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

Sounded like you were doing just that, and are continuing to do so now.

I am responding to the poster who introduced this concept.

And the whole idea that we ever really have 'free choice' has been dissected quite brilliantly earlier in this thread. I suggest you take a look.

Yes, by the poster that I am responding to, and if you read their further posts you will see that their views aren't limited to surrogacy but are applied to many other choices too. You are actually trying to argue against what the poster you claim to support is saying.

They are crowdfunding to help her family left behind , that says it all really. The people who bought the baby have their happy ending. While her family are left needing to crowdfund for financial support. How will that baby feel when it grows up ? Knowing that your birth deprived her children of their mother, and that your parents walked away with you, is a huge and horrible thing to have to come to terms with.

This is clearly a tragic case. However, the majority of surrogacy arrangements are positive. Surrogacy is as old as the hills. If a woman wants to help another in this way, who are we to forbid it?

The stereotype of the 'poor' surrogate doesn't apply in the UK where arrangements are altruistic.

In any case, who is poorer, the one with no money or the one with no longed-for child? Which would you rather be?

Heartbreaking - nothing will compensate those two boys for the loss of their mother.

And I'm angry, too.

Surrogacy (to my mind) is a form of slavery dressed up in sentimentality. People are effectively "buying" and "selling" a human being - the baby - and it is wrong.

Childlessness can be dreadful, I know - but there are many dreadful things in life. We just have to accept them. This poor family has lost a wife and mother; other tragedies can also occur during surrogacy - such as these:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11055643/British-mother-rejected-disabled-twin-because-she-was-a-dribbling-cabbage-says-surrogate.html

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/baby-gammy-australian-father-who-abandoned-down-syndrome-surrogate-child-now-tries-to-access-funds-10261916.html

Babies are not commodities to be bought and sold.

IcedPurple

I'm not saying that surrogacy is a job I am examining a philosophical point that another poster raised - do we have free choice in a capitalist society? That discussion is wider than just surrogacy.

I would rather be a person who accepted that babies need their mothers, and that women and children should not be sold like toys. I would rather be someone without the blood of a woman on my hands because I was selfish enough to want to buy her.

Trouble is, it's rare these days for mothers to die in childbirth, so when it does happen, it's horribly shocking.

When it is someone renting out their uterus (whatever their motives), it's even worse.

From the CBC article: Online, some were quick to rush in and say that Mrs. Reaves died from “risks of pregnancy, not surrogacy.”

To me that just says "risks of pregnancy, not pregnancy" and makes no sense. What is surrogacy, if not...a pregnancy? And as has been pointed out, surrogate pregnancies are statistically more risky. Did Mrs. Reaves and her family know this?

Equally, one cannot sell a child who has been born

There are many reasons I am against surrogacy, among them I have massive safeguarding concerns.
One cannot sell a child who has been born but one can contract to hand over a baby who has yet to be born. The extensive checks and investigations potential adoptees go through are well known but surrogacy sidesteps all this. I also wonder how easy it might be for a pregnant woman to contract to hand over her baby at birth to a buyer and the two parties conspire to claim it is a surrogate pregnancy so that's OK then? Unless DNA checks are done it seems to me this would be pretty easy to do.
My understanding of the law is that commissioning parents who take the baby have to apply to the courts for a parental order.

"1.2 Legal parenthood in surrogacy
The surrogate is the legal mother of the surrogate child from birth until legal parenthood is transferred to IP(s) through a parental order made by a family court. If the surrogate is married or in a relationship, her partner will also assume legal parenthood status of the child from birth until the parental order is made. IP(s) can start the process to obtain a parental order from six weeks until six months after the birth if certain criteria have been met, including the child being in their care, having the consent of the surrogate and at least one IP or the IP, in the case of an individual applicant, being genetically related to the child. The parental order process is normally straightforward and it is usual for a child to be cared for by the IP(s) from birth (with the surrogate’s consent)."
(From department of Health and Social Care guidelines, sorry I don't know why, the link for this doesn't work. )

Courts may require involvement of social workers and checks.
But if the acquiring parents don't bother to go through with the legal parenthood process then I would think it must be completely open to abuse.

There have been documented cases of paedophiles commissioning surrogate babies in order to abuse them.

Whether we have free will or not is a philosophical and religious question that is as old as time. It's not massively controversial to think that people generally make their 'free choices' based on the circumstances that they find themselves in at the time. It's like the people who are all over mumsnet berating posters for having made bad career choices, because they started work on Saturdays at 14 so that by the time they were 21 and leaving university, they had a cv as long as your arm. And if they can do it, anyone can do it. Completely leaving aside the fact that they grew up in a big city where there were hundreds of businesses within walking distance from their home, so as a 14 year old they were able to do that. And the person they are berating grew up in a country village with no bus service, so there was no way they could independently find and keep a Saturday job.

The people who think everyone has absolute free choice are only ever the people for whom it has 'worked out'. I was raised in an evangelical church and was taught from childhood that everyone had the choice to choose Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and that anyone who chose not to had freely made the decision to spend eternity in hell. They completely sidestepped the fact that everyone in the church had been raised as Christians themselves so it was normal to them, whereas the kids of eg the local criminal families had not. But no, they maintained that since they would welcome those families (and in fairness to them, they actually would have) then those people had freely chosen to reject God and must therfore face the eternal consequences. But they never considered that if you are not raised in religion, then practising a religion isn't something you consciously reject, it's just something you don't even think about at all.

Zebra

Just to clarify, is the 'we' female, male or both?

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?

However, the majority of surrogacy arrangements are positive.

Are they? How do you know? And 'positive' for who? Have any studies been done on the babies who will grow up to be told that their mother gestated and birthed them for a fee? Or on the woman's 'own' children who will see their mother pregnant but be told that that baby is not their little brother or sister, but that mummy will give it away to strangers once he/she is born?

Surrogacy is as old as the hills.

So is slavery. Really poor argument.

If a woman wants to help another in this way, who are we to forbid it?

We forbid all sorts of things. Just because you've dressed it up in cutesy terms like 'helping' doesn't mean there aren't very real ethical issues involved.

In any case, who is poorer, the one with no money or the one with no longed-for child? Which would you rather be?

The latter, most definitely. Rich women aren't gestating babies for poor couples, are they? Funny how all these women who just 'love' being pregnant for complete strangers don't tend to be CEOs or university lecturers.

Perhaps we should make a distinction between 'choice' and 'fully informed choice'?
If you make a choice without knowing the full facts, without a clear and balanced appreciation of the situation then you're just rolling the dice

I don't think so called altruistic surrogacy is any better and would ban that too

Why is that?

I hold a different view (dislike paid, but would find this acceptable), but am genuinely interested in your reasoning so I can better understand this viewpoint

I intensely dislike the sheer , massive sense of entitlement that it is an absolute right to have a baby, no matter what. Even without payment the baby is turned into a "must have" commodity or accessory.

From the CBC article: Online, some were quick to rush in and say that Mrs. Reaves died from “risks of pregnancy, not surrogacy.”

To me that just says "risks of pregnancy, not pregnancy" and makes no sense. What is surrogacy, if not...a pregnancy? And as has been pointed out, surrogate pregnancies are statistically more risky. Did Mrs. Reaves and her family know this?

---

I interpret this as shed have died whether she's carrying her own child or a surrgoate's. The same risk applies whether it was her own child. She's no more likely to die in pregnancy if it's her own child or someone else's

She took the risk because she thought this risk was low. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have made the news

I interpret this as shed have died whether she's carrying her own child or a surrgoate's. The same risk applies whether it was her own child.

No it doesn't. Several readers have pointed out that surrogate pregnancies carry significantly higher risks.

She's no more likely to die in pregnancy if it's her own child or someone else's

She is though. That's a fact.

And do you consider a woman who becomes pregnant through IVF with a donor age to be carrying 'someone else's' child? Because going by your logic, you must.

Surrogacy (to my mind) is a form of slavery dressed up in sentimentality. People are effectively "buying" and "selling" a human being - the baby - and it is wrong.

This.

It's illegal in many countries with good reason. It shouldn't be legal in the UK or the US either. This is exploitation of women.

Inany case, who is poorer, the one with no money or the one with no longed-for child? Which would you rather be?

I hate this manipulative, emotional blackmail too. I assume the poster who posted this is trying to tug at heart strings to make people sympathise with the person with "no longed- for child"?

If so my response is - You can't always get what you want it- deal with it.

If surrogacy was banned, no gay male couple could have a child who was biologically related to one of them. Those who want a ban on surrogacy, are you happy with that scenario?

I can't help wondering as well how the 'commissioning' mother feels. If I someone had become a surrogate for me and died as a result I would take my sense of guilt to the grave. It would destroy me. If the commissioning mother felt like I would then the act has damaged, possibly destroyed two families.

Surrogacy (to my mind) is a form of slavery dressed up in sentimentality. People are effectively "buying" and "selling" a human being - the baby - and it is wrong

I agree. I find that a far more persuasive and succinct argument than the points CatfromJapan was making.

Just to clarify, is the 'we' female, male or both?

If we are discussing the philosophical concept of do we have true freedom of choice within a capitalist society then that applies to both men and women

If surrogacy was banned, no gay male couple could have a child who was biologically related to one of them. Those who want a ban on surrogacy, are you happy with that scenario?

Yes. Gay men don't have special rights. If exploiting a woman for your own wants - and having a 'biological' baby is very much a want, not a need - is wrong for straight people (as I beleive it is) then it's wrong for gay men too.