In GENERAL terms, all forms of surrogacy, altruistic included, is problematic

[NotBadConsidering]

And requires a woman - adult human female.

MNHQ have made it clear both here and on Twitter that this can be discussed in general terms, with no names being mentioned, even when a person with thousands of followers tweets about it in the public domain.

So please, adhere to the rules and discuss generally why it is an issue. Personally, regardless of the sexuality of the intended parents, even the most altruistic surrogacy arrangement - as in UK law, providing it doesn’t change - is drought with problems. Someone always gives up rights regardless. It’s inevitable. Either the intended parents do during pregnancy, and the mother and child certainly do regardless.

We have strict laws that mean a soon to be born child cannot be removed from a mother unless there are serious concerns for that baby’s welfare, yet in surrogacy, that is always the intention. This is not changed regardless of it being an altruistic arrangement. Nor is the risk to the mother.

And it requires a firm grasp on biological reality to make this happen. Two gametes are required, from one of each of the two sexes. The female sex - which exists despite recent attempts to deny its existence - does all the work and takes the greatest risk in surrogacy, even the most altruistic arrangements. It is therefore baffling how anyone could deny the existence of biological sex knowing this.

So, keeping it general, and not discussing names, please add your thoughts and experiences.

And in advance to those who have previously gone to the effort to discuss their experiences only to see them disappear.

I just started something similar!
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4031427-General-talk-about-some-mens-hypocrisy-in-discussing-surrogacy

Should we keep it on one? I can transfer my post over and ask to HQ to delete.

I’m always amazed at how it’s magically easy suddenly to work out what a woman is when it comes to surrogacy.

This is a general discussion thread, MNHQ, not intended to "target" an individual. Very important issues have been raised about male attitudes to surrogacy that women on a parenting forum, many with traumatic experiences of pregnancy and childbirth, need to be allowed to speak about. As we don't seem to be able to use real-life examples to illustrate our points, but please can we talk if we stay general?

So:

www.biology-pages.info/S/Sexual_Reproduction.html

Reproduction is dependent on two distinct types of organ systems (female and male). It is a binary, fixed, biological mechanism.
Two males (ejaculators) alone aren't going to be able to reproduce together.
That's not infertility.
That's not a human rights battle.
That's not even a medical issue.
That's basic biology.

An ejaculator needs a female human, a woman, to make a baby. Both for her genetic material (egg) and her unique reproductive function (female organ system). Hers is really the significant input, with huge sacrifices, time and risks of her whole person during pregnancy and childbirth.

Sperm-producers contribute remarkably little to this process of reproduction. They ejaculate. That's it. There is no associated male mortality. Ejaculators' bodies remain unchanged.

Some ejaculators might still decide they should have a right to access a woman's body, that a woman should be prepared to risk her own life to satisfy their dreams.

Some ejaculators might be upset if they don't get their way immediately.

But what is a woman?

Some ejaculators have been engaged in battles arguing that women, defined as a reproductive-sex-class, don't matter. Women's words actually mean nothing, that the concept of female biology making a material difference to our lives is outdated. We are just unknowable constellations of identity that ejaculators possess in their gendered souls. Women should not speak together about law, women should not make a fuss about policies that affect us, lesbians should be inclusive of penises, women should re-brand ourselves as cervix-havers and women should play rugby against ejaculator athletes. Women don't exist uniquely as a sex, as adult female humans, these ejaculators say.

If two prostate-owners who hold such views of women want to have a baby together, I ask:
If a woman is anyone who says they're a woman, why couldn't one of the ejaculators just identify as a woman? If sex is immaterial - a matter of semantics "assigned" by a medic - why not ask a doctor to just "re-assign" the sex of one of the ejaculators and mark it as "female"?
Wouldn't that, by these ejaculators' own logic, solve the issue?

Or is female biology relevant when ejaculators want to use us, but the language must still not use our word, woman? Why do such ejaculators insist on calling us surrogates instead of mothers? Cervix-havers, menstruators, surrogates, egg-donors, non-men. It's all part and parcel of the same thing, isn't it?

I think some testicle-havers really could work on their empathy, listening, inclusivity and kindness to women.

A child is a gift not a right. I don’t think there can ever be a thing as altruistic surrogacy. It’s simply too big a ‘gift’ to give someone else. No one going into a pregnancy knows what risk they could be putting their life at.

@witchesaremysisters I wish there was a like button on MN

My views on surrogacy have nothing to do with who wants the baby, I'm not sure they have anything to do with feminism either. I just don't think babies are a comidoty to be bought, sold and bartered as if they were puppies.

@Jkrowling92

A child is a gift not a right. I don’t think there can ever be a thing as altruistic surrogacy. It’s simply too big a ‘gift’ to give someone else. No one going into a pregnancy knows what risk they could be putting their life at.

I firmly disagree with you as a principle. In cases where a woman has lost her ability to carry a child to term due to e.g. cancer treatment and a family member offers themselves as a surrogate; how can it be anything other than altruistic?

I used think "whats the harm" if someone chose to do it.

But i remember listening to an interview with Julie bindel who raised some extremely good points and forced me to think alot more detail about it and I completely changed my mind.

I think there is far to much risk to the woman. I think there's a massive impact on her and her family and in her future abilities ro have children. On the child that the surrogacy results in.

And I dont think you can ever be sure that the decision to be a surrogate doesn't stem from past experiences or coercion or abuse or financial control no matter how seemingly amazing someone's life appears to be.

Amd its all made a million times worse where the woman can't even be named as a woman in case it offends the very people who know exactly what biology is when they want sex or a baby. Why would you help the class who hates you so much.

@witchesaremysisters

I just started something similar! www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4031427-General-talk-about-some-mens-hypocrisy-in-discussing-surrogacy

Should we keep it on one? I can transfer my post over and ask to HQ to delete.

Sorry for the cross post!

I firmly disagree with you as a principle. In cases where a woman has lost her ability to carry a child to term due to e.g. cancer treatment and a family member offers themselves as a surrogate; how can it be anything other than altruistic?

Because it may be altruistic - for the happiness of the intended parents - but it’s not without risk for the mother and child.

Very well explained, witches

Am half expecting a third thread deletion because, oooh, we are horrid...

It surely must be harder when uts a family member? Watching them grow. Disagreeing with parenting choices. Watching them go through a divorce/separation, disagreements about when exactly to tell the truth about aunt susie

I think it's abhorrent to talk about a baby, a human being, as some sort of product that can be sold/bought or given as a present. The selling and buying is more obviously exploitative and I honestly can't really believe that any society finds commercial surrogacy acceptable, but I find it really almost as disturbing to see people talking about surrogacy as 'an amazing gift' or similar.

It seems that nobody is ever thinking about what is best for the baby in these situations. Doesn't a newborn baby have any rights, is it really just a thing that can be traded at will? Personally, ever since I had my babies and I saw that they knew me and found comfort in being close to me above all other people from the very first day, it breaks my heart to think of a tiny little baby being taken away from its mother when the situation could so easily have been avoided. Perhaps that reasoning is too emotional and subjective, but it's how I feel. I know there are situations where a woman gives birth and is unable to care for that baby for whatever reason, which is desperately sad for the baby but better then to be removed from the mother than the alternative, but for me it is unethical and cruel to deliberately create a baby with the express purpose of removing it from its mother.

Surely it boils down to that buying babies is just incontrovertibly wrong.

Trying to rules-jockey that by saying that you're providing the sperm/egg and paying a woman to gestate them for you is just that - rules-jockeying. What you're doing is buying a baby.

And that yes, it's widely acknowledged and accepted that you wouldn't take puppies and kittens from their mothers before 12 weeks, I've seen extensive debate on how long to leave calves with cows, and yet removing a baby you've commissioned from their mother is supposed to be a beautiful thing. No. it's abhorrent, and we'd only do it in other circumstances if either the mother or the baby was in the greatest danger.

but for me it is unethical and cruel to deliberately create a baby with the express purpose of removing it from its mother.

The counter argument to this is that the child will be loved and raised in a loving family. I don’t doubt that to be true. But it still doesn’t explain why in other circumstances, child safety authorities and social services usually have to apply for a court order to remove a newborn baby from a mother, so serious is it considered to be. Why? Because of the recognition of that bond. Even if no money changes hands, this removal still happens.

Wasn’t there a thing on a previous thread with Covid implications how some intended parents were concerned about babies being left too long with their mothers ?

witchesaremysisters

I struggle to fully condemn truly altruistic surrogacy - where all the adults involved continue some sort of relationship - even though I know infant attachment begins in the womb.

It shouldn't need saying but I absolutely support same sex people being parents. I think there should be more support out there for other arrangements. A female couple I know came very close to having a child with a gay friend of theirs but didn't know how to protect against future difficulties, differences in opinion, life plans etc. I think this is a huge shame.

But back to surrogacy (and also prostitution). It's always perplexed me how we understand that to protect living elephants we ban the sale of all ivory, even antique. But many can't see the same argument for women.

I think anyone paying for surrogacy abroad is little better than the men in the Oxfam aid scandal. They see a woman in desperate times and instead of helping raise her up they take advantage of her.

@SaucyHorse

I think it's abhorrent to talk about a baby, a human being, as some sort of product that can be sold/bought or given as a present. The selling and buying is more obviously exploitative and I honestly can't really believe that any society finds commercial surrogacy acceptable, but I find it really almost as disturbing to see people talking about surrogacy as 'an amazing gift' or similar.

It seems that nobody is ever thinking about what is best for the baby in these situations. Doesn't a newborn baby have any rights, is it really just a thing that can be traded at will? Personally, ever since I had my babies and I saw that they knew me and found comfort in being close to me above all other people from the very first day, it breaks my heart to think of a tiny little baby being taken away from its mother when the situation could so easily have been avoided. Perhaps that reasoning is too emotional and subjective, but it's how I feel. I know there are situations where a woman gives birth and is unable to care for that baby for whatever reason, which is desperately sad for the baby but better then to be removed from the mother than the alternative, but for me it is unethical and cruel to deliberately create a baby with the express purpose of removing it from its mother.

This.

I have posted extensively on this topic. For me, there are 2 main issues. Exploitation of women - you will never see a rich woman, a princess or the wife of a president for example , becoming a surrogate- even an ‘altruistic’ one.

Two - the rights of the child. Someone posted amazingly on the other thread about the rights of the child. Having studied psychology I can assure you, studies on child abandonment are very distressing.

witches - post of the day.

Especially the choice of words. See how they fucking like it.

And I have also posted previously referencing studies into the symbiotic relationship between mother and baby throughout the 9 months gestation - it is an epigenetic one. So the ‘carrier’ has an impact on the genetic development of the child even if the child is made from the egg of another donor ( see child neurodevelopment).

There is no right to family life, where that family member does not exist.

@witchesaremysisters

This is a general discussion thread, MNHQ, not intended to "target" an individual. Very important issues have been raised about male attitudes to surrogacy that women on a parenting forum, many with traumatic experiences of pregnancy and childbirth, need to be allowed to speak about. As we don't seem to be able to use real-life examples to illustrate our points, but please can we talk if we stay general?

So:

www.biology-pages.info/S/Sexual_Reproduction.html

Reproduction is dependent on two distinct types of organ systems (female and male). It is a binary, fixed, biological mechanism.
Two males (ejaculators) alone aren't going to be able to reproduce together.
That's not infertility.
That's not a human rights battle.
That's not even a medical issue.
That's basic biology.

An ejaculator needs a female human, a woman, to make a baby. Both for her genetic material (egg) and her unique reproductive function (female organ system). Hers is really the significant input, with huge sacrifices, time and risks of her whole person during pregnancy and childbirth.

Sperm-producers contribute remarkably little to this process of reproduction. They ejaculate. That's it. There is no associated male mortality. Ejaculators' bodies remain unchanged.

Some ejaculators might still decide they should have a right to access a woman's body, that a woman should be prepared to risk her own life to satisfy their dreams.

Some ejaculators might be upset if they don't get their way immediately.

But what is a woman?

Some ejaculators have been engaged in battles arguing that women, defined as a reproductive-sex-class, don't matter. Women's words actually mean nothing, that the concept of female biology making a material difference to our lives is outdated. We are just unknowable constellations of identity that ejaculators possess in their gendered souls. Women should not speak together about law, women should not make a fuss about policies that affect us, lesbians should be inclusive of penises, women should re-brand ourselves as cervix-havers and women should play rugby against ejaculator athletes. Women don't exist uniquely as a sex, as adult female humans, these ejaculators say.

If two prostate-owners who hold such views of women want to have a baby together, I ask:
If a woman is anyone who says they're a woman, why couldn't one of the ejaculators just identify as a woman? If sex is immaterial - a matter of semantics "assigned" by a medic - why not ask a doctor to just "re-assign" the sex of one of the ejaculators and mark it as "female"?
Wouldn't that, by these ejaculators' own logic, solve the issue?

Or is female biology relevant when ejaculators want to use us, but the language must still not use our word, woman? Why do such ejaculators insist on calling us surrogates instead of mothers? Cervix-havers, menstruators, surrogates, egg-donors, non-men. It's all part and parcel of the same thing, isn't it?

I think some testicle-havers really could work on their empathy, listening, inclusivity and kindness to women.

Brilliant post Wiches.

NotBadConsidering - no I'm sorry for the X-Post, too! Just glad we're having this very general discussion!

Also have to agree, wholeheartedly, on the point that buying babies, purchasing another human being, is morally wrong in any circumstances but especially so when you consider surrogacy, and the intent to expressly remove the child from their mother (who sometimes doesn't even get to lay eyes on her baby).

@NotBadConsidering

I firmly disagree with you as a principle. In cases where a woman has lost her ability to carry a child to term due to e.g. cancer treatment and a family member offers themselves as a surrogate; how can it be anything other than altruistic?

Because it may be altruistic - for the happiness of the intended parents - but it’s not without risk for the mother and child.

Whether something is risky or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it is an altruistic act. If I risked my life to save someone who was dangling from a cliff, I might die but the act is still altruistic.

Surrogacy can absolutely be altruistic, if anything the fact that it comes with risks only furthers the altruism of the act.

Also of course babies have a natural connection with their mother to a large degree but that doesn't mean that every baby raised by someone other than their biological birth mum are doomed. Nurture > Nature