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.

What happens to the right to bodily autonomy when either the mother or the commissioning person wants or doesn’t want an abortion, plan?

In many US surrogate contracts, a mother can be forced into an abortion she doesn’t want by a commissioner, or denied one she does want, eg a reduction.

Where is her bodily autonomy then?

I find it incredibly unnerving how men are so easily able to shut-down women, discussing an issue which specifically affects only women, which the men have explicitly put in the public domain for discussion, on a parenting forum's Feminist discussion board.

Yup. Me too.

I agree OP.

It's problematic because it can never be an equal exchange because pregnancy is inherently risky.

It doesn't necessarily follow that all problematic things should be illegal, but it does mean that it is impossible to quantify the exchange in a legal document.

To me a contract doesn’t dehumanise, it actually underlines the surrogates full person hood. It wasn’t that long ago that women were deemed not mentally capable of being a signatory party to any contract. The right to contract is an equal right that we fought long and hard to obtain. The right to bodily autonomy is also one we have fought for and I think it morally wrong for any of us to tell a woman she cannot volunteer as a surrogate if she so wishes. In addition, any baby that woman has is her responsibility and she can abort it, keep it, or adopt it out either prearranged as a surrogate or not prearranged and as a result of an unplanned pregnancy.

Here you show your complete lack of understanding. The contract specifically denies the surrogate mother the option to abort/keep/adopt out the infant. That is the whole point of the contract. The commissioning parents get to make those decisions because they purchased the egg and provided the sperm so they are the child's parents. The surrogate becomes an incubator for someone else's child.

it must be accepted that childlessness is sufficiently harmful to justify any risk to the gestational mother or child and no other remedy for that harm exists.

No it doesn’t. Why should it? Harm arguments have no place when talking about a woman’s bodily autonomy and her reproductive rights. If a woman wants to reproduce, have a baby, for another person, then that is her right to do so. All we can do is set up a system to support and protect her from exploitation.

Your it must be accepted that harm to this person must outweigh the harm to another is a bad argument. It can be easily extrapolated to any pregnancy, Adoption is somewhat harmful to a baby, but we don’t force mothers to have an abortion unless she can demonstrate the harm to her outweighs the harm to a baby being adopted out? No. That is a sword of Damocles you are proposing.

A woman’s bodily autonomy is absolute. These decisions are for her and her alone.

This kind of donation has the potential to be harmful and exploitative (and indeed is in other countries), but in the UK is largely managed safely, to ensure that the donor is not being coerced or receiving financial remuneration.

Are there many examples of people who give kidneys to complete strangers?

I'm opening myself up for abuse here but I am against both surrogacy and IVF.

It is the most extreme form of male entitlement to think a woman's uterus is ever for sale.

A child has the right to at least one loving parent/caregiver, no one has the right to have a child.

I think we need a huge push for people to consider adopting (and I don't care if this is for same-sex or heterosexual couples or single women or men.

I am so angry at some of the stuff I've been reading about surrogacy today.
www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/09/13/ukraines-baby-factories-the-human-cost-of-surrogacy/

www.organdonation.nhs.uk/get-involved/news/500-people-have-now-donated-a-kidney-to-a-stranger/

I've answered my own question.

@growinggreyer

To me a contract doesn’t dehumanise, it actually underlines the surrogates full person hood. It wasn’t that long ago that women were deemed not mentally capable of being a signatory party to any contract. The right to contract is an equal right that we fought long and hard to obtain. The right to bodily autonomy is also one we have fought for and I think it morally wrong for any of us to tell a woman she cannot volunteer as a surrogate if she so wishes. In addition, any baby that woman has is her responsibility and she can abort it, keep it, or adopt it out either prearranged as a surrogate or not prearranged and as a result of an unplanned pregnancy.

Here you show your complete lack of understanding. The contract specifically denies the surrogate mother the option to abort/keep/adopt out the infant. That is the whole point of the contract. The commissioning parents get to make those decisions because they purchased the egg and provided the sperm so they are the child's parents. The surrogate becomes an incubator for someone else's child.

No the contract doesn’t. Not in any surrogacy contract I have seen. All the ones in properly run surrogacy programs actually have an exit clause where the surrogate can choose to abort within the laws of her country or choose to keep the baby and not give it up at the end.

Regardless, we can legislate a contract that protects the surrogates rights, nothing says that surrogacy has to be run in the most draconian exploitive manner possible.

All we can do is set up a system to support and protect her from exploitation

What do you think the contract would do? Dictate what she can eat or drink or do . Whether she can go on holiday, whether she can even have medical treatment.

If she isn't free to make medical decisions without running past someone else first then thats being exploited.

@SophocIestheFox

What happens to the right to bodily autonomy when either the mother or the commissioning person wants or doesn’t want an abortion, plan?

In many US surrogate contracts, a mother can be forced into an abortion she doesn’t want by a commissioner, or denied one she does want, eg a reduction.

Where is her bodily autonomy then?

Not in ones I have seen. They have exit clauses where if the surrogate changes her mind she can obtain an abortion (if legal) or keep the baby. I have never seen one where an abortion was forced. The contracts usually stipulate that the parents to be must pay for all pregnancy costs even if they change their minds mid pregnancy.

You must be seeing the worst case exploitation....which is why surrogacy is problematic. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

My friend offered to be a surrogate for me. I didn't take her up on it because I didn't want a surrochild anyway and was still doing ivf but I in no way asked for it. She had very clearly thought about it for months and discussed it at length with her husband and parents. She had contacted other surrogates about their feelings and was very clear which rules, wishes and boundaries she had (clear things like only me in the delivery room at the end and if its unhealthy then so be it, no abortions). She knew the risks and felt that it was worth it to offer being a surrogate for me.

I declined her amazing offer, but I fail to see how it would have been exploitation in this case. I never asked for it, never thought about it, she thought it up all herself and was very well informed and prepared.

@Whatwouldscullydo

All we can do is set up a system to support and protect her from exploitation

What do you think the contract would do? Dictate what she can eat or drink or do . Whether she can go on holiday, whether she can even have medical treatment.

If she isn't free to make medical decisions without running past someone else first then thats being exploited.

Contracts have clauses to protect the rights of both parties. Contracts are not dictation of one party to another. They represent the mutual agreement both parties have reached jointly. In negotiating one, no party to forced to agree to any terms that they don’t want to. You literally talk back and forth until you reach something you both can agree to. Then you sign your consent.

Weird how surrogacy cases keep ending up before the courts, though, if it’s all so easy breezy and watertight...

I find it incredibly unnerving how men are so easily able to shut-down women, discussing an issue which specifically affects only women, which the men have explicitly put in the public domain for discussion, on a parenting forum's Feminist discussion board.

Yes, this a million times, can we keep saying this because I really think attention needs to be drawn to what is actually happening here.

Not in ones I have seen. They have exit clauses where if the surrogate changes her mind she can obtain an abortion (if legal) or keep the baby. I have never seen one where an abortion was forced. The contracts usually stipulate that the parents to be must pay for all pregnancy costs even if they change their minds mid pregnancy

Do they ever say the parents have to take that baby regardless ? So if its premature or disabled they have the baby anyway ?

Or do they walk awY leaving the poor single mum recovering from an emergency c section at 26 weeks to have to decide whether to keep the baby or give it up and how the hell she can feed her 3 year old now she wont get paid

Just replying to the OP

I agree. Same applies to prostitution/sex work.

While SOME women may have the ability to consent to surrogacy without pressure or ties MOST woman will do so from familial obligation, pressure to be kind, and in some parts of the world financial pressure. One woman going through a pregnancy as a surrogate as a result of pressure is too many.

The other issue is the child. Removing a child from the birth mother in the first 3 months is not optimal. We call it the 4th trimester for a reason. Doing so for child protection reasons is always a hard decision. This should not be done to appease someone who cannot have a biological child of their own.

It's heartbreaking for those unable to carry a child, but it offers better protection for women and children in the wider term and so I don't think surrogacy should be allowed.

I offered to surrogate to my sister when she was having fertility problems. Then she amazingly conceived twins. I am firmly against anyone telling me what I can and cannot do with my body and my reproductive capacity. It’s not for you to “rescue” me. My body, my choice.

Yes by all means, discuss safeguards and how to prevent exploitation. But the issue of whether surrogacy should be outlawed is to me like arguing to ban abortions. You’re taking away my right to have a baby as and when I choose either way.

And I will say it again, I don't like surrogacy in general.

But when men who spend all their time telling women that they have no right to define themselves, to advocate for themselves as a separate group and that biology is irrelevant, then want to use a woman's body for his own ends, showing that they knows exactly which kind of human he needs to carry out reproductive labour for them, then I think that is absolutely despicable.

Contracts have clauses to protect the rights of both parties. Contracts are not dictation of one party to another. They represent the mutual agreement both parties have reached jointly. In negotiating one, no party to forced to agree to any terms that they don’t want to. You literally talk back and forth until you reach something you both can agree to. Then you sign your consent.

You're working from the premise that both parties have equal bargaining power.

The reality of commercial surrogacy is that the dynamic always favours the commissioning parents because they are "buying" a service.

Having financial leverage means they are at an advantage in dictating terms with the underlying knowledge that if one surrogate declines their terms another (more desperate) party will accept.

There is also the fact that many surrogates are gaslighted to believe that extremely controlling contracts are "normal".

All these sob stories are so like anti-abortion activist arguments.
Every year SOME women die from the risks of abortions....oh one woman dying is too many so let’s ban them
SOME women get pressured into having abortions by family, financial /economic reasons, etc, oh one coerced woman is too many, let’s ban abortions.

Every right comes with responsibility and risk. You try and protect ALL women by banning everything reproductive with risk then we will end up back in the dark ages with no rights and no agency.

An abortion doesn't require a contract with others who can decide what happens. An abortion is decided by and given to the one person involved.

Its nothing like surrogacy

Even the newborns “right” to life with its birth mother...straight out of the anti-abortion play book.

In altruistic organ donation donating family members get counselling and are allowed to discretely opt out by 'tests showing they are incompatible'

Potential recipients already know that this 'opt out' exists, plus there are now 'matched donor' registries, so even being genuinely incompatible is no excuse if you have a relative who needs an organ. The counselling is often focused on ensuring you aren't being forced and understand the risks. It often does not deal with the huge family pressures, both overt and passive, that potential donors may be under. It's designed to brush past them, in fact, since the whole system is geared towards obtaining more donor organs. This is also why there are no long-term studies on living kidney donors' health.

I don't want to derail the thread. But I think we'd see similar dynamics emerging were surrogacy to be fully normalised, so this is perhaps relevant. The image the public has of living organ donation is a sanitised one. There's no institutional pressure to provide a more accurate picture, because doctors are focused on the dire need of the patients who need organs, not the people who may be required to supply them. In the final analysis, doctors and others are prepared to handwave the ethical problems inherent in living organ donation, because it saves lives. Surrogacy has no such argument in its favour.

@Whatwouldscullydo

An abortion doesn't require a contract with others who can decide what happens. An abortion is decided by and given to the one person involved.

Its nothing like surrogacy

Contracts protect as much as they require compliance. It’s a two way agreement. And for record, I am against commercial surrogacy. But think altruistic surrogacy with a contract in place to protect the surrogate is what should be allowed.