Voices we don't hear from - a child of surrogacy

[OhHolyJesus]

I've found MN to be a source of voices we don't hear from, like trans widows and children of transitoners, children born from are not voices we often hear.

Surrogacy is often portrayed as positive, focusing on an infertile woman having her wishes come true by the kind and generous surrogate mother, bestowing the biggest give one can give...and all that BS.

This is Kylee, a 36 year old woman who was "Donor Conceived". Even if this short video you can see how she is struggling to express herself but she does so clearly and intelligently. I'm going to check out her blog too, there are clearly more like her.

twitter.com/StopSurrogacy/status/1246122272093540353?s=20

So basically is your view Mirror that because lesbians deserve to have biological children and I assume you would apply the same to gay men, as we shouldn't discriminate against them either, so men who are in same-sex relationships should have rights to have women donate eggs and carry babies for them because they have rights to a biological child?

If lesbians need sperm to complete the equation and if gay men need an egg and a womb, then that's what they need and women should make themselves available?

I don't think it would be right or fair to say it's ok for lesbians but not ok for gay men, any more than it would be right or fair to say the same the other way around.

As I said, I'm not particularly interested in the nature of the parents relationship, whether they are same-sex couples with one obvious element lacking in that scenario or opposite couples with fertility issues, I have tried, repeatedly, to focus this on the children of surrogates.

It would be presumptuous Elsie to say that some posters here haven't have fertility issues themselves or indeed that some here haven't adopted. I have seen posts from women on other surrogacy threads who cannot have children themselves and who would never consider using another women's womb for their purposes. I expect this is for several reasons but one, I hope, would be because you just wouldn't ask that of someone who you see to be your equal.

If you don't suffer from x you can't be involved in a discussion around laws and policies related to it isn't a viable view anyway. Imagine if we treated everything that way! Only people who have had themselves or a loved one need an organ transplant get to contribute to discussions on organ selling or donation? They get to set the public policy?

So basically is your view Mirror that because lesbians deserve to have biological children and I assume you would apply the same to gay men, as we shouldn't discriminate against them either, so men who are in same-sex relationships should have rights to have women donate eggs and carry babies for them because they have rights to a biological child?

I don't know how you have got that from my posts. I haven't addressed surrogacy at all. Surrogacy presents additional issues to gamete donation. Surrogacy, and to a lesser extent egg donation, present unique risks to the surrogate or donor and demand more from the surrogate or donor than sperm donation. Surrogacy is a different proposition from sperm donation. The moral analysis is different.

I didn't say I had a right to a man's sperm. I didn't say I "deserve" to have children. Of course I don't. But in circumstances in which willing sperm donors exist, I don't think it is morally wrong for a lesbian couple to use donor sperm to have children. The happy, well adjusted children and adult children of lesbians that I know, and the studies of the children of lesbians, suggest to me that lesbian parenting is a positive thing that does not harm children.

Do the children of the lesbians you know Mirror know their fathers? Do they know how to reach them or where to go to register to find them and other potential siblings?

In my research today I found several stories of prolific donors, I naively thought there were limits on how many times a man could donate but it seems there aren't in some countries. The numbers were staggering. Some sperm donors appeared to take great pride in their 'reach'.

It made me think about body autonomy, as I I wouldn't want my husband to donate his sperm as that could create a child that my son would share DNA with. It made me think how my DNA doesn't just 'belong' to me and how our DNA is shared so easily, without thinking about the consequences.

I have no idea what it would be like to find out that you had a large number of half-siblings from your father because he donated numerous times. Presumably they could be cast far and wide, across the globe. I find that quite disturbing.

Funny you should say that @OhHolyJesus, but one of my husband’s oldest friends found out that he was donor conceived a couple of years ago... totally by accident. He joined Ancestry DNA and a whole bunch of half siblings popped up.

His parents had never told him. He took it matter of factly but his sister didn’t.

And some time after, another half sibling popped up and he also didn’t know he was donor conceived. Beggars belief really.

I don't want to derail my own thread, and there is so much wrong with this I can't even begin, but I share this as this really is a disaster waiting to happen in my view and highlights my post about easily sharing DNA.

https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2018/12/19/meet--world-s-most-popular-sperm-donor--with-18-children.html

He doesn't sleep with all of them so I assume there is a turkey blaster involved for those he doesn't have sex with (in which case he's not a donor is he, he's a one night stand?)

Turkey blaster?

Maybe that could be useful.

I meant baster. Obviously.

I think it’s worth pointing out that before gay or lesbian people had the legal right to request AID, there were many instances where prospective parents made informal arrangements. I don’t think it’s practical or ethical to deny them the right to be parents. The research also shows that outcomes for children are just as good as for children of heterosexual parents.

I think surrogacy should also be an option but we need to accept that it may have negative consequences for children in the same way that some children conceived naturally do not have ideal, or even good enough parents. However, both surrogacy and fertility clinics need to be regulated properly. There was an item of the World at One last week about the exploitation of surrogate mothers in India and Thailand. I meant to post a link but I forgot and now I can’t remember which day it was on. Unfortunately, this is really hard to control. There was an awful case a couple of years ago in which an Australian couple rejected a disabled child born to a surrogate mother in Thailand.

As DNA testing becomes cheaper and more widespread, we also need to think of the consequences for children who discover they have multiple half siblings because there are no limits on the number of sperm donations their biological father can make.

It is often pointed out that medical advances happen more quickly than agreement is reached over what should happen ethically. Easier travel means that people can bypass things that would be illegal in their own country - eg sex selection of embryos. Interesting thread so thanks everyone and OhHolyJesus for starting.

Cross posted with your last post OhHolyJesus. I have seen even higher numbers than 18.

I’m not saying people can’t be involved in the discussion in issues that don’t directly affect them, I am saying people preaching about how selfish gay and infertile couples are for wanting biological children are hypocrites if they have biological children themselves. Having biological children is in itself a selfish act, regardless of how they were created. You’re not any less selfish because you were lucky enough to be able to have your own biologically children with your partner is my point. If you adopted your children then fair enough, if you didn’t yet you’re criticising others for not being happy with adoption you’re a hypocrite.

Who is asking people to be surrogates for them? If I offer to carry a child for my brother and his wife for example, what is your moral objection to that if all involved are happy? You have no evidence other than anecdotal stories from some adults who have taken issue with how they were created or how they were raised (like many children created “naturally” and raised by their biological heterosexual parents) to back up that there is anything inherently harmful to children through being conceived using donor eggs or sperm or born through surrogacy, so what grounds for banning them do you have other than your own moral outrage? I know of numerous children created naturally who don’t know their fathers and have no relationship with them, this is not a new “issue” exclusive to donor conceived children.

Thanks for sharing

I haven't addressed surrogacy at all. Surrogacy presents additional issues to gamete donation.

But if the claim is that it's homophobic because it denies lesbians the opportunity to be parents, why doesn't the same argument apply?

I know of numerous children created naturally who don’t know their fathers and have no relationship with them,

We generally take a dim view of fathers like that.

Me too Nettie frightening numbers if I'm honest, I didn't really want to get into the sperm donor issue but I derailed my own thread! It is of course a connected issue and one I will read more on.

The child in Thailand you speak of, Baby Gammy, has a twin sister, Pipah. I imagine he will never know. She is being raised by the commissioning parents and the father is a convicted paedophile. Incidentally, I read on another thread that her name is a colloquial term for blow job in Thai. I'm not sure if that's true. I really hope it isn't.

If ever there was a reason/s to regulate surrogacy, Baby Pipah and Baby Gammy are it. On a global scale ideally.

We generally take a dim view of fathers like that.

My point is OP is talking about this like it’s a novel problem confined to donor conceived children, when it’s been occurring since the dawn of time and society hasn’t imploded yet because of it. There have been studies showing overall people who have been conceived using donor eggs/sperm or surrogacy feel positive or indifferent about how they were created, not negative or harmed as you’re assuming. Do you have any actual evidence that children created this way are harmed or disadvantaged in any way? I see a lot of anecdotal evidence, projecting and hypothesising on this thread, but not much in the way of hard evidence.

The session at Filia last year on surrogacy was incredibly informative but pretty harrowing in places.

There's a podcast of it. Well worth a listen if you want to learn about what the surrogacy industry is really like.

I had absolutely no idea about most of this:

filia.org.uk/podcasts/2019/11/8/surrogacy-a-human-rights-violation-filia-conference-2019

More on the speakers here:

filia.org.uk/sunday-20th-oct/2019/5/30/section-2-button-3

In the UK it's illegal to pay for a surrogate. Other than to cover loss of earnings and to pay for things like maternity clothes. So how could this be seen as selling your baby?

It depends how you define "your baby"
Is it the baby of the person who carries it or the baby of the person who's dna it has?

Because it's a transaction involving financial compensation, Pink. I don't think the scale of payment is the fundamental issue, it's the nature of the agreement. For me, anyway.

That's the whole problem (or one of them) with surrogacy though, howtoenforce. On one hand you have genetics and on the other side you have a woman that has literally grown a baby with her own body. Providing everything that foetus needs to become a viable little human being. That matters too. Women aren't just incubators - it's a constant regulated exchange for the duration. If it was simple they'd just be popping them into males willy nilly.

Rather than decide who would "own" the baby (yuck) in a dispute, it would be much better just to acknowledge the issue as a good reason not to do it in the first place.

Do you have any actual evidence that children created this way are harmed or disadvantaged in any way? Do you not think that the people who have voicing their pain about being a donor conceived child on these videos are real?

If there are enough people coming out and saying ‘we experienced this ....’ that should be enough push back on the ‘there is no disadvantage ‘ to a child conceived, delivered and brought up this way to raise questions about any study not picking this up, surely.

what grounds for banning them do you have other than your own moral outrage? I don’t believe anyone on this thread has objected to a sister carrying an implanted embryo for their brother as you have stated.

However, there are so many reasons for ‘moral outrage’ against the commercialization of using women’s bodies for producing children- egg donation and gestation. Your posts seem to be dramatically minimising of any risk.

Interestingly the current status og the biotechnology law in Norway allows sperm donation but not egg donation, with the justification being that not knowing who the biological father is is something that happens anyway (the old "milkman" story) whereas it is "unnatural" to not know who the biological mother is. I used to think it was sexist to allow this treatment for male infertility but not to allow the equivalent treatment for female infertility. Since i've had kids i've changed my opinion- i no longer see donation as a treatment for infertility, i see it as a means of providing a child and that puts a different spin on things for me.

@testing987654321 isn’t this true of anyone who chooses to reproduce:

“To bring children into the world via surrogacy is not about the children's well-being at all, it's entirely about the parents.”

No one gets pregnant for the benefit of the child that doesn’t even exist yet.