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

Elsie I understand what you're saying but I agree with Wines - the voices of these people is 'evidence' enough and whilst studies can be useful to assess groups I was deliberately wanting to listen and ask others to listen to the individuals own stories, in their own words about their own responses to the circumstances of their birth. Also, there are no studies I am aware of of surrogate babies as adults. The Law Commission spoke to one. One person who experienced this and a bunch of family lawyers who profit for Surrogacy.

Why are there no studies? Studies need to be funded and peer reviewed. There could be one in progress now, but we do have studies on adopted children which is the best comparisons I think there is available.

Pink Surrogacy in this country is reimbursed as "reasonable expenses". This is vague and Natalie Gamble from Brilliant Beginning and NGA Law (one of the family lawyers consulted and one of the people who profits from surrogacy) has been on record and can be quoted as saying a Surrogacy arrangement pays the surrogate mother around £15k and I have heard of it going up to £20k. This is on top of all the life insurance and will writing so this is money just for the surrogate mother, paid over a number of months.

Now I don't know about anyone else my my pregnancy cost very little. That would be a hell of a lot of very expensive maternity clothes! Or what, petrol for appointments, stretch mark cream, pregnancy massages, childcare bills for their own children and hypnobirthing classes?

In the UK the NHS provides all the health care and support through community midwives. Of course Commissioning Parents might pay privately but this, again, is on top of the costs paid to the surrogate mother. Why not use the NHS to save some cash as this process is expensive.

In addition there is the question of gifts. I simply do not see Surrogacy in the UK as purely altruistic, not when these sums are involved.

If Elsie had a baby for her brother that could be truly altruistic, no money exchanges hands and You wouldn't be out of pocket as your brother could pay up front for petrol and take you to appointments. I would still have a lot of questions and pose scenarios for you to consider. You're right it's none of my business, who am I to say what you can and cannot do? No one but being that this is a discussion...

Firstly I hope you weren't under pressure to say yes, even organ donors have a secret opt-out with doctors so it is a choice. Family ties can induce decisions and also twist and break under the pressures of Surrogacy.

Then, if your brother was to fertilises the egg the egg would need to come from a donor. I would worry about that woman's health (see video posted up thread). You would need to take injections to prevent your body rejecting the foetus. The baby would be related to you through your shared DNA with your brother but also with the egg donors and the baby would probably have half siblings (I think one woman in the video had 60 eggs taken in one go, that's potentially a lot of siblings the baby wouldn't know, could meet as an adult, could fall in love with one of them and potentially want to start a family with their shared DNA. I think we know how that ends.)

I would hope your brother wouldn't watch you eat soft cheese or drink a small glass of wine whilst pregnant and family events and tell you off, or worse, that his wife wouldn't change how she treats you and be jealous that you get to experience pregnancy with her baby.

But then the baby is born and it's your niece or nephew but would you have a closer bond? Would you be able to give them away and would you ever watch them being disciplined and feel it was too harsh or think they weren't being treated properly. Or neglected even. If the baby grew up and ever had a serious illness or accident would you feel you should be there as the mother, the woman who gave birth to him or her?

Maybe you could bypass all this and it would be a truly happy family all round, but all is worth considering, especially if you had children of your own (how to explain? How to manage the morning sickness without resentment with a demanding toddler?) a husband or partner who would need to agree and support (would you have sex? Would it be weird? Would be resent the baby? Would your marriage survive? Would he be the birthing partner?) and also if you have any underlying motives for offering to grow a human life.

So much to consider. I hope any c section scars heal nicely and there are no post-pregnancy issues like a prolapse or incontinence.

I agree user, but I didn't make that comment in isolation. It was that adopted children experience trauma due to being separated from their birth mother. Children born of surrogates will also experience this. One of these situations is society attempting to do the best for a child in difficult circumstances, the other is a child being born specifically to be given away by the mother.

This woman had surrogate twins for her brother. It's not a heart warming story. In fact Renate Klein has stated that she thinks altruistic surrogacy between friends and family is almost worse than contract commercial surrogacy because the strains this puts on family relationships, the devastation when things go wrong are so much more hurtful and unexpected.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/secret-diary-of-a-surrogate-mother

I'm also adding this podcast which people may find interesting.

Nick Isel was conceived as part of a eugenic experiment using "genius" sperm. There are lots of interesting looking links added in the details.

Listen to Podcast #011 - Nick Isel from Venus Rising in Podcasts. podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/venus-rising/id1481872967?i=1000464660205

Interesting about the law in Norway Mendingfences I'm not sure I buy "it's always happened so what the hell" as justification! Especially when compared to the more obvious issue of the health issues for egg "donors" versus the minor inconvenience for sperm donors of having to have a wank .

Yes I agree, having a baby in the traditional way is about the parents desires. However, the differences with surrogacy are many. Firstly, the intentional creation of trauma for both child and mother. Separating a baby from it's mother is a trauma. Then the abuse of womens' bodies including risking their death and if not death potential life long physiological problems. Then the psychological trauma of childbirth and giving away the baby. Then the psychological trauma the child potentially has coming to terms with the fact that they were created as a commodity. That they don't know their birth mother, all the pain explained by Jess in the video near the top of this thread. You don't get that with usual parenting. I'm not saying children of surrogacy arrangements can never be happy, far from it. But some aren't. Some do experience this pain. And by permitting surrogacy, we are saying that we are ok with creating this situation and that all this pain is worth it because the intended parents are also in pain.

Do you not think that the people who have voicing their pain about being a donor conceived child on these videos are real?

Do you not think people conceived to heterosexual couples experience ever pain at how they were brought into the world? How about those conceived by mistake who were unwanted? How much more pain has this caused compared with the very planned and very loved children of gay parents?

May as well ban all unprotected sex too if you think all people conceived in a less than 'perfect' heterosexual, married circumstances should never be born at all.

By the way I don't have kids, not sure if I am fertile. Not sure i have a vested interest in terms of parenthood at this moment in time. Hopefully then i'm allowed an opinion although I have a suspicion that it might not be the right kind of opinion for some...

The training begins flat out from the point of 'adoption is rooted in loss on both sides' and 'adoption is no one's first choice

I am an adoptive parent and adoption was very much my first choice. This is true of more adopters than you may think. I have no sense of loss in terms of not having a biological child. I am, however, acutely aware of the loss of my DC may have to deal with.

SapphosRock Again, no one is denying that there are problems arising from being raised by ‘biological’ parents. However, there does seem to be a disregard by some on this thread of the additional issues surrounding donor conception that need to be, it seems, even acknowledged before protections can be put into place. If they need to be.

And by the way, I have not intoned in my posts anything against same sex couples having children. However, I continue to point out that there is obviously a real need to properly look into whether changes on how donor conceived children are supported in the future. And how women are being treated (being dehumanized as service providers) in this process.

Stinkyjellycat it sounds like you are prepared, but what support has been recommended to you to deal with the loss they may feel?

Do you not think people conceived to heterosexual couples experience ever pain at how they were brought into the world?

I would want to hear from them too Sapphos, like Jessica Kern, she was born to a heterosexual couple.

I would like to hear about about anyone's story who has 'skin in the game'.

I'm not a child of a surrogate, am not donor conceived, a commissioning parent or a family lawyer specialising in Surrogacy or a fertility doctor who retrieved eggs. I'm genuinely fascinated by the topic and am interested in other people's experiences so I welcome all views.

As I said upthread to Keha I agree that having a child is ultimately a selfish act. I would hope that any and all children don't experience pain about how they came to be at the world but i recognise that some do and if they do I'm interested and listening.

FWIW I welcome your opinion Monster, whether I agree with you or not. I don't think you need to be a mother to have a host of opinions on 'mothering' related subjects.

She feels that her bio mum basically sold her.

Well she did.

And we are going to get lots more stories like this in the future. It will turn into the modern equivalent of the adoption scandals of past decades.

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 find these arguments so specious. While it's true this can happen and sometimes does - it's considered negative. It used to be we tried to avoid it by encouraging people to marry and remain faithful. Now we can track down fathers with technology and garnish their wages. And it's not just the material support element - we also generally think a father that materially supports a child but is personally unavailable or uninvolved is a shitty father. We see them as letting down their kids in a pretty basic way.

So the state is creating institutions that suggest that's an acceptable way of thinking about fathers, that they aren't particularly necessary? Is that what they really want people to think?

Children are born into “imperfect” situations every single day, if we are using “perfect” or “ideal” as criteria for who should be able to create children then where does it end? We have plenty of evidence about the negative effects of being born into all sort of circumstances or to all kinds of parents, why target just one kind of situation? Especially when there is next to no evidence children born in these circumstances suffer due to it. Just because a child is created “naturally” does not mean they will have a perfect life and will be raised in ideal circumstances by amazing parents. Should we take measures to prevent heterosexual people from procreating unless they are in ideal circumstances so they can’t harm children?

If you are arguing that people should not use surrogacy or donor sperm or eggs because the situation is not “ideal” (I’m sure in an perfect world these people wouldn’t choose to use these methods in the first place) and could potentially cause distress to the child then you could use that argument against all kinds of mothers and parents. It appears that only gay people and the infertile are being held to such high standards of parenting and procreation.

Ok Elsie what is your argument for not having the same processes such as adoption apply to children born from surrogacy?

Does shared DNA between a parent and child mean you shouldn't have safeguarding procedures applied? No.

Are adopted children, children who already exist and are likely to have experienced trauma or a roughy start more worthy and should be the only ones kept safe? No.

Why then should a child born of surrogacy not deserve the same expectations of any other couple, or single parent, who wants to have legal rights of parenthood over a child?

Just because you can have a child doesn't mean you should and I would never suggest that just because you can make a baby you should be a parent, that's why we have social services and safeguarding and rigorous procedures around adoption, but we do not have the same applied to surrogacy, again, regardless of your sexual orientation.

I hold all people to high standards, I don't discriminate when it comes to children and their safety, well being, physical and mental health at whatever stage of childhood and quite frankly continuing into adulthood.

I think there's a difference between children born into naturally less than ideal circumstances, (the overwhelming majority of whom will remain in those circumstances with the parent who gave birth to them), and setting out to intentionally create a child. I'm also not sure that 'adoption' and 'less than ideal circumstances' are or should be considered as the same thing. This is adoption and it's setting out to create a child who will brought into existence for the purpose of adoption.

If this was subject to the exact same standards of adoption - the same high standards of vetting, training, passing a board to have the child placed, the best interests of the child always the centre of everything, I would be a lot happier about it. Although I'm still deeply uncomfortable about intentionally creating a human for adoption, for a number of reasons.

Elsiebear
How do you reconcile calling the situation not 'ideal' with understanding that the economic power differential (dare I say coercion?) to donating eggs (which by these videos has caused stroke, loss of ovaries etc) and carry babies (I have had my own doctor remind me that pregnancy is one of the most dangerous things a woman can do to their body)? When you think of the economic disparity between the women being reduced to service providers like this and the dangers that they potentially face, there really should not be any minimising of the risks to these women. There needs to be a whole lot of additional regulation to ensure that strokes/ovary loss and other major health issues do not happen.

There are obviously altruistic situations as you have also pointed out. But you really cannot ignore the commercial and transactional side of these procedures.

Great post Elsiebear90

There is also at the current time and culture for women and children's rights, a number of situations in which a group who have a very deeply felt desire for something they want, are seeking for that situation to be met for them. To do that, there's an attempt to dismiss, or minimise or erase entirely the voices or considerations for other parties in the situation who also have skin in the game. It's more comfortable to do so, and the ones being minimised or told they're fine and it's not an issue for them, are the ones with less power and less voice. The socially responsible thing to do is to look at the needs equally for everyone involved, and to separate wants from needs. And not to facilitate more powerful people with wants meeting their wants through trying not to think about or recognise the harm being done to those they want to use for those wants.

Being 'nice' and being 'kind' in this situation would be to pretend that children will be fine, it will all be fine, how lovely for everyone to be happy. There are those in the situation who will experience that as kindness and niceness, and there are those in the situation who may experience that as being unheard, dismissed, erased. Who has the power? Who is most deserving of careful consideration, difficult questions taking place and additional support because of it?

Not all kids are purposefully created because the parents decide they really want children, many just happen.

But the questions around surrogacy and IFV really have nothing to do with children never being born into ideal situations. It's about creating a legal and institutional framework where they are purposefully stripped of what are normally considered deeply important parts of their lives, even their rights. And not in any way for their own benefit.

I'm trying to think of an analogy but it's difficult because generally they are about adults who have some level of autonomy. But something along the lines of, we know many jobs, or marriage partnerships, may be unideal in some way. One person may exploit the other, the people we work for or live with is imperfect. That's different than creating a set of laws that make the inequality an inherent part of the institution of being an employee or spouse, which we try and avoid. And the more so when it's not just a small part of your life you have some choice over, but instead is at the root of your existence.

Obviously any situation where someone is exploited or coerced into getting pregnant or “giving their baby away” is appalling regardless of the circumstances. I do not agree with poor vulnerable women being used as incubators for rich couples, or donating their eggs for cash etc. the power imbalance is too great. However, clearly not all surrogacy or egg/sperm donation occurs under these circumstances, in this country at least we appear have tight regulations to prevent exploitation. I am not a legal expert on surrogacy by any means, so can’t say whether I believe it’s “enough”. However, I can not find any logical reason to object to surrogacy for altruistic reasons. If someone offers to be a surrogate for a relative or friend purely to help them have a biological child why should we prevent that? Who are we protecting in that situation when there is no coercion or exploitation? If you say the child, then as in my previous posts, I’m yet to see any evidence to say the child will suffer or be harmed due to being born via surrogacy. Likewise I can’t find any reason to object to egg or sperm donation done for altruistic reasons either as there’s no evidence to say children who are born via this method suffer because of it.

How about something about child marriage Goose, linked to religion, maybe something in Sharia law? I can't quite put my finger on it either but I know what you're saying.

It occurred to me that whilst I am obviously not advocating for a Handmaids Tale dystopian future, even puppies and kittens get to stay with their mothers for what, 8-12 weeks?

There's something about taking a newborn baby away from the only mother and 'home' they have had and whisking them away, thinking in that moment that you finally have your dream come true...and the baby? The baby is just this little being who wants their mum.

Obviously any situation where someone is exploited or coerced into getting pregnant or “giving their baby away” is appalling regardless of the circumstances. I do not agree with poor vulnerable women being used as incubators for rich couples, or donating their eggs for cash etc. the power imbalance is too great. However, clearly not all surrogacy or egg/sperm donation occurs under these circumstances, in this country at least we appear have tight regulations to prevent exploitation.

Is this even possible is the question.

I doubt it is, when we live in a society where women face such power imbalances throughout the world.

I am an adoptive parent and adoption was very much my first choice. This is true of more adopters than you may think. I have no sense of loss in terms of not having a biological child. I am, however, acutely aware of the loss of my DC may have to deal with.

There are people who purposefully choose to adopt because they know there are children who need parents. I doubt you'd find many children who would say they'd rather be adopted than have whatever situations that led to their adoption. Most would like their biological parents to be able to care for them properly. Adoption happens when something has gone wrong in a family.

But adoption agencies are increasingly aware of problems in international adoption where economic benefits of westerners coming in to adopt children means people are encouraged to give up their kids, or solutions that allow parents to care for their own kids properly aren't sought. International adoption itself has come under real scrutiny because the children are taken so far from their birth parents and extended family that any relationship with those people is unlikely.

These kinds of considerations are about increasing recognition of children's rights, but to a large degree they are in the opposite direction of the inherent nature of gamete donation and surrogacy. It's very strange to see more and more countries closed to international adoptions to protect children while surrogacy is seen more and more as a commercial business by many people.