Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Single man looking for a surrogate - BBC

320 replies

OhHolyJesus · 24/02/2021 08:17

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
PotholeParadies · 25/02/2021 17:18

I don't think it's as simple as woman still has uterus.

The effects of pregnancy are permanent. Your body doesn't just revert to its pre-pregnancy state. For example, among the worst case scenarios, some women do end up having hysterectomies as a result of childbirth complications. It's a small risk, but it's nonetheless there.

FannyCann · 25/02/2021 17:26

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.

Unless she ends up having her uterus removed (in what will likely be a traumatic and dangerous emergency).
Or if she has an LSCS and her uterus is scarred meaning future pregnancies will be slightly more risky due to the risk of ruptured uterus and morbidly adherent placenta both of which are associated with previous LSCS.

Bit like loaning your car and getting it back with excess miles, dodgy brakes and a few big dents.

FannyCann · 25/02/2021 17:31

I do not think the U.K. is in danger of commercialising surrogacy.

It is already commercial with many players making profit from it as I pointed out previously. If advertising is allowed isn't that the very definition of commercial? And various fertility clinics including the London Egg Bank are already advertising for kind generous young women to do the right thing and share their eggs.

As regards payment to the surrogate mother - frankly I'd rather have honesty, recognition of the pain and risks they take and appropriate payment for this so that they aren't the only person in the deal who doesn't get paid and make a profit.
Because those expenses which more or less cover a years living costs are just expenses aren't they? No profit at all. So that means the surrogate mother is exploited.

PlanDeRaccordement · 25/02/2021 17:52

@CharlieParley

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.

@CharlieParley Thank you for the bionews link. It does indeed say that many donor conceived people were denied human rights, but the report also says:

In contrast, it was also seen that when human rights are upheld good outcomes can result. This was illustrated by one of the presenters, born as a result of an altruistic surrogacy arrangement, who had known and had relationships all her life with her surrogate mother (who is also her genetic mother) and her genetically related siblings (both donor-conceived and surrogacy-born living with the surrogate mother and other families). Unfortunately, her story was not reported to be a commonly shared experience amongst the presenters or the larger network of donor-conceived and surrogacy born people worldwide.

That meeting did not call for surrogacy or donor conceived to be banned as you implied, nor was the consensus a plea to ban these...it actually called for the following reformations to national laws where necessary:

“States should create international and national frameworks and laws that:

  1. Ensure the right of donor-conceived and surrogacy-born children to access information about their identity and origins regardless of when these children were conceived and born and to preserve relations with their biological, social and gestational families.
  2. Ensure that comprehensive and complete records of all parties involved in the conception of the child be held by the State in perpetuity for future generations.
  3. Respect and promote the full and effective enjoyment of all the rights of donor-conceived and surrogacy-born children in both the immediate and longer terms.
  4. Ensure that the best interests of the child be the paramount consideration in all relevant laws, policies and practices and in any judicial and administrative decisions. This should include, but is not limited to, pre-conception assessments/screening of donors, intended parents, and surrogates and post-birth follow up/review that upholds the best interests of the child as paramount.
  5. Prohibit all forms of commercialisation of gametes, children, and surrogates including, but not limited to, the sale and trafficking in persons and gametes.”
PlanDeRaccordement · 25/02/2021 17:53

@FannyCann
If advertising is allowed isn't that the very definition of commercial?

Lol no. Given that I was forced just now to watch a NHS advertisement about every twenty seconds, every fogged lens, every step aside....

So no. Advertisement doesn’t mean something is commercial in nature.

CharlieParley · 25/02/2021 17:59

I second what OhHolyJesus said earlier. In addition to reading the Law Commission's report, I also attended the session they held in Edinburgh. It's clear from both that they seek to further commercialise surrogacy in the UK.

There is actually no reason for reform in the direction the Law Commission wants, other than that those involved in the industry and those who seek to commission babies want this made easier. And if you look into the UK's surrogacy market, what we have may be called altruistic, but that's only in name. Everyone involved makes a profit, and most do so openly, apart from birth mothers, who are however being paid more than enough in expenses to tempt women from poorer backgrounds as well as those less educated. The UK Law Commission acknowledges this in their very long report:

2.57 While concerns may be focused around international arrangements, the issue may still be of concern in domestic surrogacies. In the UK, there may in some instances be an unequal distribution of knowledge and wealth, and therefore ultimately of power, between the surrogate and the intended parents. While stakeholders that we have consulted frequently acknowledge that all those involved in a surrogacy arrangement are often vulnerable, it has also been acknowledged that surrogates are generally economically and socially less well off than intended parents. (p.36f)

The session btw was remarkable in many ways, but none more so in that even law professionals who deal with applications for parental orders were blindsided by the Law Commission's proposals. When those present asked questions as to why neither the wellbeing of egg donors and birth mothers nor that of the children was of any interest to the Law Commission, one such law professional sought to reassure us that our concerns were unfounded because they and their colleagues took their jobs very seriously in putting the best interests of the child first. When it was pointed out to them that the Law Commission seeks to eliminate their role entirely they were speechless.

Of course, the entire consultation was deeply flawed, as this article explains.

And for those who want to understand why altruistic surrogacy is also harmful, I recommend reading this essay from the same author:

objectnow.org/how-do-altruistic-and-commercial-surrogacy-affect-the-rights-of-women-and-children/

And yes, surrogacy can be banned outright as several countries have now done. Just because some people will seek to get around such a ban is no reason not to protect women and children. Much as just because people still commit crimes, we don't throw our hands up in the air and just make them legal.

PlanDeRaccordement · 25/02/2021 18:02

@FannyCann
No profit at all. So that means the surrogate mother is exploited.

No. Being a surrogate for profit is commercial, not altruistic.
Being a surrogate where you lose out, are not compensated fully for your costs, that is exploitation.
Not making a profit is not exploitation

CharlieParley · 25/02/2021 18:09

That meeting did not call for surrogacy or donor conceived to be banned as you implied, nor was the consensus a plea to ban these...it actually called for the following reformations to national laws where necessary:

I implied nothing of the sort PlanDeRaccordement. Please take a little more care before accusing others of things they haven't said. To make this easier, here is what I actually said:

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.)

ErrolTheDragon · 25/02/2021 18:11

There are costs other than monetary. Hmm

OhHolyJesus · 25/02/2021 18:46

Great post @CharlieParley - I completely agree. I've also read parts of @FannyCann 's account of the event she attended and was shocked at the cavalier attitude taken by the Law Commission, apparently one of the of the lawyers responded to a medically related question "we're not doctors!" as if it wasn't relevant. You would think that as this involves a law around a biological state (pregnancy) that involves human life and that there are risks, they would have an obstetrician/gynaecologist on their team, even in an advisory role.

Based on the emails I read around the surrogacy 'industry and markets', and how some companies project the monetary value I can't see how it isn't commercial/transactional.

What other altruistic act that involves human bodies has a value measured in currency that results in profit for the brokers involved?

OP posts:
OhHolyJesus · 25/02/2021 18:53

@CharlieParley just to say I linked to that UN meeting earlier but this is a long thread now so to save the scrolling - this you tube channel has the very moving individual and joint presentations from donor conceived people and the standing ovation they received.

Text from the link below in the screenshot. It includes surrogate-born adults too.

Single man looking for a surrogate - BBC
OP posts:
FannyCann · 25/02/2021 18:59

I also attended the session they held in Edinburgh.

Hey @CharlieParley we must have seen each other - I was there too!

I particularly remember when the representatives were asked detailed questions about egg donation that was when they said "we are not doctors, we are lawyers!" LOL. Hmm

As OhHoly says, one might think that would make them consider the need to have someone with an obstetric qualification in the team, at least in an advisory role.

A lot of time was spent discussing minutiae of details relating to payment and the lawyers seemed much more at home in those parts of the discussion.

FannyCann · 25/02/2021 19:07

@PlanDeRaccordement

Not making a profit is not exploitation

If I was required to go into work every day and got a free lunch and petrol money by way of payment I think that would probably be considered to be modern slavery. As has already been said, lots of players make money along the way but the surrogate mother isn't allowed to make money from the deal. Looks like a pretty raw deal to me.

Advertisement doesn’t mean something is commercial in nature.

You really will have to do better Plan.
I think we can all recognise that some non profit organisations like the NHS use advertising without gaining commercially from it. And yet is there any evidence the advertisers themselves offer their services for free?

So you can add advertisers to the list of people and businesses making money from the surrogacy arrangements that the surrogate mother cheerfully does for free as those expenses are all just the costs of providing this service.

FannyCann · 25/02/2021 19:14

Also Charlie when I attended a meeting with the law commissioners, shortly before Covid took over our lives, I took with me printed copies of my hospital Major Obstetric Haemorrhage policy. I can't deny feeling mildly amused that Nick Hopkins fell on the copies as if he had never seen or heard of such a thing before. Which I suppose he obviously hadn't. Sadly the joke is on women who are exposed to these risks to fulfill the selfish demands of those he feel entitled to use their reproductive services.

OhHolyJesus · 25/02/2021 19:25

A lot of time was spent discussing minutiae of details relating to payment and the lawyers seemed much more at home in those parts of the discussion.

I mean it really does come down to money and I think the talk around 'expenses' (or compensation as it is sometimes called) for surrogate mothers as it really is so distasteful to consider it payment because we all know what that means. The buying and selling of babies. The commodification of a woman's body (hence the comparison to prostitution).

Prostitution has had a re-brand with "sex work is work" and I do see it as a similar attempt to make selling babies more palatable and socially acceptable; removing mother from surrogate mother, calling it 'extreme babysitting' or 'I'm just an oven for their bun'. It really is quite a poor attempt and I think anyone with even a vague grip on what is happening to women can see it for what it is, though I'm sure many read or see the fluffy, happy surrogacy stories in the press and think it's all perfectly fine, but scratch the surface and it's really quite ugly.

We don't make laws around the sisters, cousins and mothers having babies for their infertile or same sex family members, we make laws to protect people, and it's a complete failure of the Law Commission to block any discussion of reform to ban it. It's happened in India and Thailand, principally to protect women and children from exploitation and most of Europe bans surrogacy. I don't know why the Law Commission seek to be different, maybe it's a sovereignty thing, maybe it's because of who they spoke to, maybe it's because they have benefitted from surrogacy themselves or other who have have been heavily lobbying on it for years.

It would be great to see the consultation responses wouldn't it?

OP posts:
Alicethruthelookingglass · 25/02/2021 19:57

The elephant in the room is the 34 year old guy who couldn't maintain a LT relationship with a woman. Damn, I'd love to know her side of all of it.

Years ago, one of my bestie's fathers was a private adoption attorney (US). His staff was trained to look for red flags. There were all sorts of hoops the prospective parents had to jump through to obtain the service, but there were also these unwritten things that would get a parent dumped like speaking of wanting a child before a certain date, undue overeagerness, or mention of other reasons they might need children (wills, for example) rather than just family stuff. You get my drift, I hope...

A 34 year old single man cannot just walk into an adoption agency dealing with already birthed children and walk out with one without close scrutiny. But this one can circumvent discretion and just buy one...and a national paper will promote his side?

ErrolTheDragon · 25/02/2021 21:00

The elephant in the room is the 34 year old guy who couldn't maintain a LT relationship with a woman. Damn, I'd love to know her side of all of it.

Yes... together with the 'mini-me' comment does make one wonder if he's fully realised he's signing up to the ultimate long-term relationship, with a completely unknown individual.
It occurs to me that everyone contemplating parenthood - by whatever means - should seriously consider words akin to the old fashioned marriage vows: For better, for worse; for richer or poorer; in sickness and in health; for long as we both shall live. Plus it's a relationship where you have the responsibilities, the other person has the rights.

Well, hopefully he just expressed himself exceptionally badly and he's totally on board with all that.

TheresALight · 25/02/2021 21:05

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.

This is nonsense, what about all the damage that can be caused by and to the uterus during pregnancy? During pregnancy almost every other organ is displaced, stressed or stretched whilst the uterus grows causing any number of conditions that would not be present otherwise. Spd, sciatica, bladder problems, incontinence, piles, digestion problems, joint damage, stretch marks. Not to mention the placenta (which is an organ itself, grown specifically for pregnancy', and all the complications that can cause.
And what about when the baby needs to be born? I'm pretty sure that the baby needs an exit route so will be either travelling through the vagina via the cervix (both of which are organs!), or requiring a large cut through the women's torso including several layers of skin, muscle, fat and the uterus. Add on all the increased work the heart, liver, kidneys and brain are doing whilst the whole body shifts to accommodate and create a baby, and you can see that the whole body and every organ is a part of pregnancy.

Delphinium20 · 25/02/2021 21:31

The elephant in the room is the 34 year old guy who couldn't maintain a LT relationship with a woman. Damn, I'd love to know her side of all of it.

Glad someone said this.

WeRoarSometimes · 25/02/2021 22:14

@Alicethruthelookingglass

'The elephant in the room is the 34 year old guy who couldn't maintain a LT relationship with a woman. Damn, I'd love to know her side of all of it.'

Hear hear. We often get single men wanting to access our service because their ex is becoming a parent with someone else. And then the bit about wanting to become a parent themselves is almost an afterthought. But every single male (regardless of their sexual preference) will complain about a woman 'not wanting to help them out' by being a surrogate. As if it were a simple favour, like taking in an Amazon delivery.

ScoobyCat · 25/02/2021 23:01

This is what the sexual revolution has lead to has it -

Women you don’t need to have a life that revolves around marriage and babies anymore ......

Just let men use your bodies for their own sexual gratification for money instead -
It’s empowering!

Just have babies for other people instead- it’s kind!

Our foremothers would weep if they could see this.

HarrietLong · 25/02/2021 23:06

@drivenmadbyhomeschool

Women are not incubators. They are women, humans, people. As are the babies they produce (or they are boys obviously, 50% of the time).

Not for hire.

End of discussion for me, whoever they're doing it for.

It's funny I used to think of surrogacy as a nice thing to do, generous and giving. Until I really read about it and looked into it, and also had my own children. Now I think it's awful. It shouldn't be allowed at all.

^This
ChakaDakotaRegina · 26/02/2021 03:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SomeoneToTalkTo · 26/02/2021 04:49

At first, I thought it should be okay, I think. For a single guy to want to have his own son/daughter especially at his age. He probably has some trust issues with finding his life partner, or something. But, looking at the comments, I was really surprised at some of them.
All of you have a point. If surrogacy for a single man is allowed, then it hits a lot of critical points in our society. His desire actually is a selfish one.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.