Another surrogacy gone wrong - New Zealand

[OhHolyJesus]

So the newspaper said they kept names anonymous and didn't contact the surrogate mother which I think leads to an incredibly biased article with no right of reply from the other side.

It was a 'home job', no clinic, the surrogate mother is the legal mother and genetic and biological as it was her egg. No reason given as to why she changed her mind, only a mention of her feeling stupid to have agreed in the first place.

NZ media gearing up for the NZ consultation on reform, with the Labour rep submitting it as biased as she has a son through surrogacy. Nice and neutral then.

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/surrogacy-horror-kiwi-parents-are-having-to-share-custody-with-surrogate/QC6U4F6MYIL3KUZR7RMUGQXGIE/

They call it ‘Alturistic’ surrogacy to make it more palatable - so it has specific rules, however these rules are exploited.

And ‘altruistic’ or clearly financially motivated, surely any negative effects on the resultant child will be the similar?

Like, if your birth mother is poor and desperate and from a third world country, you will likely feel less rejected by her than you would if your birth mother lives in the same town? But you are more likely to feel angry at the people raising you for exploiting her? So lots of potential for emotional damage either way.

I feel sorry for the child stuck in the middle of this mess with warring parents.

"People who are desperately wanting a baby... They'll meet someone who appears to be quite wonderful who offers to be a surrogate but maybe she's possibly not quite so wonderful."

So a woman deciding not to give her own child up for adoption is not so wonderful?

"Remember the poor child in this. If they end up in a shared custody arrangement, how is that going to work for the child? They're the most important thing in this and they need to be raised in the most calm and loving environment as possible... they didn't asked to be born this way, they just need to be loved."

Why would share custody not be in the best interest of the child? In all other child arrangements proceedings that would be considered in the child's best interested. It certainly is in the child's best interested to have a relationship with its mother!

It just goes to show that surrogacy is baby trade and nothing else.

It's true, even abusive men have the right to shared custody so why would it be so controversial for this child's mother to have it?

Awful situation for all involved.

Surrogacy has always made me feel very uncomfortable. I 100% would not ever entertain the idea.

Yep. And if shared care isn’t good for kids (as this story seems to suggest) then surely the child should stay with his or her mam, rather than be sent off with the dad who tried to buy himself a baby?

That headline is terrible 'parents are having to share custody with surrogate' It completely dehumanises the woman, she's the child's mother FFS.

There is a great book called Being and being bought - prostitution, surrogacy and the split self, by a Swedish writer. She writes about the similarities between prostitution and surrogacy. She has done lots of research on both subjects and lays out very clearly why surrogacy is wrong in every single situation.

Lots of may have read it already, but just in case someone hasn't!

@PlantMam

Yep. And if shared care isn’t good for kids (as this story seems to suggest) then surely the child should stay with his or her mam, rather than be sent off with the dad who tried to buy himself a baby?

Exactly. Surely the most calm and secure experience for the child would be to live with it's birth mother, who clearly very much wants and loves the child.

@IheartJKR I'd love to see your paper on that, please DM me if you are able/comfortable to.

There was a case I remember reading of a woman had learning difficulties signing a printed off (unenforceable) contract from an America website in a service station with her cousin and child. No lawyers. Also no counselling. The commissions couple took the piss out of her along with the freelance 'matchmaker' as she couldn't even afford phone credit.

Your comment reminded me of that. The child has developmental issues and she got shared custody.

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed161502

Like your language ideas @PlantMam will DM you! I'm glad to hear my posts and threads have been useful to raise awareness here. It's how I came to the issue and I thank @FannyCann for that!

@ThatVeganFeminist I quite agree, surrogacy makes it socially acceptable but I do blame the media coverage for that, as repeated noted on these sorts of threads. I wish I knew how to change the narrative around surrogacy. This article and it's inaccurate labels and descriptions is a prime example.

@SorryPleaseTryAgain an interesting comparison to surrogacy is when Irish single mothers had their children taken away from them, we feel sorry for them, but the women who detaches herself and gives the baby away to the 'parents', we are meant to celebrate as some kind of great act of generosity. I've been meaning to read the book you mention, the Author Kasia Ekis Ekman has been in podcast and you tubes I've watched since being turned into this issue and she and Jennifer Lahl are very informed and impressive on this issue.

I wish we had a similar representative in the U.K. to help with the issue here!

Thanks @OhHolyJesus

I agree @PlantMam Language is very important and I have been thinking about it too.

I recently learnt (on University Challenge) that the term used for species who outsource their parenting (like cuckoos) is "brood parasite" and I have to say I love that term, but it would probably earn deletions and accusations of unkindness everywhere so not really a goer! So I always use "commissioning parent" to underline the fact that someone ordered up this baby, to be delivered by contract.

Regarding egg donation we definitely need a new term there. Whilst the fee is capped at £750 in the UK practically everywhere else the fee is substantially more. These are egg selling transactions. Young college students are targeted with advertising to sell their eggs. And I have no faith in the UK limit. Maybe for now it is respected, but if the Law Commission get their way and the current ban on advertising is lifted it will be open season.

I have a link here about the advertising young women in Canada are subjected to. The first offers travel and an all expenses paid trip to Toronto. Are you seeing a loophole in the British cap yet? Like an all expenses paid holiday to Greece with a little egg collection on the side? Definitely not a donation.

https://www.heyreprotech.com/p/ads-that-target-young-women?r=3qvki&utmcampaign=post&utmmmedium=email&utmsource=copy

As regards so called "traditional" surrogacy I would like to do away with that term altogether. These women are the biological, genetic and gestational mothers of their babies who they have agreed to give away at birth. (For a fee). I'm not really sure where the term originated because the biblical story certainly predates any understanding of surrogacy. I think it must be that early surrogate arrangements did involve the woman using her own eggs as technology hadn't caught up with the use of another woman's eggs. Once that was possible it meant that the eggs of a commissioning mother could be used if possible. It also helped fix ownership of the baby, legally , with the commissioning parents. And supposedly helps encourage/ensure mothers give up their babies by embedding the idea that the baby is not theirs. Since gestational surrogacy is now very common I think it's time to rename the so called traditional. Not sure I can think of anything socially acceptable though.

Finally, I ALWAYS add the word mother to surrogate. As in surrogate mother. Sometimes it would be quicker and easier to just type surrogate but I won't let anyone get away with arguing that they are not the mother. I won't let mothers be erased fro this transaction.
It greatly annoys those in the surrogacy community but that just underlines how they don't like to be reminded of the reality of their situation.

IheartJKR your research sounds very interesting.
I often think about the surrogate babies born in the midst of the Nepalese earthquake, Israel organised a chartered flight to rescue the babies of Israeli commissioning parents. As far as I know the mothers were left to take their chances in the post earthquake environment they found themselves in. Imagine growing up and finding your parent(s) did that to your mother, who gestated and gave birth to you for a fee because she was impoverished and desperate.
I hope your research will shine a light on some of these types of cases.

time.com/3838319/israel-nepal-surrogates/

This is just revolting. The talk of the 'surrogate' is particularly offensive. She is the mother of the baby. The poor baby having to have 50/50 contact with this couple. It's ridiculous.

Appalling and yet another reason why NZ's record on women's rights leaves a lot to be desired.

Also regarding changing the laws, as planned in the UK and with the planned consultation in New Zealand, what these law changes mostly do is tighten up the rights of the commissioning parents and create a gold plated pathway for those that can afford it. DIY arrangements such as this can't be legislated for. People looking for a cheaper deal will still try and do it their own way with all the risks involved. Or they will look to go overseas to places like Ukraine where they can also get a bargain deal but are also exposed to other risks and difficulties.

I feel that there is a huge difference between surrogacy where the woman is carrying a baby conceived from an egg that isn't hers and carrying a baby from a egg that is hers;in that case she's giving her own child away which is basically giving her own child up for adoption.Thé surrogate had every right to change her mind and this is the danger of going down the route where the surrogate is the biological mother.

In this case although the wife has no legal rights here her husband does;he has every right to apply for custody;I doubt he'll get full custody unless there are serious concerns for the child's welfare that can be backed up in court.The wife would have to settle for being the baby's step mother.

Has anyone seen the documentaries on surrogacy houses in India?

@thenewduchessofhastings

I feel that there is a huge difference between surrogacy where the woman is carrying a baby conceived from an egg that isn't hers and carrying a baby from a egg that is hers;in that case she's giving her own child away which is basically giving her own child up for adoption.Thé surrogate had every right to change her mind and this is the danger of going down the route where the surrogate is the biological mother.

In this case although the wife has no legal rights here her husband does;he has every right to apply for custody;I doubt he'll get full custody unless there are serious concerns for the child's welfare that can be backed up in court.The wife would have to settle for being the baby's step mother.

I believe that even when the baby conceived using a donor egg the surrogate mother should have every right to change her mind. She is still the child's birth mother who has carrying the child in her womb and "built" the child from her own flesh and blood, literally. The idea that any woman should be able to enter in to a legally binding contract to give up a child she has carried is completely inhumane and dehumanising.

100 percent agree that it is the vulnerable women in patriarchal cultures who can't push back when surrogacy goes wrong. I keep seeing "good vibe" stories of surrogates who hail from western US. In parts of the US, especially in Utah and more remote areas of Montana, Nevada and other mountain states there are white women in extreme poverty due to living under a patriarchal religious sect in these states that pride themselves on few government regulations. Many are polygamous Mormons who in extreme forms are shunned if they leave and don't have education to sustain them if they do escape. If a young woman left such a religious group (not all are extreme Mormon, there are also extreme apostolic groups), surrogacy could seem like a way to get established and on her feet. That culture of extreme patriarchy makes them so vulnerable to being "miracle vessels"

@thenewduchessofhastings

I feel that there is a huge difference between surrogacy where the woman is carrying a baby conceived from an egg that isn't hers and carrying a baby from a egg that is hers;in that case she's giving her own child away which is basically giving her own child up for adoption.Thé surrogate had every right to change her mind and this is the danger of going down the route where the surrogate is the biological mother.

In this case although the wife has no legal rights here her husband does;he has every right to apply for custody;I doubt he'll get full custody unless there are serious concerns for the child's welfare that can be backed up in court.The wife would have to settle for being the baby's step mother.

This conflict just further proves surrogacy is problematic. A child born from a woman's egg is her biological child. A child born from a woman's body is her biological (not genetic) child. It's a conflict that should not exist because I can't see a way to not cause harm to all four people: genetic mother, birth mother, child, genetic father

Obviously it would be much better for everyone, particularly the intending parents if they're the biologic parents as well, if the law protected them so the surrogate couldn't at the last minute refuse to give the baby up."

The entire article is awful. They demonise the poor mother, like she just did it to mess them around because she's obviously evil. Not once did they speculate that giving up her child was just too difficult for her, oh no that couldn't be the reason. So obviously what's best for all involved is to have a law that allows babies to be forcefully removed from their mother just after birth regardless of the mother's wishes. That's progressive.

Surrogacy commodifies both women's wombs and babies and it dehumanises both in the process. Problematic surrogates are discarded or slurred, as in this article - she is "twisted" because she wants to keep her biological child - and problematic babies are cast aside - see the numerous reports of children with disabilities abandoned by surrogate parents all over the world. That's why it's no different to people trafficking, in the sense that people are commodities.

The most ethical approach would always centre the woman giving birth and the baby she gives birth to, not the want-to-be parents, however much we empathise with their story, because we know the physical and emotional toll of pregnancy, we know women are not just walking wombs, and we understand that babies are not to be traded.

One of the things I always find striking about the hypocrisy in this area is that women are relentlessly told how best to raise their children, how breastfeeding and bonding are paramount in the early days and yet surrogacy throws this out the window. Fine if you're also going to drop all the other rules as a stick to beat mothers with. But we're not going to do that because a lot of the advice is evidence based.

I don't feel that there is any way to do surrogacy that doesn't turn women and babies into a commodity in a market place, even those women who say they are happy to do it make it easier to exploit others. Some, like the woman whose health has been severely compromised by multiple births, strike me as needing an intervention to deal with some kind of addiction. So how do we square the circle? How do we legislate to make this ethical? Can we do that? I feel instinctively no, especially where the power dynamics are severely distorted by rich westerners using women in poverty elsewhere to birth their children.

Delphinium20
Sometimes there is even a birth mother (surrogate mother), egg donor, commissioning couple and child, so a total of three mothers involved! How this is fair on the child god only knows.

There is an excellent series of Filia podcasts and one devoted to the issue of surrogacy.

filia.org.uk/podcasts/2019/11/8/surrogacy-a-human-rights-violation-filia-conference-2019

God Lord, that’s an appalling article. I wonder what the comments say.
I keep sheep. If a new lamb’s mother can’t look after it we give it to a mother that has lost a lamb, that sheep is the surrogate. It’s not the birth mother that’s the surrogate it’s the one that gets given the baby. Surrogate means substitute. In the olden days if a baby humans mother died it might be lucky enough to find a surrogate (ie substitute) mother. I’d be interested to know when and why the term was swapped from being applied to the new substitute mother to the actual mother.