Another gushing story in The Times about surrogacy

[Theluggage15]

The Times seems really to be pushing surrogacy at the moment. Another’feel good’ story today, this time about a single man who couldn’t find another man to share his dream of becoming a father, so went and found a surrogate himself. Now the law has changed that you don’t have to be in a couple to use a surrogate, he was able to go ahead.

Lots of gushing comments underneath and a comment from one of the staff who I think is the bloke The Times had an article about last week (2 dads have surrogate baby) explaining to one negative commenter that no this is not a womb for hire at all, as only expenses are paid so it’s all lovely.

What with these stories and the Sophie Beresiner column, it feels like they’re doing all they can to promote surrogacy.

Apologies, I don’t know how to do the share token thing.

Yep. The work of not very stealthy lobbyists. And I wonder how many of the gushing comments are from ordinary Times subscribers without an agenda.

Don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere, but The Economist reports on proposals to make prospective parents the legal parents of babies born via surrogacy from birth: twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1356260821899366404

I don't understand why, in the past few weeks alone, there have been articles discussing the lifelong trauma of children who were adopted under dubious circumstances from Chile and Ireland, and yet still advance arguments that the rights of a surrogacy contract can overrule a birth mother's right to change her mind; the rights of the child aren't even considered.

Thanks to whoever reinstated my post. That was quite unexpected!

I fear over the next few years there will be a blanket push to groom young girls and women for egg donation and surrogacy by the same people who push sex work is work.

yes. We see this already. My own DD are inundated with ads (in the US) to sell their eggs and college/occupational fairs have been pressured to include sex work as a viable career choice.

I find it harrowing that women's bodies are commodified into parts and labor.

This is a short piece about advertising and targeting young women in Canada. It gives a taste of what we can expect if the Law Commission proposal to lift the current ban on advertising is accepted.

"The lure is not just the good deed itself. "Do you love to travel? Becoming an Egg Donor can be such a fun way to travel to Toronto for free (all expenses paid)...," reads one ad. It's a bit at odds with what they say in their brochuree_, about bringing along a support person, because "...you will be feeling pretty crummy after and we don’t want you walking, biking or taking transit by yourself. If you’re flying, we recommend you fly back the day following the retrieval."
Then there is the talk of money. "You can receive a reimbursement up to $5000 per donation..." says a Canadian ad. This implies a single flat-fee payment, which would not be legal in Canada. This particular ad was shared with me before the new regulations on reimbursement came into force, but the websitee_ is not much different, suggesting that costs for things like clothing and communications can be reimbursed to egg donors — they can't — and that reimbursements typically add up to more than $5000 — which is unlikely if you live in Toronto and donate at a Toronto clinic. One surrogacy ad, sent in the US, promises women will earn "at least $40k" which they could use to "travel, buy a house, pay off debt."
As the parent of two daughters, aged 19 and 17, I feel more strongly now than ever that targeting women in their late teens and early twenties to donate eggs or carry other people's babies is not ethical. The word "prey" comes to mind. Dangling all-expenses-paid travel or reimbursed meals — let alone "$5000+" or "$40k" — in exchange for gametes or pregnancy feels underhanded."

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

Thanks @FannyCann for highlighting how even in countries with egg donation regulations, there are insidious ways around them. I find this all so disturbing and worry that poorly reasoned "bodily autonomy" arguments will be a barrier. Surrogacy and gamete donation go hand in hand and both prey on women's socialization to sacrifice themselves for others and also on women's economic disadvantages.

I too have had conversations with my daughters and their friends about this.

Just looked closely at the ads...what a joke about anonymity-with Ancestry and 23andme, there's a good chance you have a close relative already on those sites where a little digging can quickly reveal donors (not that I think they should be anonymous).

Also, whilst payment for egg harvesting (I'm trying to find a better wording than donation, since it clearly isn't a donation) is capped at £750 in the UK I spot a loophole....

Do you love to travel? Becoming an Egg Donor can be such a fun way to travel to Toronto for free (all expenses paid)

I have no evidence of this happening yet, but if the advertising ban is lifted and it becomes a free for all, an all expenses trip to Greece with a side order of egg harvesting seems all too possible.

Egg harvesting is a much better phrase. Reminds me of the novel, "Never Let Me Go."

I cringe thinking of young women enticed away on trips...

Sharing this as Sophie Beresiner, former Beauty Editor for the Times magazine and columnist (on her surrogacy 'journey') has commissioned another baby through My Surrogacy Journey, a relatively new agency.

So here is yet another gushing article in the Times about how wonderful surrogacy is, this time the 'gift' is that of a sibling and also the 'gift' donor eggs (from Russian women again?)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ae9d6f00-fb04-11ed-bc7a-1444acf8fa38?shareToken=06e6cfc393862a6357f126ee662e4164

I notice that comments have been turned off on this latest column

nepeta · 03/02/2021 09:00
Does anyone else find it nightmarish that the erasure of the female biological sex (but not the erasure of the male biological sex) is happening at the same time as the promotion of surrogacy (which depends on the actual existence of the female biological sex) and the idea that sex work is a good career choice for women (which never mentions that 99% of the customers belong to one sex while the majority of workers belong to the other sex)?
Yes I do. I don't think it's a coincidence. Women are at risk, perhaps we will be kept like cattle in the future? Men are looking for new ways to make money, only women can create something out of nothing. The hatred and dehumanising of women has been laid bare by transactivism. I think we have to stop this now before it goes too far or else we will have to spend the next xx years crowdfunding cases against it.
To me surrogacy is dealing in slavery.

The woman in this story had to trade her fertility for staying alive. Very difficult to criticise someone who finds herself in that position. And perhaps that's why she's been able to find altruistic surrogates? Article is a bit vague about the eggs But is this hard case being used to promote commercial surrogacy?

By age 43 it will be harder, not impossible, for a fertile woman to conceive. I know plenty of women who got started late and now have an only child. The biological clock is massively unfair on modern women. But is exploiting other women's fertility really the solution?

You make a good point forwarder. It’s not rare these days for women to have their first child in their late 30s. Some of them will be able to go on to have another child or even two, and be able to conceive naturally and give birth at 43.

Some of them, possibly many, won’t be able to have a second child. Or perhaps won’t want to attempt it past 41. Some of them won’t attempt it because they know from personal experience the toll it can take on your body.

Reading that article it sounds like she’s asked another woman’s to risk pregnancy for her, to avoid saying “no” to a pre-schooler. Oh and she gets a book out of it of course.

I hadn't realised, when this thread was started, but The Times is part of the Rupert Murdoch News U.K. stable of which Rebekah Brooks is CEO. She had a child by surrogacy, I think her cousin was the surrogate mother. Add in various other Times journalists who have used surrogacy and
the chances of balanced discussion of the ethics of surrogacy in the Times are next to zero.

Same for the BBC which has several well known presenters who have used surrogacy.
Sickening.