric have both been used by surrogates I know to describe childbirth.

I didn't say nobody enjoys childbirth. I would say exceedingly few do, certainly not to the pont of going out of their way to find 'team mates' so they can experience the 'euphoria' of expelling a baby from their body only to donate it. "Altruistically" of course.

I did it because of how it made me feel - happy and proud.

So you complain that others use language not conducive to 'rational discourse' yet you make it all about your personal feelings? So the profound ethical issues raised by surrogacy - not just for the birth mother but also for the innocent baby - are unimportant because YOU feel happy?

these threads are always exhausting!

I don't think anyone is demanding that you participate?

Sigh. Of course no one is demanding I participate. I am trying - as I explained - to provide a balanced, informed alternative perspective.

I find your statements that I view the profound ethical issues raised by surrogacy - not just for the birth mother but also for the innocent baby - are unimportant because YOU feel happy so wildly at odds with everything I have been at pains to so clearly express that I wonder if we speak the same language.

Not sure what linking to the report is meant to achieve in the context of this thread? Apart from the appeal to authority, obviously. Some context might have been useful.

I mean, it is an interesting report in that it delivers a snapshot of the current system and how it works. Some of its claims are disappointingly completely unsourced. In the surrogacy myth section for instance they claim that there is no evidence that the numbers of women willing to be birth mothers would rise if payments were allowed, when of course there is empirical data that the opposite is true.

When I first read this what struck me was that this report unequivocally demonstrates that the current system in fact works very well indeed and pretty much the only reasons given for the necessity of reform come down to feelings and identity.

This is obscured in pages and pages of emotive language, unsubstantiated claims and sweeping statements about the need for reform, citing of course only those standing to gain by the latter. There is no attempt made at all to engage with other viewpoints or explore adverse incidents. According to this report, they do not exist.

Now in an era of identity politics and where feelings trump reality, that's not exactly surprising but I had expected much more.

The worst reason of all those given for reform was the disgruntlement on the part of the people commissioning a child that they had to endure scrutiny as to their fitness as parents. If anything is a dead giveaway that the wellbeing of the child is not the foremost aim of these proposals, it is this.

I've been thinking a lot about the fact that "altruistic" means something different in surrogacy than in normal life. It really concerns me and Ive been trying to figure out why. I think it is this - when people feel the need to obscure a situation by changing the meaning of words it is a pretty sure sign that something is amiss. If it was all fine and dandy, why try to deny the fact that every mammal on the planet has a mother? Why pretend that having no contracts is the same thing as a selfless act? It is designed to obscure the debate and hide the truth. IME, people tend to do that when they know that what they are doing is wrong, or would at least be viewed as such by general society.

By presenting all these examples of "altruistic" surrogacy you can con people into believing that there are loads of women who just love being surrogates so much we need to make it easier for them to do it. So deregulation starts to sound like a good idea. It distorts the evidence base. Because if I want to find how many women in the uk have gone through genuinely "out of the goodness of my heart" surrogacy I actually can't find the data. It doesn't exist because some people changed the meaning of the word "altruistic" for this scenario.

I know i sound a bit like my gran here, but if people want to convince me of something they should be talking plain English. The second they start to attempt to deceive me I'm not going to trust them anymore.

And you know what is really hard work? Checking words still mean the same before you can even enter a debate.

Yy Spider it's being dressed up, repackaged and sold as altruistic.

I'm also struck by the language:

I love being pregnant and giving birth
I feel good being able to do this

For those so selfless, there's a lot of I in there.