Single man looking for a surrogate - BBC

[OhHolyJesus]

At 34 he really doesn't need to rush to have a biological child to meet his "burning desire" but he has two embryos on ice with an attractive-sounding egg donor, rather than a partner and I'm sure he hopes the BBC article will mean someone 'comes forward' (don't all rush at once ladies) to grow a "little person" for him.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56162721

So women need to grow and deliver babies, and possibly risk their lives for:

Infertile heterosexual couples
Gay men
Single men

...and someone will be along to say this is discriminatory against single women with careers soon, thus the new age of social surrogacy is born.

Donor conception and surrogacy aren't the same thing

Absolutely, though there is a cross over - it was more a supplementary video to the one from Jessica Kerns. I wanted to link to others but couldn't find them so if I can dig them out I'll share later.

Surrogate born children are in the donor conceived 'community' and there isn't, to my knowledge, a wider group of 'surrogate born only' adults speaking as a group.

For posters who wonder what happens if the baby is ill or born with developmental problems - no doubt some commissioning parents would still want to keep the baby they desired so much, but there is plenty of evidence regarding those who don't. I think being detached from the whole process must make it very easy to back out of the contract, especially for those who are on another continent.

The sad case of baby Bridget is one, a little girl commissioned by American parents and born prematurely in Ukraine.

Then there was the case of the British woman who rejected a disabled surrogate twin as she didn't want a "dribbling cabbage".

Woman rejected disabled surrogate baby as a ‘dribbling cabbage’

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-rejected-disabled-surrogate-baby-as-a-dribbling-cabbage-fzqqk6cc56v

www.nct.org.uk/baby-toddler/emotional-and-social-development/what-fourth-trimester

The Law Commissioners gave consideration to this possibility of commissioning parents rejecting the baby they ordered whilst drawing up their proposals. They say that the pre-birth contracts they are proposing will keep everyone "safe". Dustin Lance Black, in his radio 4 series about surrogacy talked a lot about these contracts keeping everyone "safe". What he, and the Law Commissioners mean, is that Commissioning Parents can feel "safe" that they will get their baby.

No one can force commissioning parents to take a baby they have decided they do not want. Indeed, it's probably best for the baby that they aren't forced to honour their contract.

So in such a case, as the Law Commissioners stated, it falls to social services to make arrangements for the baby (same as would happen if ordinary parents rejected their baby) unless the surrogate mother decides to keep it. Funny that - she may not be the genetic mother, but suddenly she's welcome to be the mother of the baby she gave birth to if no one else wants it.

I also find surrogacy to be a very concerning area and am of the mind it should be banned too.

My twin pregnancy has had severe effects on my health both during and following the birth. And will effect me for the rest of my life. There was no way of knowing this before I got pregnant. The fact that women can be exploited into experiencing this and then have to give up the babies that they have nurtured for 9 months makes me extremely uncomfortable. Particularly vulnerable women.

What I found so distasteful about the Kim surrogacy situation was that she couldn’t carry anymore children without causing herself serious health complications but saw no issue with hiring surrogates to carry more children for her despite already having two healthy children. Outrageous lack of concern for other women’s wellbeing for her own gain.

Kim kardashian that is

Some cultures have long had a form of surrogacy, especially for family members, eg if you couldn't have children you would raise a child born from your sister. In these cultures typically an aunt is considered a mother, too. There is no difference, you call them all 'mum', they call you their child, you call your cousins 'brother or sister'. This happens in all contexts, so say you meet your friend when out shopping with your aunt you would say 'this is my mum'. You wouldn't explain its really your mum's sister because they function as your mum. For example i know right now at 30 minutes past midnight i could go to my sisters house and leave my kids there and maybe never collect them. The separation trauma might occur only because we live in the UK and the response of wider society could make it difficult for the children. Within our family we'd be fine.

So the povs espoused here feel quite western, nuclear family like to me.

So the povs espoused here feel quite western, nuclear family like to me.

But it in the non-western world where many of the worst of surrogacy abuses occur - often by western commissioning parents who take advantage of countries with looser rules and where women live in poverty.

Ok sure. I don't know stats so cannot comment on that.

I am commenting on the posts that have said all surrogacy is wrong no matter what.

I gave an example where it might not be.

The non western world has loooooong been abused by the West in almost every sphere of life. On that we are entirely aligned.

@ForeverAintEnough2 why are you assuming these babies are going straight into the arms of two loving parents? The article in the OP links to a case about a single man wanting one of these babies. The commissioning person/ couple isn’t being checked as far as I can see - it can just be anyone with enough cash to pay for the use of a women’s uterus to grow them a baby. Any newborn baby is only interested in being with the mother that grew and birthed them. It’s damaging to the development to remove them from their mother as a newborn baby, regardless of what other people want. It’s all about what the adults want/ deserve - what about these babies?

Good job I wouldn't have been trading it for anything then isn't it?

Gifting one human being to another... Somehow that doesn't sound all that ethical to me either.

Did you know there was a big meeting at the UN where people who had been donor-conceived and/or surrogate-born pleaded with lawmakers to change all relevant laws so that the child's interest would always be the most important concern.

They particularly emphasised that it was a violation of their human rights to be deprived of their natural parents by design, that this caused them pain and they suffered harm because of it. That all laws allowing this should have as a foremost right for children conceived and/or born this way to have a relationship with each person involved in their coming into being. (They called this biological parents, gestational mothers and social parents.)

This included all children raised by wonderful, loving parents. Unfortunately, the UK Law Commissions seeking to reform the UK's lawon surrogacy weren't all that interested in their perspective, nor in that of the UN Special Envoy report on surrogacy which highlighted the exploitative nature of surrogacy and how it treated human beings as commodities, whether paid for or not. There's a serious issue with framing a trade in humans as something we do out of the goodness of our own hearts. Even when we do it out of the goodness of our own hearts.

@CharlieParley
Source of this UN meeting? You tend to pop up with entertaining stories to back your narrative but without ever posting a source for them....

All I could find was this 2018 surrogacy report in which, the UN Special Rapporteur on the sale and exploitation of children addressed surrogacy reported to the UN Human Rights Council that despite the potential violations of human dignity which could arise from it, concluded that if regulated these could be avoided.
www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Children/Pages/Surrogacy.

She didn’t say what you said she said in her report on surrogacy.

Could not find anything on the UN page in regards to children of surrogates or donor eggs “pleading” to have not been separated from blah blah...what you said. No word of that.

How about the U.K. Surrogacy Report which stated in their summary:
This report seeks to highlight the reality of the practice of surrogacy in the UK in 2018, while recognising the problems that international surrogacy arrangements may bring. We continue to recommend the careful formulation of new legislation on surrogacy which recognises the value of surrogacy as a way of having children and helps to protect and facilitate the principle of altruism that underpins the practice of and the law on surrogacy in the UK, while preventing commercialisation and sharp practice. Our recommendations are premised on the primary assumption that the welfare of the children born through surrogacy is paramount.. Full report at:
surrogacyuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Surrogacy-in-the-UK-2nd-Report-20181230.pdf

Excerpts from the report below:

That in the U.K., Surrogacy U.K. (SUK)
“SUK screens applicants before they join the organisation to ensure that IPs have a biological or medical need for surrogacy; surrogates have no known health impediment to helping someone through surrogacy; everyone understands and is ready for the surrogacy process and the implications of this for them and their friends and families; safeguarding risks are identified and evaluated and that everyone meets the legal requirements of obtaining a parental order. Members are then provided with guidance by experienced, trained members of SUK at key stages of the surrogacy process...”
IP= Intended Parent.

They did a survey in 2018 as well and there were 510 responses in total, with 498 of these coming from people living in the UK. The breakdown of respondents shows that 103 surrogates, 8 partners of surrogates, 209 IPs (27.8% (58) in same-sex couples) and 190 ‘others’ responded.

When asked about their motivations, surrogates were able to give free-text responses. All of the surrogates did so, and none of the responses were negative. For example, one surrogate said:
‘I first decided that id (sic) like to be a surrogate after watching my aunt battle infertility. I then saw a programme on the BBC about surrogacy and knew it was definitely something i (sic) wanted to do’.
Another surrogate said:
‘I had my family complete and wanted to help make a couple a family. And I wanted them to enjoy being a parent as much as I do’.
And another said:
‘I felt so incredibly lucky to have my 3 children naturally with no problems. I couldn't think of anything more amazing than to give the gift of a baby to someone who is less fortunate’.

Most respondents strongly agreed or agreed that:
• the law is out of date,
• it does not reflect the reality of most surrogacy arrangements,
• the current system should be improved to make surrogacy more transparent,
• the current system should be improved to enable more access to surrogacy,
• the law could do better as a disincentive to go overseas,
• the law does not assign parenthood to the correct parties from birth.
89.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed that surrogacy should be prohibited and 94.4% disagreed or strongly disagreed that surrogacy should be more restricted than it currently is. Only 2.2% agreed or strongly agreed with prohibition, and 1.4% with further restriction.

Wow @PotholeParadies thank you for confirming you are indeed a nasty bit of work. @MumsnetHQ have repeatedly said when this comes up via nasty comments from posters like you that this is not just a site for parents - that everyone is welcome. But thanks for making me feel even more like shit about my infertility. I am so sorry I dared tell a story about my nieces experience.

@PotholeParadies can you also please confirm to me where I was ‘lecturing’ you that merited your horrible comment? Here is what I said and to note it wasn’t even in response to you it was in response to a completely different poster comment.

my SIL and DSIS both had premature babies during lockdown. The babies were in NICU for 2-4 weeks and during this time the mothers were only allowed to drop milk up and see them for 15 minutes. Both are happy well adjusted babies. They also had cameras on them and no evidence they were upset or distressed at being away from their mothers. Surely if this had as massive an impact as you are saying that the maternity hospital would be all over the news for damaging countless premature babies lives?

Where is the lecture? Why did you take it upon yourself to belittle and cut me down to size because you didn’t like that I was sharing a story from people I know in my life? Are you always this nasty to anyone who dares talk to you about children if they aren’t parents themselves? You are clearly one of those superior types who believe anyone who hasn’t birthed a baby is a second class citizen to them and have no problems being nasty to them.

I don’t think anyone posts here with the intention of making anyone feel like sh*t, but likewise you can’t expect an ethical and philosophical discussion about reproductive/medical ethics and human rights to tiptoe around these issues to nurse the feelings of individual posters.

As you will have seen from the thread, there is a variance of opinion on this and some related tangents have been discussed such as the use of donor gametes, maternal poverty and the reasons mothers may give up their babies in other countries, the difference between altruistic and commercial surrogacy, adoption, the importance of the fourth trimester etc.

There are posters here who would like to see surrogacy banned, from the quoted UN document above, that is a minority view but they are entitled to hold and debate this position.

I don’t think anyone has been unkind, but discussion is often robust here, particularly when the thread is started in response to a media article which disregards the rights of the child and potential surrogate mother in favour of the whim of a single man on the rebound by all accounts. If you want a soothing pro-surrogacy thread, I’m sure there are fertility forums who discuss this in entirely positive, glowing terms, but feminists tend to defend the rights of all women and their children.

@Rupertbeartrousers to be honest I would have classed myself as a feminist. I had started reading with interest the threads here on women’s rights etc. I am neither for nor against surrogacy - in its current form it definitely needs a complete overhaul and regulation. I made a point about how if attachment was such a major issue surely there should have been uproar with babies separated from mothers during lockdown.

I personally think in an adult discussion the right response would have been respond with information on how it can cause issues and why and why it may affect some babies and not others. Not cutting another woman down to size by saying as she’s infertile and this is a site for parents I shouldn’t be here at all.

And while you may disagree I know mumsnet have previously deleted comments like that for being cruel.

If the version of debate on this so called ‘feminism’ chat is to cut other women down and get personal then that says a lot about posters here. Indeed you yourself have directed me toward fertility forums as apparently you think I’m pro surrogacy and want a fluffy version of it? Why did you reach that conclusion? Because I didn’t simply rampage on here saying surrogacy bad?

Some debate!

Plan the research by Dr Kirsty Horsey backs up the preference of surrogate mothers, that the process remains altruistic - so why the £15-20k average cost? And whilst only 5% said they want to be able to change their minds and 25% didn't answer. It's not surprising to me if that's the case as surrogate mothers see themselves as providing a service.

Dr Horsey has also done research to test the 'myth' that gestational surrogacy is different to traditional surrogacy. That worked involved the surrogate mothers, not the children born from either type of surrogacy.

I believe her most recent research used by the law commission interviewed, approx 130 surrogate mothers was it?

Surrogacy U.K. recommend that 'expenses' be paid for by the NHS.

Dr Kirsty Horsey's report recommendations:

We would like to see the law relating to all aspects of surrogacy reviewed (including a public
consultation as occurred with other aspects of fertility treatment provision before the legal
reforms in 2008) and consolidated in a new Surrogacy Act. We envisage that this Act would
continue to reflect the altruistic, compensatory model of surrogacy in the UK, while
removing unnecessary barriers standing in the way of those seeking to use surrogacy or
become surrogates and better representing how domestic surrogacy arrangements actually
work in practice.
We believe that better laws could simplify domestic surrogacy, thus making it more
attractive for some IPs who might otherwise have gone overseas. While we do not believe
that travelling internationally to access surrogacy should be prohibited (nor do we think this
could be properly enforced), we would like to see the numbers of people who do so
decrease. It is impossible to effectively regulate surrogacy arrangements that happen
outside the UK, thus raising serious ethical concerns that surrogates (and IPs) might be liable
to exploitation.
In addition, there may be reasons why some IPs to date have not or do not intend to apply
for POs, including those who are prevented from doing so by the too-restrictive eligibility
requirements in S54 HFE Act 2008. If the PO process for UK surrogacy was simplified and
brought forward, so the process was done before birth with parenthood automatically
transferring to the IPs at birth then IPs may be less likely to go abroad, except with very
good reason.
Further, we are concerned that the lack of willingness of policy and lawmakers to talk
openly about the realities of surrogacy and the need for legal reform (for example in the
review of the 1990 HFE Act which led to the passage of the 2008 Act) leads to surrogates
and IPs feeling excluded and misunderstood (and marginalised e.g. by medical professionals
in maternity care, as many of our survey respondents indicated). This is in direct conflict
with what we know makes for happy and mentally healthy children. Bringing surrogacy law
into line with other assisted reproductive practices would benefit children born through
surrogacy, surrogates and their families, and the IPs who have turned to this option as their
last or only available route to parenthood. It would eradicate any perceptions of stigma that
these groups may feel by the lack of open debate and the reluctance of the government to
look into reforming and modernising the law.
We consider that the law is still wedded to particular notions of motherhood and family that
are entirely debatable in the 21st century, particularly in a society in which other aspects of law and policy have recognised and continue to recognise changed and changing family
structures.
In particular, this group recommends the following specific changes:
 Parental orders should be pre-authorised so that where arrangements run
smoothly, legal parenthood is conferred on the IPs at birth.
69
 IPs should register the birth.70
 Parental orders should be available to single people who use surrogacy.
 Parental orders should be available to IPs where neither partner has used
their own gametes (‘double donation’).
 The time limit on applying for a parental order should be relaxed (or
removed).
 Parental order/surrogacy birth data should be collected centrally and
transparently, and published annually.
 IVF surrogacy cycles and births should be accurately recorded by
clinics/HFEA.
 The rules on surrogacy-related advertising and the criminalisation of this
should be reviewed in the context of non-profit organisations.

www.familylaw.co.uk/docs/pdf-files/Surrogacy_in_the_UK_report.pdf

Does this: "SUK screens applicants before they join the organisation to ensure that IPs have a biological or medical need for surrogacy" mean that single men have a 'biological need' for surrogacy?

What does this statement actually mean?

Surrogacy is just another example of men wanting to shoot their load into a woman-shaped vessel for their personal satisfaction. It’s prostitution. It’s a form of misogynistic abuse.

Creating a baby via surrogacy is modern slavery.

Surrogacy is a human rights issue and should be illegal.

There is no nuance for me on this. I’m sorry if would-be parents feel sad but there are many many children without families who need homes.

89.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed that surrogacy should be prohibited and 94.4% disagreed or strongly disagreed that surrogacy should be more restricted than it currently is. Only 2.2% agreed or strongly agreed with prohibition, and 1.4% with further restriction.

Well they would wouldn't they as

103 surrogates, 8 partners of surrogates, 209 IPs (27.8% (58) in same-sex couples) and 190 ‘others’ responded.

@ForeverAintEnough2 it seems that this discussion is upsetting you.

I haven’t personally seen any unkind posts (I have looked at both Rupert’s and Pothole’s), but I think that this topic is very emotional, especially if you have personal experiences of infertility or baby separation.

On the FWR board, the discussions are very robust and overall society impact generally supersedes any individual considerations. This can be painful for the individual especially as most posts are debating only the general issues and rarely acknowledge the individual pain.

Having personally experienced both recurring miscarriage and gone through quite horrendous IVF (own eggs, DH sperm) I do understand how painful this topic can be. I don’t think I would have been able to participate rationally in any discussion around these topics on this board at the time. I found a lot of support on the miscarriage and infertility threads.

What does this statement actually mean?

I think it means no social surrogacy, but men having a biological need is like the men we have discussed. They are Single.