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

That was a point I made in my feedback MrsDV.

It's a complete false equivalence and these men are appropriating the 'lived experience' of a recently bereaved father and the motherless children and comparing it to the fact they created a child for the purposes of deliberately removing a brand new, fresh from the womb baby from her mother.

It's quite sick really, it's not in any way the same.

I asked what was the point of men stripping off for skin to skin.
NONE. She confirmed it. Just men getting in on the act as usual.

Last year, The Archers featured a surrogate mother giving birth to a baby for two gay men, one of whom did indeed do skin-to-skin.

The whole storyline was repellent, imo, but I think one can gauge the Beeb's stance on surrogacy from the fact that not a single character expressed any concern or diapproval of two 'intended parents' in their 50s commissioning a baby (donor egg). The presentation was unrelentingly positive. Oh, the grandmother-to-be got into a bit of a tizz thinking the surrogate mother might dare not to want to give the baby up, but of course that was just A Woman Being Silly.

Yeah, it annoyed me quite a lot.

It's a complete false equivalence and these men are appropriating the 'lived experience' of a recently bereaved father and the motherless children and comparing it to the fact they created a child for the purposes of deliberately removing a brand new, fresh from the womb baby from her mother.

That is because they are not considering the baby at all, only their own wants. A bereaved father will be mourning the loss of their partner but will also be mourning the loss of the child’s mother and what that child will miss by the absence of their mother.

Surrogacy really upsets me. I think it is immoral and should be banned completely. I don’t give a fig if the mother is giving up her child of her own free will and no money is exchanged. She shouldn’t be allowed to deliberately create a baby with the intention of giving it away. That is human trafficking.

How the fuck is it even allowed?

For the record, I feel this way whether the intended parents are male, female, gay or straight. Donor eggs do not make it better, only muddier.

So true TheNewLook

Sometimes I stop and think : Whoever first thought it was a good idea to pay another woman to have a baby for them and give it up to them? And how the hell did that catch on, so that so many people appear to think it is a perfectly reasonable way to obtain a baby if you want one?

I mean WTAF? How are we living in times where people think this is acceptable?

From the Law Commission summary of the consultation on Surrogacy Law:

"Our project does not seek to examine whether or not surrogacy should be allowed. Instead, we take as our starting point that surrogacy is an accepted form of building a family, as recognised by the Department of Health and Social Care in the guidance it publishes on surrogacy arrangements:
The government supports surrogacy as part of the range of assisted conception options."

Hiring women to breed babies to order = just one option for assisted conception.
The natural progression of that line of thought is that the NHS should fund this along with other types of fertility treatment. There is considerable pressure for NHS funding for this and already the NHS in Scotland and Wales will fund surrogacy IVF.

The woman behind the go fund me linked upthread states that she believes the NHS should fund her son and his husband for surrogacy.

As if the NHS didn't have enough on its hands at this time of managing a pandemic, quite apart from other ethical considerations.

s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2019/06/Surrogacy-summary.pdf

The trouble with people - any people - 'commissioning' a baby that will be the 'product' of a woman or women who both are and are not the mother of the child is the issue of quality control.

How much input do the commissioning parents to the diet and activities of the gestating surrogate? Will she have to sign up to avoid alcohol, tobacco and other drugs? What happens if antenatal testing reveals that the baby has a genetic defect? What happens if the baby is damaged in the perinatal period?

A child seen as product, not person, is surely at risk of rejection for any imperfections. Not to mention what could follow if the commissioning parents break up before the birth.

It is far more like trafficking than assisted conception, even if not a penny changes hands.

And can they sue the 'manufacturer'?

That's mental. So their birth plan presumably stipulated what kind of pain relief the surrogate mother should receive, preferred methods of intervention if needed, whether she'd have access to a birth pool, where she'd give birth. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

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?

What do you mean borderline? You either think it is or it isn't.
No one, whatever their sexuality or sex are 'entitled' to be parents and no one, NO ONE is entitled to the use of a woman's body. To put it through something that is still potentially lethal, in order to perpetuate their blood line.

It is only homophobic to object to two men using a surrogate if you don't object to heterosexual couples using surrogates. I have enormous sympathy for infertile couples (remember, this couple are not infertile) but I can't bring myself to condone it even in those circumstances.
This is a feminist discussion board and surrogacy is a feminist issue.

I think it's homophobic to suggest that having that level of control over another human being's body is in some sense a common homosexual trait.

I missed that comment.

I would say its male trait, not a homosexual one. But all gay men are men so why would they be exempt from wishing to have control over a woman's body?

Women are commissioning parents. Women, along with either a male or female partner could commission another woman to have a baby for them.

It's unlikely, given their biology, but it's possible and I would find that as unpalatable as two men doing it, possibly worse.

A lesbian couple can buy eggs as well as sperm, as do heterosexual couples. It really has nothing to do with anyone's sexuality but everything to do with their biology and fertility and Mrs DV is right, these two men aren't infertile but due to their same sex relationship they are missing two key parts of what makes and who births a baby.

The key point those who accuse posters here of homophobia appear to be making is, because of their sexuality, they are entitled to hiring the woman for the use of her reproductive system because they have a right to a family.

Why are same sex male couples treated differently to other couples, would you have lesbians and heterosexual couples buy babies?

And if anyone can do it are you ok with the transactional nature of a baby being created and born like this?

NCT classes where I currently am usually offers seperate classes for lgbt+ parents and surrogates because of the ignorance as shown on this thread

What is ignorant about objecting to the hiring out of women's bodies for breeding purposes, and the purchase of babies?

How much input do the commissioning parents to the diet and activities of the gestating surrogate?

In the U.K. any contracts are not legal but there are memorandums if understanding when commissioning parents go through agencies, with private surrogacy arrangements are anyone's guess, it's the Wild West basically, any 'contract' would not enforceable but who know what they could make a woman do if they agreed to pay her.

In parts of the States, commercial surrogacy is legal and I've seen suggested clauses that include everything from expressing breast milk for the months that follow to a bonus for every day the surrogate mother follows a diet plan (how would they know?) to clauses on abstinence and even no-kissing. It's very much about owning that woman in the time she is contracted for.

This is what could be coming to the U.K. if the proposed Bill follows the commercial model practised in the States.

Ignorant = "lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated."

That could apply to the lack of awareness and education around surrogacy Grumpy I agree.

If a couple who weren't pregnant at my NCT class, where there were two single women about to become single mothers, I would prefer they go elsewhere as frankly there is no way I would be comfortable discussing in the knowledge that they were commissioning parents and there was a woman somewhere with a baby she was growing and planned to hand over at birth.

As an NCT class, it is the pregnant woman who is the priority, always.

@GrumpyHoonMain

NCT classes where I currently am usually offers seperate classes for lgbt+ parents and surrogates because of the ignorance as shown on this thread

You must live somewhere unusual. There is no way there is enough demand for that in most places in the country. The only place I have ever heard of there being anything like enough demand would be the Brighton area.

odds on @GrumpyHoonMain coming back to explain why objecting to the buying and selling of human beings is ignorant? I'm going 10 / 1

I'll take those odds Bernard

NCT classes where I currently am usually offers seperate classes for lgbt+ parents and surrogates because of the ignorance as shown on this thread
If this is true, and I am not convinced it is, the reason LGB parents chose separate groups is the same reason black parents, disabled parents and other groups chose to attend specialised sessions. They want to discuss issues that are exclusive to them with their peers. They don't want to have to start from scratch and explain stuff that others in their situation will already understand.

Out of 6 couples in my adoption group, four were same sex couples. This was in a London borough well known for having a long established LGB community. So there would have been scope for a separate group if it was necessary due to 'ignorance'.

Seems to me that there are always people desperate to believe that those who challenge their world view are bigots. That way they don't have to consider a different perspective.

@GrumpyHoonMain NCT definitely do not do classes for any specific group of parents - every course is open to anyone expecting a baby, whether that be same sex, single parent, surrogate, young or old, regardless of income as they offer good discounts for those on low incomes.

But the content of classes for an adoption group would be entirely different from that of a childbirth (NCT = National Childbirth Trust) group.
One would expect some same sex couples in an adoption group.

In a group for preparation for childbirth I would find it not just weird but downright insulting to have the presence of a couple of any sexuality who not only patently do not have to prepare for childbirth, but who are paying a woman to do it for them.

Imagine the Post birth get together, when everyone discusses the horrors of the birth/perineal tears/haemorrhoids/breastfeeding problems and a couple cheerfully sitting there with the baby they bought having NOT DONE ANY OF IT because they paid ANOTHER WOMAN TO DO IT FOR THEM!

I guarantee that if there were any women on the course who were pro/neutral regarding surrogacy before the birth, their feelings will have changed radically post birth. Especially in that period when one is so hormonal and still struggling to sit down comfortably.

I recall soon after the birth of my DD2 the story of the Kilshaws, who bought twin babies from America, babies that had already been sold to another couple before their mother reclaimed them and sold them on to the Kilshaws hit the news. I remember watching the news as I was breastfeeding and bursting into tears and holding my baby tight and feeling so upset for those babies, bartered for, sold twice and now in the care of the social services. It would be very hard to sit in the same room as a couple who paid for a baby, taking it from the woman who gave birth to it as soon as it took its first breath. Even women who have chosen to out their baby up for adoption have the opportunity to hold and cuddle their new baby and often do.

The Kilshaw story.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/20/internet-twins-adoption-kilshaw-2001

'Will she have to sign up to avoid alcohol, tobacco and other drugs? What happens if antenatal testing reveals that the baby has a genetic defect? What happens if the baby is damaged in the perinatal period?'

USA I have read

Yes they can stipulate to the nth degree what the pregnant woman can or can't do.

On the others. Commissioners can say terminate if they wish and that is their decision. (Presumably within the laws of the area they are in).

Capitalism plus a litigious culture means that yes. It's just a purchase. The woman who is pregnant seems to have zero say in some of the things I have read.