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.

@CoffeeTeaChocolate yes it does seem that @PotholeParadies is quite emotional taking my saying something as a lecture directed at her

@Delphinium20

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.

Can say the exact thing about international adoptions as well. The answer is to either tightly regulate international surrogacy/adoption or decide that it must be kept within a nation and ban the international aspect entirely. Not ban all adoptions or all surrogacy.

@OhHolyJesus

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.

As far as I can see, the only people it excludes are women who don't want their careers interrupted/bodies impacted by pregnancy. Everyone else is fine.

If an adult female wants to be a surrogate then I don’t see why not? I think we have to assume someone old enough to do it has the brain power to know what they’re letting themselves in for.

@OhHolyJesus
Thank you for taking the time to read and post more of the report. It’s clear that surrogacy law is inadequate. But the report doesn’t recommend banning surrogacy, it recommends continued reform.

In answer to your question
Dr Kirsty Horsey backs up the preference of surrogate mothers, that the process remains altruistic - so why the £15-20k average cost?

Altruism doesn’t mean zero cost or zero money going from the IPs to the surrogate mother. It simply means zero profit. It’s profit that makes it from altruistic to commercial, not the compensation of costs to the surrogate. Many posters have commented on the fact that pregnancy costs- in terms of risk to health and even life, loss of earnings, and in countries without nationalised healthcare for the prenatal care, childbirth and post natal care. It would be a form of exploitation to not reimburse a surrogate for their costs or compensate them for the risks they take in regards to their health and in some cases, life.

Another example of commercialism & exploitation would be if there were an surrogacy platform App similar to Uber. Uber as you know is a platform App for taxis. Matching drivers of cars with people wanting a lift. Long known for exploitation of the drivers. Anyway not that the two services are comparable, but it is technologically possible that a company could launch a surrogacy App it match IPs with surrogates and then take a commission % from the surrogates. Meaning a company then profits from being a middle man. This would, like Uber did, lead to huge exploitation of surrogates. So it’s why only charities or nonprofits should be involved in screening IPs and surrogates and doing any kind of match making.

@Clymene

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?

I read biological = infertile and medical= as too risky to carry a pregnancy to term. So men would only qualify under the biological need? I think?

As far as I can see, the only people it excludes are women who don't want their careers interrupted/bodies impacted by pregnancy. Everyone else is fine.

Yes that's how it was it too.

So it’s why only charities or nonprofits should be involved in screening IPs and surrogates and doing any kind of match making.

I don't find Uber as a natural comparison either but seeing as you mentioned it, Surrogacy U.K. and COTS take membership fees of I think around £400 (but those numbers could have changed) with additional services and related fees - am I right?

I know COTS have closed their books and desperately seek more women to be surrogate mothers (so their charity or so-called 'non-profit' business continues), I fail to see how £400 is a reasonable charge to 'match-make'.

Is it more or less £ do you know?

I've seen the breakdown of 'expenses' include a holiday, so I'm not sure it can count as altruistic or as a 'expense of pregnancy'. If pregnancy cost £15k there wouldn't be so many people doing it, or if they did it would cripple them financially, hence why women of limited economic means sign up for surrogacy in the first place.

It may be presented as 'altrustic' but I don't see it that way at all. I think that can only happen within families and there I think there is a great risk of coercion and long term harm, as well as the possibility that it all works out. I think it can go both ways. We just don't hear so much of when it goes badly. Those stories are buried and not recorded or discussed by Surrogacy U.K., COTS, Dr Horsey, HFEA or anyone else.

Just because we don't see it in the Daily Mail or on BBC doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

how I saw it too (in response to Clymene*)

If an adult female wants to be a surrogate then I don’t see why not?

Even 18 year old student looking to pay for university (as per Law Commission proposals noted in the consultation)?

Even 45 year olds who are on their 8th pregnancy?

Would there be no limits?

So it’s why only charities or nonprofits should be involved in screening IPs and surrogates and doing any kind of match making.

I suspect that if there is a boom in surrogacy as a result of a new law passing it will be done via Facebook groups and social media and the surrogacy agencies will be out of a job. This would put everyone at risk quite frankly but there is currently no way surrogacy agencies can or even attempt to stop people making their owns deals online. It could be restricted through the fertility clinics if donor eggs are used, but as they are making money off it they would encourage gestational surrogacy to keep their profits rolling in.

As traditional surrogacy is the cheap and easy Turkey-Baster method for the single men and same sex couples, I would expect to see an increase in that. Dr Horsey thinks it makes no difference to the surrogate mothers so it's all A-Ok!

One of my co-workers was a welfare officer at a university until last summer. She said that fertility service providers would lobby the uni office to target flyer adverts to female undergraduates. If they can target them for egg donation, it's not a stretch to imagine younger women with huge future financial debts (university debt) being targeted for surrogacy.

Because an agency is "non-profit" doesn't mean they can't pay their employees!
Directors can and will award themselves generous salaries.

As for those altruistic surrogate mothers and their expenses. I am reminded of the MPs expenses which were revealed to cover practically all their living costs.

I imagine a duck house might not be acceptable but clearing the moat surely would - after all you can't expect a pregnant woman to do hard physical labour like that.

www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2019/03/22/the-duck-house-the-moat-and-the-toaster-a-decade-of-dodgy-expenses-claims/

The Law Commission also noted that lots of players along the way make money out of surrogacy: Lawyers (of course), fertility clinics and doctors and counsellors and other parties. Only the woman may not be paid but oh dear, this looks a lot like exploitation. For this reason "expenses" are a cover for compensation whilst claiming pure altruism.

I would liken this to offering the use of your lovely holiday home to a friend in need of a break. Your friend then lets the home on Airbnb. The people who rent it organise a private rave, employing DJ's and caterers whilst selling tickets.

Your house is trashed. The insurers won't pay up blaming you for making your own (unwise) decision.

Loads of people have made money and had fun. You are left with a trashed house and no money.

@OhHolyJesus

So it’s why only charities or nonprofits should be involved in screening IPs and surrogates and doing any kind of match making.

I suspect that if there is a boom in surrogacy as a result of a new law passing it will be done via Facebook groups and social media and the surrogacy agencies will be out of a job. This would put everyone at risk quite frankly but there is currently no way surrogacy agencies can or even attempt to stop people making their owns deals online. It could be restricted through the fertility clinics if donor eggs are used, but as they are making money off it they would encourage gestational surrogacy to keep their profits rolling in.

As traditional surrogacy is the cheap and easy Turkey-Baster method for the single men and same sex couples, I would expect to see an increase in that. Dr Horsey thinks it makes no difference to the surrogate mothers so it's all A-Ok!

Surely it depends on what this hypothetical new law would allow? Why are you assuming the worst case that it would be a law commercialising surrogacy in the U.K.?

@WeRoarSometimes

One of my co-workers was a welfare officer at a university until last summer. She said that fertility service providers would lobby the uni office to target flyer adverts to female undergraduates. If they can target them for egg donation, it's not a stretch to imagine younger women with huge future financial debts (university debt) being targeted for surrogacy.

Yes, this would be exploitation to my mind. It’s why one interesting proposal I agreed with was a law saying only someone who has already given birth can legally agree to be a surrogate. It’s to avoid exploiting young childless women who don’t really know what they are signing up for.

Why are you assuming the worst case that it would be a law commercialising surrogacy in the U.K.?

Because I've read the full consultation document, all 502 pages, I know who the Law Commission met with prior to the public consultation, and since, and because one key proposal for the 'pre-birth' order follows the California and now the New York State (and others) commercial model.

I await the draft Bill which I anticipate will be released at the end of this year or early next year, but based on the consultation alone it's easy to see what the main take always are.

It might be that they propose to keep the so-called altruistic model and apply the pre-birth order as well, so as PP says, the surrogate mother gets the least £, the fertility doctors, lawyers and surrogacy agencies get paid and the surrogate mothers get the physical impact of fertility drugs, being pregnant, giving birth and the recovery in whatever form and some nice maternity clothes and a cleaner for the duration...oh and maybe she will have just 5-6 weeks of hormone-filled weeks whilst she's recovering, to change her mind, fill in her paperwork to lodge a reversal and get a lawyer.

Guaranteed some poor sap will volunteer to do this for him. The opportunity to be publicly lauded and to become part of his family. Notice he would have loved someone to share parenting with him... poor baby.

Do the people who make the argument that surrogacy should be fine because women can make up their own minds, also agree that way about selling organs? I mean why can’t someone sell a kidney if they decide for themselves (personal circumstances aside)?

It’s funny these personal responsibility arguments only/largely seem to affect poor people giving up something.

@NinaMimi

Do the people who make the argument that surrogacy should be fine because women can make up their own minds, also agree that way about selling organs? I mean why can’t someone sell a kidney if they decide for themselves (personal circumstances aside)?

It’s funny these personal responsibility arguments only/largely seem to affect poor people giving up something.

I’m not in favour of selling organs. But you can’t compare surrogacy to selling an organ. The only body organ involved in surrogacy is the uterus. The surrogate keeps her uterus in situ, it’s not removed and implanted in a recipient. And after the pregnancy, it’s still her uterus.

It might be that they propose to keep the so-called altruistic model

I think they will because that is what the U.K. Surrogacy Report recommends as well as the UN Human Rights Commission. I do not think the U.K. is in danger of commercialising surrogacy. I hope that at least, we can agree that that would be a step in the wrong direction.

@WeRoarSometimes

One of my co-workers was a welfare officer at a university until last summer. She said that fertility service providers would lobby the uni office to target flyer adverts to female undergraduates. If they can target them for egg donation, it's not a stretch to imagine younger women with huge future financial debts (university debt) being targeted for surrogacy.

Already a problem.

nordicmodelnow.org/2021/02/21/egg-donation-empowering-really/

I’m not in favour of selling organs. But you can’t compare surrogacy to selling an organ. The only body organ involved in surrogacy is the uterus. The surrogate keeps her uterus in situ, it’s not removed and implanted in a recipient. And after the pregnancy, it’s still her uterus.

Again, as women, we know that the uterus is just one of many of our body organs that is involved in pregnancy and birth. Beyond organs, there is increased blood supply, kidneys changes, hormones impacts...oh the list goes on and on. I think anyone who is pro-surrogacy should be better informed about pregnancy. I think a lot of us here feel that pregnancy helped inform us of why we feel so strongly that surrogacy decisions should not be influenced by men or by women who have little understanding of pregnancy and childbirth.

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.

www.bionews.org.uk/page_147460

Don't have time right now, but here's a report about that meeting. If you start from there you can find out more.