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.

It has generally been objected to in general discussion around and about that no one, in general discussions, has any intention of “buying a uterus” because commercial surrogacy is banned (currently) in the UK. But generally speaking, if money is given to cover expenses (however defined) for the use of that uterus and body for 9 months, it can certainly at least be clearly stated generally that there is a transactional element to it.

@NotBadConsidering

It has generally been objected to in general discussion around and about that no one, in general discussions, has any intention of “buying a uterus” because commercial surrogacy is banned (currently) in the UK. But generally speaking, if money is given to cover expenses (however defined) for the use of that uterus and body for 9 months, it can certainly at least be clearly stated generally that there is a transactional element to it.

Absolutely. There is an exchange of money with a documented agreement that it results in the receipt of a baby, biological or otherwise.

In my personal experience, I’ve seen it as a common reaction in discussions in real life and online for intended parents to rail against the idea that they are partaking in a business transaction to purchase - with profit or just expenses - another human being to complete their family. The cold facts made impersonal, as opposed to the affirming pats on the back they might get otherwise, might seem jarring. The reality of that tends to bring out quite defensive reactions, in my personal experience, generally speaking.

It's a last resort chance of having a partially biological child. The IP's have to find a way to justify and pacify what they are partaking in, as do the surrogates. To normalise their feelings and reasonings for doing it.

Accepting that is different for gay male couples where this method is their only route to a biological child if they don't have a female friend to birth and co-parent with (or if they don't want that type of family unit).

Which is why it gets harder to keep the altruistic rose tinted glasses on with this, and for me it's bigger than just surrogacy.

IVF is only 25% successful as it is. The cost, the time, the emotions, the physical toll on the women going back time after time. When you're emotionally invested in your own child I understand, my eggs my body, my success or failure. But it must be so much more challenging when you are creating a child for someone else and continue to fail. The guilt? Their anguish? Resentment? Time wasted with the 'wrong' surrogate? The agencies talk about building friendships with surrogates. But how many actually stay 'friends' when the 'agreement' is complete. How many are still getting invites for lunch?

The success stories are few and far between though I appreciate they exist. It raises questions about siblings of shared dna and how this plays out over time. The post here the other day where the lady found a dna match that can only be a half sibling that nobody knew about. How is this being dealt with by those surrogates who have their own children. Do the kids have a right to contact at any point? So they even have a right to know? When they're 18? How might they feel towards each other?

And No-one is sharing the stories of the women and the IPs where there was no resulting successful pregnancy.

With such a low success rate it's borderline experimental. More so for gestational surrogates - especially , because of the added complexities.

Will we accept a covid vaccine that only works 25% of the time? Not likely. So how has it become ok for creating human life in a Petri dish that doesn't then survive 75% of the time. The clinical availability, doesn't stack up against the results. And the restricted availability in the NHS makes that fairly clear - you need to be really good candidates and still it's only 25%.

But of course, if you have the money, you can buy the service from private hospitals and women as often as you like. The self-centredness of this is astounding.

Why would I want to keep someone else's baby?? If I wanted another baby I would have had one with my husband!

Sorry to seem like I'm picking on you (not my intention) but your answers were so rich in meaning that I'd like to deconstruct this phrase a bit.

To start, I think this phrase illustrates the distinction between abortion (ending a pregnancy because the woman doesn't want to go through it & have a baby) and surrogacy (deliberately entering an agreement to undergo a pregnancy with all of the risks, for a baby the woman doesn't actually want).

It also highlights the transactional nature of surrogacy - if the mother actually wanted to have a baby, she'd do the whole process for herself. She'd be the one in control. But some sort of external consideration/force is at play here. There is another party asking her to become pregnant and give the baby to them - with incentives of some sort, be they emotional/financial/social/etc. This is why there is an agreement, a transaction, perhaps negotiated to a level of detail that seems incredible. One wonders how that amount of planning/control represents a form of autonomy or freedom for the mother.

Some might say the situation is similar to selling sex, where if the sex was actually wanted, the woman in question would do it for free, for her own pleasure.

where if the sex was actually wanted, the woman in question would do it for free, for her own pleasure. Such a great point and very much translates to commercial surrogacy.

Thank you MN for standing up to keep this thread. Every time I read a surrogacy thread I learn a great deal.

Even when I read about the interpretations of the thread on other SM platforms.

Do straight couples planning to use a surrogate have to pay for their own STD tests etc? I’d be surprised if they didn’t? Presumably it would happen through a private IVF clinic so the private clinic would require the tests be done.

You have misunderstood the quote. This is an argument employed by pro-surrogacy advocates who frame the desire for a child in human rights language and childlessness as a violation of this (assumed) human right, which must be rectified and which frames any resistance to surrogacy as breaching the (assumed) human right to be a parent of those seeking to acquire a baby through surrogacy

The quote is from an essay I linked to upthread that explains in detail why both commercial and altruistic surrogacy violate the human rights of the women and children involved. I can only recommend you read it. If only to see what the other side is arguing

Thanks for this from upthread, charlieparley. I was tired yesterday and couldn’t find the energy to re-explain myself as Plan had got my point back to front, but you’ve captured it better than I could have.

I wanted to say that I appreciated the input from the surrogates on the thread. I haven’t changed my views, but I do like to hear what people who disagree with me think.

Absolutely, it's very valuable to hear a range of perspectives.
Thank you to the women who share their points of view.

Can someone clarify? I’ve seen it mentioned that, legally in the UK, the surrogate has to approach the intended parents. But in this example, the intended parents sought someone out on Facebook:

www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/11/surrogacy-reform-gay-couple-uk-same-sex-parents-consultation-torquay-devon/

They began their search for a surrogate by joining surrogacy groups on Facebook. However, they had difficult interactions with potential surrogates, and instead decided to set up their own group.

Health care assistant Darren said: “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.

So does searching for a surrogate via social media circumvent this law? Can you actively advertise or do you just, for example, make it known on social media you’re intending to look at surrogacy and hope someone volunteers themselves? How can you not advertise the fact in some way? Surely no one would know you were looking otherwise, apart from closest friends and family and then it would have to rely on word of mouth. Is that what the law entails?

I think it is also interesting to begin to understand how few women can deliver a baby without medical intervention these days. It does throw a different light on the surrogacy discussion.

For instance, I had no idea in my pregnancy that I was going to end up high risk. I think having been through that experience does mean I don’t have a grasp that a woman can go through pregnancy with no issues at all and then deliver a baby that they have not bonded with at all.

Obviously, it is possible and obviously in 20, 30 years time, it is also possible that the risks of the situation may seem different or not.

It is certainly never as straightforward as people like to make it seem though.

@Bouncycastle12

Do straight couples planning to use a surrogate have to pay for their own STD tests etc? I’d be surprised if they didn’t? Presumably it would happen through a private IVF clinic so the private clinic would require the tests be done.

Correct the NHS does not support the process of surrogacy so any tests relating to it are not available for anyone. If you are a straight couple however it is more likely that you had some fertility testing on the NHS once you met the qualifying criteria. Tried for 2 years, or 3x recurrent miscarriages or relevant medical history. Age dependant.

To be clear with my first line, the NHS do wholly support pregnant women irrespective of how or why they conceived. So any statements that might generally state,as an example, the NHS doesn't wont my journey because I'm not heterosexual, would be unfair and incorrect.

So does searching for a surrogate via social media circumvent this law?

Yes interesting - it is stated in the surrogacy Pathway that advertising that you are looking for a surrogate is is criminal offence as is advertising that you are willing to be a surrogate. And a third party cannot act on your behalf except for not for profit organisations.

This particular article shines a rather risky light on this particular situation.

I agree. Same applies to prostitution/sex work.
I'm seeing a lot of parallels to the sex work "debate". The focus on the woman and her choice to be a surrogate rather than on the people who exploit her body for their needs, and the ethics of those people. I've seen gay couples in the public eye announce "their" pregnancy and birth with no acknowledgement of the mother. They just were entitled to use the mother in exchange for cash to "buy" another human (the baby). What kind of morals do people like that have? Are they going to raise "their" baby with similar attitudes to women and to relationships?

The other parallel I see with sex work is the constant desire to push the conversation onto "altruistic" surrogacy. This is comparable to focusing on the high-end prostitute who does it to pay her way through uni. Many many surrogates are coerced into it or exploited because they are poor. I think true altruistic surrogacy is probably in the minority and yet that's all that's discussed.

I think if most people engaged their brains beyond "she chose to help a childless couple, how kind" they would be horrified. But similar to sex work, most people just pay attention to what is in the media and probably don't want to think about it more.

The whole thing turns

Interesting. So you can’t say:

“We are looking for a surrogate” on social media.

But you could say “we will be doing surrogacy” on social media. And see what eventuates.

I wonder if it’s ever actually enforced, or whether it’s one of those laws that seems to be easily circumvented because no one wants to be that police officer who goes after people wanting to start a family.

I made the analogy once that sex work positivity is like an iceberg. Above the surface glittering and basking in the sunshine is the “my body, my choice” types who earn thousands, but their houses outright and paint a picture of rainbows and unicorns, ignoring the rest of the iceberg freezing in the depths below the surface, the sex workers who are trafficked, live in poverty, drug addicted, beaten, raped and killed, all of whom never get seen.

Surrogacy is the same. Above the surface there are heartwarming stories of families being created through altruism, yet below the surface there are the cases that end up in court, cause injury, disability, break up relationships, death, and contribute to factory-farmed baby production in countries like Ukraine. Those at the top of the surrogacy iceberg ignore the fact they’re facilitating such horrors because they don’t see themselves as the same and to think of themselves like it is too inconvenient.

NotBad

It's a very good analogy.

The "heartwarming" cases where it all worked out are used as justification for the practice as a whole even when it's clear that the concept is ripe for exploitation and fraught with potential complications.

As for that quotation from the article you linked:

Health care assistant Darren said: “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.

Just wow.... I'd say more but I think I'd be straying from the "general".

What do we think about blended family type arrangements as something to suggest to gay men rather than renting a woman’s body?

Among the economically well off, There are a reasonable number of ageing single women freezing their eggs Until they find a partner - And Meanwhile also gay couples who want kids. One way to go would be to have the gay couple sperm donate to the woman and raise kid together as a trio. Or a quad in the case of a lesbian and gay couple. Could even have a matchmaking service like a dating site to make initial connections.

Of course this would require that the gay men in question can stand to be around and work with female people for more than the time it takes them to give birth so it might not work for everyone!

@Frenchfancy

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.

Even if they were puppies, we leave puppies with their mother until such time as they are weaned and self sufficient. We don't rip them from their mother at birth.

@FWRLurker

What do we think about blended family type arrangements as something to suggest to gay men rather than renting a woman’s body?

Among the economically well off, There are a reasonable number of ageing single women freezing their eggs Until they find a partner - And Meanwhile also gay couples who want kids. One way to go would be to have the gay couple sperm donate to the woman and raise kid together as a trio. Or a quad in the case of a lesbian and gay couple. Could even have a matchmaking service like a dating site to make initial connections.

Of course this would require that the gay men in question can stand to be around and work with female people for more than the time it takes them to give birth so it might not work for everyone!

I read an article years ago about some friends - a single women and gay couple - who did just that. The trouble was that (at least when the article was written) only the single woman and one of the men were listed on the birth certificate, which meant that the other man had to take everything on trust and had no specific legal rights/parental responsibility. I'm not sure if this is still the case? But you can imagine issues could arise if, for example, the named father died and the mother decided to sever ties with the other man for whatever reason - perhaps they fell out, perhaps she wanted to emigrate etc. I'm not sure if there are now legal ways of protecting the "non-father"?

Paid surrogacy is illegal in the UK but couple find a way around that.
If we banned surrogacy apart from altruistic surrogacy then people would still find a way around that.
Allowing one kind creates a market of, so better to ban both.

@FWRLurker won't work.

I have a right to a family and not allowing it is homophobic/transphobic/lesbiphobic. Straight people don't have to share their children with multiple parents so why do we?

Plus, you still need a uterus.

@abigailwendover These days the Intended Parents apply for a parental order which gives them parental responsibility, and the surrogate has to consent, but the birth certificate remains the same.

Oh I was more wondering - in the case where 3 people wanted to co-parent (eg single woman and gay couple) - whether there was a way of all 3 of them having equal legal parental rights?