A horrific example of how badly wrong surrogacy can go

[everythingcrossed]

The Times is reporting on a well-know Chinese actress, Zheng Shuang, who commissioned two women in the States to have babies for her and her boyfriend. When they split up, she was recorded ranting that it was unfair that she couldn't have the babies aborted or put up for adoption. (This recording has led to her losing a Prada contract which was the hook for the story.)

In the recording Zheng allegedly expressed frustration that her two surrogates in the United States could not legally abort their pregnancies in the third trimester. Her parents are said to have told her to give the children up for adoption.

The children, who were born in December 2019 and January 2020 have, according to the report, been left in the States because Zheng won't take responsibility for them.

It's an absolutely horrifying portrait of entitlement and lack of conscience. What struck me in particular was the more general observation in the piece that It is common for wealthy Chinese couples and single people to have children through surrogate mothers in other countries such as Russia and Ukraine. Several US states are also popular. Within China the issue is highly contentious, especially because the black market has led to many disputes between clients and surrogates.

Share token here

@TheReluctantPhoenix

This is a horrific case.

However, surrogacy can be the exchange of a much wanted baby for a life changing amount of money.

I think the vociferously anti surrogacy theme on here is driven by a complete lack of understanding as to how 20k, say, can be a life changing amount of money for some people.

It is all very well to say that ‘bodies are not for sale’, but that generally comes from a position of comfort.

Again, one can argue for a more egalitarian view of society where no one would want or need to be a surrogate, but that is not the status quo. I would wager a lot on this thread would change their mind if offered, say, £10 million to be a surrogate.

It needs to be a well regulated business with laws protecting the well being of the surrogate.

I don't think it's from a position of comfort to say human beings should not be bought or sold, and that a baby should not be exchanged for any amount of money. It's a fundamental belief that people are not for sale, or parts of them.

What are you views on selling organs? Should we allow people in poverty to sell blood, kidneys, a lung, part of their liver? You could probably get £20k for a kidney and as you say it's life changing.
I'm sure many people would donate a kidney for £10m.
I don't think that makes it an acceptable business that should be regulated by the state. Yes there might be a market out there, but there's markets for many things that are unsavoury and we continue to outlaw them (e.g. most things on the dark web). A proper society protects and supports the vulnerable, not allow them to be exploited by those with money and desires for bits of them.

This is an excellent account of a commercial surrogacy which demonstrates familiar themes of commissioning parents exerting pressure on a young, less powerful surrogate mother. Transferring four embryos despite her expressed concern at carrying more than one baby. Seeking to economise on her medical care when she was clearly ill, pressuring her to leave hospital early despite nearly dying of pre-eclampsia and still needing supervised recovery.

Women need protection from this. That life changing sum doesn't look so good against a life changing illness.

hazlitt.net/longreads/anatomy-surrogacy

@CheeryTreeBlossom,

Well, I would disagree. I suspect you are talking from a position of comfort, as that is your experience.

Someone whose entire life was turned around by the money received from surrogacy would equally passionately say that it was a their human right to willingly help someone have a much wanted child in return for a life changing amount of money.

Talking about ‘selling human beings’ is emotive and sloppy language. No one is being enslaved here.

There is an over use of the power dynamic here where (generally powerful) people take a view that anyone who makes a certain decision cannot be doing so rationally and of their genuine own free will and that there must be hidden coercion. I always think of Animal Farm when ‘feminists’ start dictating to other women what they should or should not be able to do, of their own free will.

In the same sense as abortion is argued as a fundamental human right (‘not your womb, none of your business’), what other women choose to do with their wombs is none of your business with regard to surrogacy.

Clearly surrogacy has a serious impact on the surrogate’s life and does need to be regulated as are any other hazardous transactions. Well regulated, though, it can benefit both parties.

(And, personally, if I needed the money and someone offered me enough, I would consider selling a kidney or a bit of liver if it were legal and regulated).

Someone whose entire life was turned around by the money received from surrogacy would equally passionately say that it was a their human right to willingly help someone have a much wanted child in return for a life changing amount of money

Someone who has to choose money over a child that they carry for 9 months is indeed in a precarious position.
I does not look like a freedom of choice situation to me.

And, personally, if I needed the money and someone offered me enough, I would consider selling a kidney or a bit of liver

Whilst kidney donation to family members is common, and of course I'd do it in a heartbeat for my close family, the risks should not be underestimated. We have lots of renal patients come through my department, for many, after one kidney has packed up or maybe has a malignant tumour, the saving factor is that the other kidney picks up the slack.

And liver surgery has significant risks.

@FannyCann - that article is hair-raising. I suspect that "Sophie's" is an extreme example of circumstances and actions spiralling but it's all too easy imagining the would-be parents cutting corners, exerting pressure, making decisions that should be the surrogate's alone.

Someone whose entire life was turned around by the money received from surrogacy would equally passionately say that it was a their human right to willingly help someone have a much wanted child in return for a life changing amount of money.

It’s really not a human right tho, no matter how you dress it up. It’s damaging to women and children, which is why surrogacy is illegal in an ever-growing number of countries, including France, Germany and Sweden.

I think one big issue is the normalizing of surrogacy by famous people who are likely to hold sway over people's opinions.
So rich Hollywood actors, famous singers etc.
Personally I am against it under any circumstances but when the media post "sweet pictures " of the rich and famous which project the images of perfect beautiful families without considering the wider issues then it is only likely to become more mainstream over the generations much in the way plastic surgery did. A few years ago that was also v rare and seen as an extreme thing to do . It was the domain of aging Hollywood superstars with more money than sense whereas now even young women are destroying their looks with fillers and BOTOX that make them look deformed.
In my opinion babies are not a commodity to be bought and sold and neither are women's bodies. But I fear it will become more and more common. There are enough children in need of parents already in this world so why not adopt ?

And here is the Times normalizing surrogacy complete with details of who supplied the clothes and the make up for the photoshoot:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0bebef36-5a46-11eb-86f4-4fa0aa4e7fd3?shareToken=d431c19a2af32af449f06c9f619c6f1c

Thanks for that Times share. So there are a couple of Times employees who have bought babies. Sophie Beresiner and this guy with his partner.

Is it a bit like trans identifying employees in Commissioning at the BBC?

At least they lay their personal agenda on the line I suppose.

@TheReluctantPhoenix

hazardous transactions juxtaposed with 'human rights'?

So women should have the human right to sell babies regardless of the 'hazards' is that what you're saying?

And as for "speaking from a position of comfort", how about we consider offering that to women who are in poverty to the point where they feel they have to have a baby for someone else in order to feed their own children?

If having a baby for £5k (Ukraine and elsewhere) or £15k (U.K. for 'expenses') is life changing then it is you who are speaking from a "position of comfort".

From the Times article:

The hospital, Chesterfield Royal, had made arrangements for me and Robin to be at the birth. But then, as Rachel went a week overdue, the management panicked about the pandemic and said we could no longer come. During lengthy discussions with the heads of midwifery, we argued that it was in our son’s best interests for us to care for him that first night. We reminded them that Rachel also felt strongly about this and wanted to be able to rest after labour and not be left to look after a baby she didn’t view as her own

I am curious how they mean ‘best interests’ here. Why is that best for the baby? What evidence is there for this?

Also from the Times article:

‘ The Law Commission, the independent body that advises the government on reform in England and Wales, has proposed changes to ensure parents can have legal status from birth while maintaining surrogates’ rights to object to this in the very rare cases where this is needed. For this to happen, pre-conception safeguards would have to have been fulfilled, such as having independent legal advice, counselling and checks on health, criminal records and screening, which focus on the welfare of the child.

The surrogacy community also overwhelmingly favours surrogacy in Britain remaining altruistic, with no payments for carrying a baby, to protect the principle of surrogacy through friendship and to prevent coercion.

In developing countries surrogacy can be appalling, with husbands forcing wives to carry babies for money. Our experience of altruistic surrogacy in Britain has been joyous, but independent surrogacy arrangements without the involvement of an organisation such as Surrogacy UK also happen in Britain and can lack proper oversight. Legal changes are needed to ensure exploitation is never a possibility. With delays caused by Brexit and Covid-19, it will probably now take another two years until the changes to surrogacy law are implemented.. ‘

So where (as a Times journalist?) is he getting this idea that Brexit and Covid are delaying the Law Commission’s consultation proposals (..which are a completely different thing from ‘legal changes’) from ^being implemented*? The Law Commission haven’t reported yet. They haven’t drawn up a draft bill for Parliament yet. It hasn’t been debated or voted on democratically. We’ve no idea what ‘pre-conception safeguards’ would be required from that list. He’s talking like it’s an inevitability.

I can only imagine that the lobby groups around this are telling parents that it’s just a matter of time before prebirth agreements are enforceable on women? And if so, by whom have the lobby been given that impression of inevitability?

Unfortunately I also can’t imagine what legal changes could ever be introduced (apart from legally banning surrogacy) that could stop coercion from being a possibility.

Thanks for posting that link Igneococcus

The comments from enthusiastic supporters are sickening, but it's late and I'm very tired, I really don't have the energy to do battle.

The comments are becoming quite interesting if anyone has a subscription to read them, more dissenting voices, facts and examples being shared and the writer's mate Sophie Berensiner has stepped in to help with the naysayers!

Also a surrogate mother who has had 5 surrogate babies and volunteers with Surrogacy U.K. has been commenting, it's the same agency the couple in the story used so it makes me wonder...

This actress has had awards revoked and is being blacklisted and essentially losing her career.

This is a very extreme move but it is an example of how surrogacy is seen in China.

I think the vociferously anti surrogacy theme on here is driven by a complete lack of understanding as to how 20k, say, can be a life changing amount of money for some people

Can you not see from this that exploitation can and has occurred to vulnerable women?

Did you hear about the surrogacy farm in an eastern block country (cant remember which one), where surrogates who were given 'life changing amounts of money's, had babies, then they were all left stranded in an orphanage because of the pandemic.

Can you imagine the impact on the women and babies.

What do you think they thought of their life changing amounts of money then?

@FrankButchersDickieBow

I think the vociferously anti surrogacy theme on here is driven by a complete lack of understanding as to how 20k, say, can be a life changing amount of money for some people

Can you not see from this that exploitation can and has occurred to vulnerable women?

Did you hear about the surrogacy farm in an eastern block country (cant remember which one), where surrogates who were given 'life changing amounts of money's, had babies, then they were all left stranded in an orphanage because of the pandemic.

Can you imagine the impact on the women and babies.

What do you think they thought of their life changing amounts of money then?

Quite! 20k is an enormous amount of money and life changing for a lot of people. That doesn't make it morally justified to use that money to exploit people who wouldn't risk their health if they weren't desperate.

Was that Ukraine Frank?

A surrogacy agency there 'doxxed' the women as the fled the country to return to their families before travel restrictions from their own countries (I think it was mainly Greece?)

They published their details as they left before signing fully signing off everything with birth certificates, making it extremely difficult for the abandoned babies to leave the country (even if the commissioning parents had managed to enter during the covid travel bans).

They haven't been paid so that 'life changing' amount of money hasn't even been transferred and they have done it all for nothing and to their detriment and to the detriment of their families.

If a life changing amount is £20k (which it isn't in the Ukraine) it indicates the level of income that woman has.

If wealthy women did it £20k wouldn't be life changing.

I wonder why none of Kim Kardashian's four sisters wanted to be a surrogate for her, if it's such a wonderful, altruistic practice? When the likes of the Kardashians become surrogates instead of paying other women to use their bodies, then I might change my mind about how exploitative it is.

Or even her mother or step-sister Lysis.

If women are only reproductive organs there is no shortage of uteri in the family.

She also has multiple female friends she could ask to do it 'altruistically' so it's odd isn't it that she went the paid route...

Someone whose entire life was turned around by the money received from surrogacy would equally passionately say that it was a their human right to willingly help someone have a much wanted child in return for a life changing amount of money.

How much is the fair value of what they give - £1,000,000? £10,000,000,000?

If you let the market decide, how little is the value of surrogacy? £200?

What is the cost of a surrogacy gone wrong? An unwanted life brought into the world £10,000,000? £1,000,000,000? The cost of the paperwork?

Some things shouldn't be quantified in monetary terms in a civilised country, because the potential harm is too great.

I think the vociferously anti surrogacy theme on here is driven by a complete lack of understanding as to how 20k, say, can be a life changing amount of money for some people

To be economically viable, this only works in a world without ethics, where a life changing sum for one person is the cost of a couple of holidays for another. I'm realistic. Perhaps that is unavoidable when you are selling and buying goods. People, however, are not goods.

It occurred to me that you could make the same argument for poor people to be able to legally sell their kidneys.
It could be a life changing amount of money for them, involves medical risk on their part and some people do it voluntarily for their loved ones.
And you could even argue that, unlike surrogacy, the recipient's life might be saved.
I think (hope!) we can all agree that this would be morally wrong but I'm genuinely curious to know from pro surrogacy people why they think that would be wrong while surrogacy is fine.