“We wanted someone who would turn around and say, ‘this is your child, what do you want?’, rather than them telling us their demands for putting their lives on hold for nine months."

[niceberg]

I used to be generally supportive of non-commercial surrogacy until threads here made me think more deeply, and explore further, the issues with it.

Being aware of the law commission consultation on surrogacy law, a link to an article on a gay couple's trouble with surrogacy caught my eye. I'm afraid it's Pink News, which I didn't realise until I clicked. But I'll give you a potted summary to save you giving them more clicks.

The headline of the piece is "A Devon gay couple have spoken out about their rollercoaster journey to becoming parents, highlighting the desperate need for surrogacy reform in the UK." OK thinks I, there must have been some traumatic event / breakdown in the relationship with the woman / trouble getting parental orders. Something difficult for them which I'm prepared to read about even if my ultimate concern will always be the welfare of the baby and its mother.

But the story contains nothing of the sort. It was as straightforward for the intended parents as you can get. They took the baby home the day after he was born. The 48 hours waiting for the DNA test result was apparently a complete nightmare (!). They had to wait the requisite 6 weeks to apply for the parental order...um, yes, and?

My violin was already small and it shrank to miniscule then disappeared completely by the end. Now I just feel sick at the entitled approach. Maybe Pink News is doing them a disservice - it's all in the editing right? - but clearly they think this is an angle that will resonate with their readers.

In July 2017 they drew up a written contract called a memorandum which confirmed what the surrogate would be paid, the terms they had agreed to and what the surrogate would be provided with.

However, memorandums are not legally binding. A surrogacy couple only become the legal guardians of the child once they sign a parental order which can be obtained from when the baby is six weeks old.

Darren explained: “You initially can’t involve a solicitor to draw up contracts as they’re not allowed to. The document we all signed was nearly 14 pages long and it even goes into the death of the surrogate or baby.

When is a contract not a contract?

What he says about the baby or mother dying is particularly chilling on the context of the quote used at the start of the thread. It's like he just wants his demands to be met and the possibility that the mother or baby might die is one so remote it hasn't ended his head.

He wants excellent customer service prioritised and the possibility that someone might die in the course of that is something of a shocking afterthought to him rather than something to be taken seriously.

Women are there to service his desires. Nothing new there then.

I’ve known gay men who insist that their gayness means they aren’t part of the patriarchy and don’t oppress women.

These fellas show that to be horseshit, clear as day!

It's fascinating to see them reliant on their mother for child care and refer to it as 'input'.

The DNA test and 48 hours waiting for it were the worst time in his life. Not when they heard their second surrogate had just had a miscarriage. And now they are saying how great it all is and that they originally wanted 2 but now they want 3 as if its a fashion accessory.

The minimisation of the impact on women in terms of their health and how they provide free childcare is staggering.

@FantaOra

As John Lewis and Waitrose can manage same day click and collect then I think these two men are well within their rights as consumers to complain about not getting the service they deserve.

😂

“We wanted someone who would turn around and say, ‘this is your child, what do you want?’, rather than them telling us their demands for putting their lives on hold for nine months.".

"We wanted a baby making robot and got an actual woman instead, how dare she be human at us?"

That couple are horrible people and I'm not surprised the mother didn't want them anywhere near her when she was giving birth.

When is a contract not a contract?

This is the fundamental problem with surrogacy. Even with a contract, money can't provide adequate compensation if things go wrong.

The nature of human reproduction means that the only people who are guaranteed to be present at the point of birth are the mother and the baby. Somebody must have legal responsibility for the child.

It should be difficult to adopt somebody else's child, otherwise we are entering the world of fairy stories like Rapunzel.

The document we all signed was nearly 14 pages long and it even goes into the death of the surrogate or baby.

'even'.

This kind of commoditisation of obtaining a baby is systemic and supported by high profile celebrities having their children born to a surrogate while no one questions the ethics of it - eg Robbie Williams and his wife, Kim Kardashian and Kanye west. They post on Instagram that they suddenly have a new baby in their family and people are falling over themselves to congratulate them. In Queer Eye, Tan France reassured a gay man who had just come out that you can always get a baby by surrogacy, when he was sad that he wouldn't have a family of his own. He didn't even mention the option of adopting.
It's just horrendous the buying of a baby and the dehumanisation of the mother and baby that occurs, and the disrespect for the mother-baby relationship.

So was this arrangement an example of 'altruistic' surrogacy? The 'good' kind? I'm not sure where the lines are drawn between altruistic and commercial, it all seems like a commercial transaction.

It's always an unequal and unfair transaction. There's never a fair way to do it because a woman puts her whole life on the line, and nothing can ever equal that, never enough money, praise etc, it'll never be enough.

It's always an unequal and unfair transaction. There's never a fair way to do it because a woman puts her whole life on the line, and nothing can ever equal that, never enough money, praise etc, it'll never be enough.

I used to think this but actually just read a birth story today where the surrogate was matched to the parents via surrogacy UK and i was surprised by how positive and not at all exploitative it all sounded. The surrogate already had 3 children of her own and just genuinely seemed to be motivated by the amazingly altruistic desire to help a childless couple. I completely agree that a lot of surrogacy sounds really exploitative (including the one that is the subject of this thread) but I don't think that they all are.

Actually I suppose I would agree that it is always unequal - as there's nothing as precious as a life - but I don't think it has to be unfair.

@shinyhappywoman

Actually I suppose I would agree that it is always unequal - as there's nothing as precious as a life - but I don't think it has to be unfair.

What about for the baby? I would say that it's always unfair for a baby to be taken at birth from its mother and sold.

The “it can be a very positive experience” argument is akin to the sex work argument. Yes some people find it a positive experience, but it doesn’t excuse the monumental shit show that’s going on underneath for the majority. We should allow something because a minority are all happy with it.

The document we all signed was nearly 14 pages long and it even goes into the death of the surrogate or baby.

On a link on one of the older threads, a lawyer recounts an arrangement where should the surrogate be left in a permanent vegetative state or similar, the intended parents assumed responsibility for withdrawal of life support with efforts to be made to sustain the body of the surrogate artificially until such time that a safe delivery could take place. Keep a woman’s body warm with circulation, remove baby, pull plug, woman’s family get no say.

Now, read that paragraph back and tell me the practice isn't utterly barbaric.

I'm going to say the bleeding obvious, that reads like a real life Handmaid's Tale.

Here you are @NotBadConsidering
I think this is the article you are thinking of.

"As a nurse, I have to confess that when I read this clause on end-of-life decision-making, my blood ran cold:
If the surrogate is in her second or third trimester of pregnancy and in the event that medical life support equipment is required to preserve and maintain the life of the Surrogate and if requested by the Intended Parents, the Surrogate and her husband agree that the Surrogate’s life will be sustained with life support equipment for a period to achieve viability of the fetus taking into account the best interests and well-being of the fetus . . . The Intended Parents will make the decision with regard to how long the life support should be continued prior to the birth of the Child taking into account the obstetrician or perinatologist’s recommendation and the desires of the family of the Surrogate. The Surrogate’s husband, or her next of kin, is solely responsible for determining the time at which life support treatment will be discontinued following the birth of the Child."

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20390/

Isn’t it time “traditional” (own egg) surrogacy was made illegal? Giving away your own genetic child after carrying it for nine months is too traumatic and riddled with issues. Also, the only oversight over this process pre-court order is via the fertility clinics. So make it a clinic-only process and at least that way the skinflints and some of the completely unsuitable types will be deterred.

I believe “straight” surrogacy was outlawed in the US pretty quickly after a horrible cause celebre.

This is the horrifying story of keeping a brain dead woman as an incubator. How anyone thinks they can purchase the right to do this to another human being turns my stomach.

Rest in peace Miss P.

www.irishtimes.com/news/health/hse-admits-partial-liability-over-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-kept-on-life-support-1.4010364

www.irishtimes.com/news/health/i-didn-t-just-lose-my-daughter-i-lost-her-baby-and-my-grandchildren-1.4010269

[quote MotherForkinShirtBalls]This is the horrifying story of keeping a brain dead woman as an incubator. How anyone thinks they can purchase the right to do this to another human being turns my stomach.

Rest in peace Miss P.

www.irishtimes.com/news/health/hse-admits-partial-liability-over-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-kept-on-life-support-1.4010364

www.irishtimes.com/news/health/i-didn-t-just-lose-my-daughter-i-lost-her-baby-and-my-grandchildren-1.4010269[/quote]
Her story absolutely chilled me. I hope her partner and children are doing well.

The second link is from the point of Mr P, who lost his mother to childbirth, his wife to cancer, and now his daughter, Miss P, to a brain cyst. Terrible, terrible story, including the final meeting of Miss P’s children with the mum being kept breathing only with technology, eventually leading to a closed casket funeral.

It’s a disgusting practice.

Making it illegal is very difficult though, as can be seen in the UK. Which part of the process do you prevent? You can’t stop women inseminating themselves then once the baby is born, you can’t insist she keep it.

What you can do (and I support this) is make no special allowance for it and have no enforceable contracts. This at least makes it riskier for the exploiting “intended parents” and makes it less desirable as an option.

Really what we need is for it to be less socially acceptable. High profile cases are not helpful with this.

I think, in addition to making surrogacy socially unacceptable we need to make it illegal. We need to outright stop the clinics from doing this and punish them with fines and imprisonment for anyone caught arranging this. It's human trafficking and slavery. It's wrong.

I would also like to see a ban on British couples doing it overseas and being allowed to bring the baby back. I don't know what the best way legally is but I think not allowing the citizenship of the child or the registration of the birth in the UK. I know its harsh but if we ban it here, we have to ban couple going overseas and returning.

Making it illegal is actual quite easy. Many countries have outlawed the practice and we should, too.

In my view, surrogacy, which in essence involves giving ownership of your body to another party, cannot be regulated to turn it into a practice that respects the human rights of all involved parties. Prostitution and slavery are two similar human rights violations. They are always harmful to the party being bought. That there may be individuals who feel they benefit from selling their bodies cannot outweigh the fact that the vast majority of those involved on the supply side of these transactions are being exploited.

The mothers involved are - even with something as supposedly benign as the UK's altruistic surrogacy - almost always underprivileged in terms of their economic and societal standing and often not able to understand the full consequences of what they are agreeing to. This means exploitation is built into the system.

Making it illegal is actual quite easy. Many countries have outlawed the practice and we should, too.

Who gets prosecuted and for what? Not being snide, genuinely interested.

@CarlottaValdez

Making it illegal is actual quite easy. Many countries have outlawed the practice and we should, too.

Who gets prosecuted and for what? Not being snide, genuinely interested.

Selling and buying children I'd imagine. If you make it illegal to buy and sell newborns, surrogacy stops.