NCT and surrogacy - two men tell us about the birth they wanted

[OhHolyJesus]

The National Childbirth Trust, the place that is often your first introduction to a group where you make friends with other mothers-to-be, the place that tells you about bonding with your baby in the womb, here tells us how two men used a woman's body and how it was for them.

It's thankfully brief, and their 'special friend' gets a mention as their 'surrogate' but sadly not as the 'surrogate mother'.

www.nct.org.uk/labour-birth/dads-and-partners/your-experiences-having-baby-through-surrogacy

They’re getting involved in the birth of their child - what is actually wrong with that?

I mean, I'm pleased they are invested and intend to show up for the birth of the child they commissioned, unlike other commissioning parents who sometimes don't show as the woman they are 'using' is based overseas and they can't possibly take the time off work

As this woman who gave birth to the baby girl was a friend of theirs I'm sure they cared about her too but if faced with a choice between saving one or the other I can imagine which one they would chose, and I don't say that lightly. Childbirth is still a dangerous business.

This is one reason why the mother retains legal parental responsibility until a parental order is signed off, and the husband or partner shares that responsibility, as he has to be an advocate for his wife or partner during the birth. The commissioning parents may love their friend but they have spent money in the process and have a vested interest in the life of the baby (as does the woman and her partner).

There is mention of a birth plan. Doesn’t say that the mother was excluded anywhere. The article has been edited to highlight their perspective NOT hers. As someone else said further down the thread, surrogate parents do have a plan for what happens when the baby is born. And the term “commissioning parents” is dehumanising. I’ve read a lot of threads objecting to (horrible) phrases like “birthing parent” or “birthing bodies” but you think commissioning parent is ok? A lot of assumptions being made. For gay men who want children, how feasible is adoption vs surrogacy? Why would gay men choose surrogacy rather than adoption? Time? Age of child?

For gay men who want children, how feasible is adoption vs surrogacy?

there is no right to a child. if you are in a situation where for some reason you cannot make a baby even though you really, really want one it's not ok to buy one. can I buy you? why not?

I’ve read a lot of threads objecting to (horrible) phrases like “birthing parent” or “birthing bodies” but you think commissioning parent is ok

Fair enough, what would you prefer?

And the term “commissioning parents” is dehumanising.

Surely what is dehumanising is ordering a baby and calling the woman who has been contracted to gestate that baby at the very best "the surrogate" or possibly "gestational carrier" or even "oven" ( as seen on a previous thread here, sadly deleted).

I see nothing dehumanising about being honest regarding the nature of the contract. I suppose we could, more accurately, call them "baby buyers" if you prefer.

Why would gay men choose surrogacy rather than adoption?
One word: sperm. It's all about their sperm, the patriarchy, demanding a baby that carries their genes.

You only have to look at the reprehensible Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, ordering up babies, having a woman impregnated with three embryos, before knocking off two to leave the female embryo.
Not content with that, apparently he is now commissioning a set of twins. And to top it all he is a prolific sperm donor, reputedly having fathered 17 children this way. I suspect it's some sort of internalised homophobia, proving he is, after all, an alpha male. Who knows 🤷‍♀️

I also don't think straight couples should use surrogacy.

I also hope that if there was another woman involved, the woman who provided the egg for the pregnancy (assuming it was a different woman so her own children are not related to Lucille) then I hope she is ok and didn't suffer from OHSS or any subsequent health issues.

Perhaps if the NCT are widening their scope to include support for surrogacy they should include the women who donate their eggs. Many of those women are childless and don't need support through childbirth classes but could receive therapy to come to terms with what they have given away. Perhaps NCT could advocate for long-term peer-reviewed research into OHSS and the after effects and maybe even see if IVF has constructions to reproductive cancers or early menopause?

YES! too many young women are pressured into giving their eggs without understanding the long-term health and emotional impacts.

It all reminds me too much of the Magdalen Laundries.
After all, they made their bed too, by having unmarital sex. That's no shade on the adoptive families , by the way.
But
It's always poor women at one end of the scale, it's always justified, and always a complete and total disregard for the mother and baby bond, and imagine the presumption of any mother whose feelings change at some point between conception and birth.

This is a great podcast, discussing and explaining so much about the surrogacy industry. If you don't listen to the whole, go from around 24 minutes in to hear a searing explanation of the patriarchal nature of the deal, "Men wanting their precious genes in their own babies".

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/filia-podcasts/id1461524178?i=1000447756888

To deny a child a mother is just totally wrong in my view. Men can be great parents, but there is no substitute for a mother.

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg I didn’t say anyone was entitled to a child and nor did those men unless I missed something? I asked about the choices available.

@Gurufloof Is something wrong with surrogate parent or has surrogate become a word that can’t be used (like woman).

@FannyCann The birth mother was referred to as a special friend by the men interviewed, not any of the unpleasant and dehumanising terms you’ve mentioned. And I don’t think mentioning one badly behaved man is proof that the only reason gay men choose surrogacy is the patriarchy. Is there perhaps a well researched article or two to back that up?

@IsurvivedbutdidI

This is actually a really nasty thread. In fact this is borderline homophobic. Are these two men not entitled to be parents? Can they not make other parents friends? Can they not be interested in the birth and safety of the child that they will raise?

How they feel is fucking irrelevant. How the woman choses to manage her pain and approach birth in a manner which suits her is the only important thing. We don't have conversations about how a father wants his partner to give birth and give it any serious consideration even if hes married to the mother, because thats just controlling abusive shit if her feelings are not part of the conversation. This doesn't change simply because there is an arrangement in place to buy a baby post birth. Note the important bit here: post birth. They do not own her body and they don't own the baby. Legally speaking she remains the mother and guardian of that child in all sense until she signs over a baby post birth.

All this conversation is about is how these man think so little about the woman concerned that they have a fantasy about how she gives birth as if they have ownership and control over this. It does not acknowledge that this is one of the most dangerous days in a woman's life and how she can end up with life changing injuries. Nope its about the fucking mood lighting and whale music for the men not her pain relief and safety.

If thats homophobic to suggest these men are sexist pieces of shit who care nothing for the health and mental wellbeing of the woman carrying the child they want to buy and they want to micromanage every aspect of a woman's role in giving birth to that degree that its not just unhealthy its bordering on abusive levels of control, then i think theres something very wrong with the world and speaks volumes about how women's rights and health play second fiddle to the hurty feelings and dominance of men.

These conversations should not be happening without the voice of the mother.

Not in interviews. Not in private. Not ever.

Every time it happens it erases an important point. Why is she not there? To what extent she is happy and gaving to compromise how she feels? Is she fully comfortable with whats been discussed? Or does she feel pressurised because they are buying the baby?

Im sorry but the bias here is staggering. We dont hear that story. It's invisible or editted. We only see the fussy happy side from the point of view of the buyers.

Childbirth is about the mother and child. Never a third party. Prospective surrogate parents are so far down the priority list its untrue but the seek to make themselves at the top because of paranoia or some sort of inadequacy. Or to make sure the transaction is completed and the woman doesn't have the time or space to reconsider.

There very much is an argument that from an ethical point of view they shouldn’t be anywhere near the mother when she gives birth because of the potential for emotional and financial abuse given the dynamics of power in the arrangement.

I do feel this is one step removed from making the birth something that the buyers do have a right to make decisions about and be actively involved in and the woman involved a passive body that no longer has the same level of say as another woman if she says a surrogacy agreement.

We are beginning to see signs that this is the intention and plan in some parts of the US. It is about the woman no longer having full automy as soon as she agrees to be a surrogate and is owned by the prospective parents.

Someone upthread asked about how many children there are that are available for adoption in the UK - tens of thousands.

There are plenty of children who already exist who need a home and parents who will love them.

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/05/england-adoption-rates-fall-as-numbers-of-children-in-care-rise

When I did NCT any men in the group who tried to have the main say in the 'birth plan' would have had short shrift.

It was clear that it was the woman going through the physical pain and physical risks of the birth and therefore the role of DH was to support.

How have we regressed so far backwards in such a short time?

How have we regressed so far backwards in such a short time?

Men's feelings and gay rights are more important than women's health and their rights.

The establishment of a hierarchy of rights with womens rights being right down there at tbe bottom and sometimes not even existant because gender is important but 'sex is a man made construct' has been created.

The idea that a gay man might have a use for and wants to own a woman's body just as much as a straight man might is a concept a lot of people can't get their heads around.

Fathers rights are the default.
If he does/ does not want to claim paternity, that makes all the difference.

Just look through history.

'commissioning parents' is dehumanising - to the mother and baby. Men who buy women's bodies and buy babies don't get to claim they are being dehumanised. Maybe 'tricks' might be a better word, or what other word prostitutes use to describe their abusers.

As for the birth plan, until the baby is born it does not exist as a legal person so the birth plan is the mother's and only the mother's. Once the baby is born then the only other perspective that needs to be considered at that point is the baby's and what is best for the baby. At no point are men, whether they treated the woman as a commodity to be bought, is an abusive parter, or a loving one, a patients of the nhs. At no point should their 'needs' be considered.

'Intended parent/s' is the term used in surrogacy circles, where agencies and lawyers are involved and get £££ for their time.

The baby might grow how and disagree that these were the parents 'intended' for her or him.

I don't think that makes it clear who they are or what the situation is, so prefer commissioning parents as that is what you do when you order a service or product.

Intended parents could be used to label the parents of a couple to a child they are adopting before they formally adopt. We could use biological parent but that is more the surrogate mother, maybe genetic parent? But then the genes come from the gamete donors and one of the commissioning parents. It's complex so the language should be clear.

I'd like to point out that whilst this thread is about two gay men becoming fathers being interviewed for the NCT it is all types of couples that are commissioning parents, one thing they have in common is having £, though some fundraise for their IVF and the surrogate mother's expenses. This is another same sex couple but there are plenty of other fundraisers to hereto couples, all of them are 'using' a woman, or several women...look at Sophie Berensiner in the Times.

www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/babytucker-wilson?utm_id=106&fbclid=IwAR1EpS5tL4m5vYNlgw2TCBK9FUAkLUwOBcAaoc3v78iR7kpeTH88IZnZTMg

Is something wrong with surrogate parent or has surrogate become a word that can’t be used (like woman
The surrogate in this instance is ths woman who will carry and give birth. The men in this case are the commissioning parents, or baby buyers or fee payers, or whatever but commissioning parents is least worse I think. Unless you can come up with better.
But in human trafficking sorry surrogacy, the woman is always the surrogate.

To help explain the split between those deciding to adopt or hire wombs, from the LGB and T press:

www.therainbowtimesmass.com/fatherhood-a-journey-for-gay-bi-and-trans-dads/

See the list of surrogacy programmes and the small mention of adoption agencies at the bottom.

Although there was this.

"We are thrilled to be working with GWK to help educate prospective adoptive dads on how best to navigate the often-confusing adoption process, and connect them with LGBTQ+ affirming professionals.”

It's a 'fatherhood programme', no mention of motherhood or lesbian couples. There appears to be no such programme to guide same sex females on the course to obtain sperm donors.

That’s very true and well said. We can’t know what the background is to the article, whether the mother refused involvement but the NCT chose to write and publish this. Chose not to show that essential perspective. It’s made me think twice about my own acceptance of what is presented.
“Today 00:10 RedToothBrush

These conversations should not be happening without the voice of the mother.

Not in interviews. Not in private. Not ever. “

the woman is always the surrogate.

Indeed - although I have seen an Dr Herjeet Marway, Director of Philosophy from Birmingham University who chairs on the Surrogacy U.K. ethics board say it's "usually a woman".

"Gender
Ethics also come into play when thinking about the gendered nature of surrogacy and intended parenting. Biologically, the surrogate has to be someone with the capacity to gestate and give birth – usually a woman. As gendered labour, surrogacy triggers important feminist concerns, such as about bodily autonomy, vulnerability, inequality and rights."

I don't know who else it might be, usually a man I suppose. Goodness if it was, wouldn't this be an entirely different landscape!

I always say surrogate mother because we all have mothers, even if just for 9-10 months on the inside, even if only for a few minutes on the outside. We all have a mother and the trans men erasing it from their child's birth certificates, or the gay men raising their adopted children, telling them they don't have a mother, or the maternity and breastfeeding services using 'birthing parent'...or the gay men 'using' a woman...they can all get to fuck as far as I'm concerned.

During the first few months after Lucille’s birth, it surprised me how many times I had to answer the question, ‘but where is her mum?’. I wondered how someone would cope with that question if they had been a new dad who had lost their female partner in childbirth
This stood out for me.
My immediate response is 'well you aren't a bereaved father so its irrelevant'.
Its another example of appropriation of other people's experiences.