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.

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

This only makes sense if you think, somehow, weirdly that feminists here are campaigning for post birth abortions for newborns

@PlanDeRaccordement

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.

And the rights of the child are..?

What "protection" are you talking about.

How do you protect someone from not receiving their payment or compensation or expenses because they couldn't carry the baby to term or deliver the healthy child desired.

What protection from having to make the heartbreaking decision when the intended parents fuck off decidng they don't want to risk a brain damaged child would a contract have exactly?

I am interested in statistics around 'altruistic surrogacy' and how many surrogacy arrangements are truly between family members or very close friends, with absolutely no money changing hands?

In the case of Hannah and Jake Graf - does that count as 'altruistic surrogacy'? They found their surrogate Laura through a website, where Laura had obviously put herself forward to be a surrogate, she had volunteered to do it. Laura was a single mother from Belfast and was paid £15,000 in 'expenses' which one could argue is quite a lot of money for someone in her position. Does that count as 'altruistic surrogacy'? I guess so as commercial surrogacy is not allowed in the UK, but there still seems to be quite an imbalance of power, and still a long way from a family member doing it for you.

By the way, I know it says we shouldn't name names, but the Grafs have obviously recently made a prime time TV show about their experience, so I am guessing I am allowed to speak about it in the way that I have (ie not attacking anyone?) Although knows what the rules are anymore!

But think altruistic surrogacy with a contract in place to protect the surrogate is what should be allowed.

How do you define 'altruistic'? If it is truly altruistic then why the need for a contract anyway?

@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

I agree.

A far better comparison is that of adoption.

No contrast how, when a child it put up for adoption the intervention of social services whose purpose is to above all else protects the rights and needs of the child.

This is why open adoptions are now commonplace (or as a minimum letterbox contact with the birth mother except in very rare cases) because it's widely recognised that retaining a relationship with the birth mother is beneficial to the child.

In commercial or even altruistic surrogacy, the focus is always the outcome for the commissioning parents and there is often an absence of impartial oversight that centres the needs of the child.

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.

You are forgetting that there are limits on abortion.

The public debate centres on when and in what circumstances. Very few people are pro abortion in all cases or anti abortion in all cases.

No contrast how, when a child it put up for adoption the intervention of social services whose purpose is to above all else protects the rights and needs of the child

Yes I'm still wondering what protections could possibly be in place that doesnt result in a baby just being abandoned in a hospital whilst both parties implement their get out clauses. Or a birth mother who cabt really afford to look after a baby feeling obligated to raise a baby they never planned on having. Not as if they'd even have anything when they are discharged a few hours later witg a new born and not even a car seat.

How is any of that in the babies best interests or the surrogate mothers interestes.

As a pp said, if its all so altruistic what do they need protection from exactly

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.

Completely agree

@PlanDeRaccordement

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

Are.. are you actually suggesting newborns don't have a right to life?

I'm fervently pro-choice but I think we can all agree once the baby is born it's done. The right to life is a given.

And yes, a newborn should have a right to be nurtured in the first few months of its life by the woman in whom he/she has grown for 9 months.

You can't look at a 5 year old who was born through a surrogacy arrangement and say "he looks ok, it must all be fine then'. The way those children will feel is going to evolve for the rest of their lives including when they have their own children.

I was fucked up by my birth family in a different way, I thought I'd processed it all and actually now I've reached the age my parents were when it happened I feel very differently and judge one of them in particular much more harshly than I did as a young woman.

I do always wonder what happens if the child is born seriously disabled - presumably the potential parents walk away and leaves the child with its birth mother?

I personally think surrogacy is just slavery (different if it is a close family/friend doing it for their family/friends of course as then the financials aren't the main driving force).

I expect it will become more and more common as women's rights are consigned to the dustbin.

Are.. are you actually suggesting newborns don't have a right to life?

I read that as a right to life with its birth mother not to not having a right to life at all

rorosemary

"We're all fine with dads taking care of babies, while they didn't have a womb attachment with them either. This isn't different, baby will bond with the other parent."

I think services would be pretty concerned about a family where the birth father had sole care of a baby unless the mother was dead or totally incapacitated!

In a typical family set up the foetus will know the father's voice so that's also not the same as being handed to "intended parents" at birth but in either case the situation is not what we know to be optimal for the newborn's development. They won't die, but that's not the yardstick!

Why do people who don't like women asserting these sorts of analyses of bodily integrity always want us to think it's like abortion?

It's never like abortion. That's a reversal. To my mind, surrogacy is almost a mirror-image.

Abortion:
-Women's autonomy over her own bodily integrity, life choices and NOT being seen as only a vessel for a pregnancy. Also one of the key arguments for abortion is specifically that the procedures are LESS risky to the health of the mother than carrying on with pregnancy/childbirth. Abortion advocates for women to be seen as full human beings, not merely incubators for a foetus.

Surrogacy:
-Being called a gestational carrier and committing to undergo this life-altering experience for other people's benefit, to meet THEIR desire. Signing a contract to "rent your womb" which has clauses to control you, your body and the resulting baby. All of the medical risks. You are described as a "surrogate" (ersatz, not "real" even though a mother is what you are). Surrogacy doesn't see you as a woman in your own right, you are reduced solely to your perceived "role/function" of bringing someone else a child.

Someone on Twitter has argued that 'consenting adults in possession of a uterus' should have the right to do with that as they please, in the name of bodily autonomy, including being able to 'market their reproductive capabilities' by being a paid surrogate.

Which is strange because I don't think I have ever seen this particular individual argue that 'consenting adults in possession of two healthy kidneys' should be allowed to sell one of their kidneys in the name of bodily autonomy?

I wonder why that is?

Good post witchesaremysisters.

The comparison with abortion doesn't work at all.

The "in possession of a uterus" prompted me to comment on the previous thread.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that an adult in possession of a uterus must be in want of a fat pay cheque from an exploitative couple who wish to purchase a baby."

New to this thread - but as a U.K. based surrogate I hope my perspective is helpful. I’ve responded to a couple of points raised earlier on the thread.

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.

Ahem. I am by all sensible comparatives a “rich woman” - and highly very educated - and I have been a surrogate. Lots of the surrogates I know are decidedly middle class - we are a very mixed bag.

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.

I am sure that this is true - and very sad. But I don’t think it’s directly comparable, a surrogate child is never abandoned - it is much wanted and goes straight into the arms of loving parents.

Once money is on the table - and £15k for "expenses" in a country with free healthcare is a fee by any other name - you are outrightly exploiting women.

I completely disagree. Pregnancy comes with costs. Clothing, toiletries, extra vitamins, childcare, travel to medical appointments... oh and loss of earnings, particularly for the self employed. £15k is a very normal level of expense for a pregnancy. Some surrogates expenses are higher and some are lower dependent on their circumstances.

Where's the "altruism"?

Altruism is a convenient concept and shorthand for a selfless act - but what decision anyone makes is every truly altruistic? We do things because we want to - because of how they make us feel. For some people, helping others makes them feel good. Watching my friends become parents was an incredibly euphoric and powerful experience.

Someone on Twitter has argued that 'consenting adults in possession of a uterus' should have the right to do with that as they please, in the name of bodily autonomy, including being able to 'market their reproductive capabilities' by being a paid surrogate.

Which is exactly the same argument put forward by people trying to legitimise sex work.

It also has the same rebuttal in that you rarely find women who have equivalent earning potential in other spheres choosing sex work or surrogacy as their go to employment of choice.

It's a means of last resort, not a positive "body affirmative" or "empowering" choice and by utilising/supporting these "services" you are capitalising on and exploiting someone's fiscal vulnerability for personal gain.

I posted this on the deleted thread which sadly saw the loss of many excellent posts:

Here's an interesting exercise I like to play with my friends. Get a group of mothers together in a room and ask how many of them and their children would be alive without medical intervention during the birth.

You'll typically find it's very few of you. Without medical intervention, either the mother or baby (or both) would probably have died or been seriously injured. And even with medical intervention, many women are left with life changing injuries and trauma.

Birth (and pregnancy) is dangerous. It's dangerous for women, it's dangerous for babies. To dismiss that reality so airily makes me incandescent because it is something that is never discussed when women 'altruistically' gestate a baby for someone else.

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.

No one is interested in 'rescuing you', or in denying that there are some (though not many) women who would willingly volunteer to be surrogate mothers.

This is about what governments and the medical establishment should tolerate and facilitate in order that some people can be parents, and what the social consequences of that would be. There are libertarian arguments in favour of commercial organ donation, using the same logic you have put forward, my body, my choice, no one has the right to tell me I can't sell my own kidney if I wish to, etc. Doubtless there'd be more than a few people who'd be eager to sell a kidney for, say, a million dollars. Society still doesn't facilitate or allow this, because, even while we acknowledge that an individual does, indeed 'own' his or her kidneys, we believe that the broader social effects of establishing a market in kidneys would be undesirable.

A woman’s bodily autonomy is absolute.

Not really. No one has the right to use their body exactly as they wish in all circumstances. You do not have an absolute right to sell your kidney, and you do not have an absolute right to rent or volunteer your womb to gestate a child for someone else. You DO have the right not to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. The fact that women have THIS right does not make an argument for the state to facilitate commercial kidney donation or surrogacy.

I also think it is disingenuous to use the 'reproductive autonomy' argument in favour of surrogacy, because we have abundant evidence that the actual practice of surrogacy reduces the autonomy of pregnant women - witness the coerced abortions, the hyper-vigilant body monitoring of pregnant surrogate mothers, the fact that the surrogacy lobby is now openly discussing how to pass laws that ensure these women have no legal rights to the children they give birth to.

But, if we are to go with your abortion analogy, a society might decide that a woman's right not to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term does not outweigh the right of the potential child to be born. Feminists argue the opposite, and many societies today agree, because of the well-documented harms that result when women and girls can't access safe abortion. Harms that are so broad, they effectively preclude women's full participation in public life as equal citizens. Do women NEED surrogacy in order to do that? Obviously not. Surrogacy is for the benefit of others, mostly men.

Hi Anon992

Welcome to the thread and thanks for posting.

I hope it's okay to ask a few follow-on questions:

1. Talk us through your life circumstances at the time you made this decision (how did it come about, what was your employment, did you have children/a partner of your own, who suggested what, and what was your socio-economic status at the time)?
2. How did you find the parents? Who did you give your baby to and why? Do you have any contact with the child? Was there any friction between you and these parents? Were there any agencies involved?
3. Did you provide your gamete as well as carry the child? What was the pregnancy/childbirth like, were there any complications during? What about now/later on?
4. What was your financial compensation? If you went through an agency/clinic of some description, how much money did they take?
5. Did you have a contract? What was it like? Who brokered it (was it a legal firm, for example)? Could you abort the foetus for any reason? Could you keep the baby if you wanted to? Were there stipulations/restrictions on your activities? What happened if you didn't comply with some part of the contract (e.g. missed a medical appointment, had an alcoholic drink)? 6)What parts of your pregnancy/childbirth care was delivered by the NHS and what by the private sector?
6. What do you do in terms of surrogacy now? Have you ever recommended to any of your friends/other women that they should also be surrogates? Do you speak in professional or organisational settings about your experiences to people who might be "embarking on a surrogacy journey"?

You don't have to answer any of these but would appreciate openness.

But I don’t think it’s directly comparable, a surrogate child is never abandoned - it is much wanted and goes straight into the arms of loving parents.

I broadly fall into anti-surrogacy, largely through persuasion that the costs to poorer women outweigh any benefits.

I did used to have less issue with altruistic surrogacy in this country. My biggest concern here would be the abandonment issues a child will have. As I understand it, the issue isn't so much literally being abandoned and uncared for, but being removed from the mother they spent the last 9 months growing in, who is the only person they know through voice and heartbeat.

Surely the baby isn't taken from the mother straight after birth?

My other issue with surrogacy, was that previously it was something done occasionally on behalf of mothers who were unable to go through birth themselves. Now it appears to be a lifestyle choice for Hollywood stars and gay men.

I think rich people should have their own babies like the rest of us, and single-sex couples need to find co-parents who they can have a family with. Yes that's more messy and involves compromises, but wherever possible children should be brought up knowing the background of their parents.