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.

Totally agree with @WineInTheWillows. You cannot erase a baby's needs because of your own wants. Or rather you shouldn't be able to. Obviously you can because who cares about the primal needs of newborn babies as long as you get what you want?

@traintrain Yes those poor babies being brought up showered with love and affection and attention by their two loving parents. How awful.

[quote Igiveyouanonion]@traintrain Yes those poor babies being brought up showered with love and affection and attention by their two loving parents. How awful.[/quote]
Unless they are born disabled amirite

@NoSuchThingAsTooMuch why do you say that?

I think the remark of “preventing others who suffer from infertility to have a child” is way out of line.

Every single one of the regular posters here work tirelessly for the best for women and children. It is a very diverse group with that common aim.

One thing I have noticed is that they the entire time think of vulnerable women, women in prisons, prostitutes, women in sports, etc etc. Very few have personal stakes in those issues and yet they care. Some had stated that they have fertility issues, others haven’t.

A lot of more liberal feminists seem to think that as long as they are alright, it is all good. And possibly that it is empowering for poor women to have another woman’s child. I think that is a very selfish way of viewing things.

That article reads as if it's trying to make a point that a single man wanting a biological child through surrogacy is just like a single woman wanting a biological child through a sperm donor. Not the same at all.

Out of interest, what does happen in a situation where a foetus is identified as having a disability or a condition incompatible with life? Who decides whether to terminate?

[quote Igiveyouanonion]@NoSuchThingAsTooMuch why do you say that?[/quote]
India and Thailand outlawed commercial surrogacy because disabled children were abandoned as the people who paid for them to be born didn’t want them anymore. I guess if you’re willing to pay for a poor woman to have a child for you you’re likely not to have any morals.

There was a time that I would have considered surrogacy for one of my sisters (not needed thankfully) but even for a close relative, there are still difficult questions...

what if there are developmental abnormalities and surrogate mum and genetic parents disagree about what to do, what if maternal health is at odds with the survival of the fetus, or the commissioning parents split up, change their minds, or otherwise have a change of circumstances which mean they can’t have the child after all... it is the surrogate who has to go through with an abortion or bring an unwanted child into the world. What if you miscarry and your relative wants you to keep trying again or you have serious obstetric complications and can’t work after wards or have to wait months for reconstruction etc. or worse case scenario, you have to consider the risk of leaving your husband/kids without you. Not to mention the emotional toll of handing over a child you have bonded with over 9m, even if it’s not yours genetically.

I just can’t imagine doing this for a stranger, which begs the question - are altruistic surrogates fully able to weigh up the risks - I suspect many women may have psychological reasons to feel needed/valued for being pregnant or are emotionally pressured/coerced?

Or if commercial surrogacy, what price do you put on the risk to your life/health and how many women will have their poverty exploited?

That’s before you even get to the rights of the child.

As sad and difficult infertility is, the commissioning parents cannot be considered the most important here, as it is not them putting their life/health on the line for someone else and the baby has no choice in the circumstances of its creation at all.

It just seems like the media narrative is - commissioning parents are the important people, baby is an entitlement and the surrogate is a nameless commodity to be maligned if she advocates for herself in any way (such as privacy in the delivery suite for example).

Many of the posters here have stated outright ‘once they had their children’ they realised they were against surrogacy. Again, very convenient.

Or, it was during pregnancy, and knowing other women in the same stage of life, that clued them on to exactly how hazardous pregnancy and childbirth can be, and what invisible damage can be done.

These days, now that the maternal mortality rate is low enough that people see death-in-childbirth as just something that "happens in other countries/Victorian novels", there is a tendency to view pregnancy as hazard-free.

However, just because you're visibly alive with a baby doesn't mean you didn't need lifesaving 21st century medicine to save your life and, it doesn't mean you're not living with permanent consequences to your health. Episiotomies, vaginal tears, pre-eclampsia, high blood oressure, continence issues and many more.

Once you know all that, you're a lot less sanguine about what other women, particularly poor, uneducated women in other countries might be signing up to.

It will never be Kim Kardashian volunteering to be a surrogate for a poor woman. And who pays for the medical care post-pregnancy for a woman who agreed to be a surrogate in the first place because of poverty?

@Igiveyouanonion she is saying that because disabled children born as a result of surrogacy have been abandoned.
Also what do you think about what happens if a surrogate dies in childbirth?

@Lockheart I can't believe that your reply to someone talking about a surrogate mother handing her baby over to a baby trafficker is that it is your body, your choice. When it comes to handing your baby over to someone else, it is their body with no-one looking out for the baby's interests.

@NinaMimi ah ok, so because some couples who did surrogacy abandoned their children for being disabled you extrapolate from this that all couples who do surrogacy would abandon their children in this way. Let’s see....

some black people commit crimes therefore all black people are criminals ?

some single mother’s neglect their children therefore all single parents neglect their children ?

This is how you think is it @ninamimi or is it just about people desperate to have a baby who turn to surrogacy?

[quote Igiveyouanonion]@NinaMimi ah ok, so because some couples who did surrogacy abandoned their children for being disabled you extrapolate from this that all couples who do surrogacy would abandon their children in this way. Let’s see....

some black people commit crimes therefore all black people are criminals ?

some single mother’s neglect their children therefore all single parents neglect their children ?

This is how you think is it @ninamimi or is it just about people desperate to have a baby who turn to surrogacy?[/quote]
What a fabulous argument, so because SOME couples don't abandon their surrogate child it's just bad luck for the kids that do get dumped. How many is acceptable to you? 1 child, 100, 10000? How many babies need to be dumped before you would think there's an issue that needs to be addressed? How many babies are expendable???

@Usagi12 many people are killed in car crashes every year - how many of these people are expendable to you? 1, 100, 1000? At what point will you be advocating for a full ban of all motor vehicles?

@NoSuchThingAsTooMuch I think you’ve possibly responded to my reply instead of someone else’s? I’m not sure what women being locked in their houses during pregnancy in India has to do with me finding surrogacy wrong?

What if a single man with lots of money and a trillion sperm decided to commission 10 babies and pick the nicest one, is 9/10 unwanted children a price worth paying to allow him his dream of a mini me?

Or if a family had a sick child and needed a bone marrow match... just commission 10 babies and pick the one that can save your first child’s life. In fact have an amnio and then you can stand 9 surrogates down after a swift abortion. It’s not your body, it’s very much easier to make life or death decisions with that amount of detachment.

Of course there are surrogacy arrangements (probably the majority) that work out well for all concerned, but the law has to concern itself with the outliers and the prevention of potential abuse/harm in the system.

I just can’t see a way you can sufficiently legislate for this, although turning back the push for commercial surrogacy would be a start.

It sounds like something out of a dystopian novel.

[quote Igiveyouanonion]@Usagi12 many people are killed in car crashes every year - how many of these people are expendable to you? 1, 100, 1000? At what point will you be advocating for a full ban of all motor vehicles?[/quote]
It's more like, some aspects of driving are shown to be more dangerous and steps are taken through laws or engineering to reduce those specific risks. The incidences of problems with the baby-commissioners backing out for various reasons isn't trivial.
I doubt we will see a ban on all surrogacy but there do need to be more checks and balances.

@ErrolTheDragon I agree - far more checks and balances are needed around surrogacy and centring the well-being of the surrogate.

What is a baby commissioner? Your own derogatory term for a loving couple who want to have a child? Nice! Hope that makes you feel better giving them a nasty label.

Does anyone know why the BBC is pushing this agenda so agrressively at the moment? Where are the dissenting voices in their coverage, the discussions over concerns, the debate? I am very worried this is all part of a campaign to normalise surrogacy so that changes to the law can be pushed through with minimal scrutiny.
Also, didn’t we used to talk about “surrogate mothers”? The shift in language to “surrogate” feels very cold and clinical - even sinister.

I should also add I am sure that the language used is entirely deliberate, to distance the carrying and birthing of a baby from motherhood.

What is a baby commissioner? Your own derogatory term for a loving couple who want to have a child? Nice! Hope that makes you feel better giving them a nasty label.

It's quite normal to talk about 'commissioning parents'. They are indeed commissioning babies so why not be accurate? Surrogacy is wrong no matter how lovely the couple.

My first thought when reading the article earlier today was of adoption as a far better thing if a single man or woman wants to have a family but has not met someone they wish to be in a loving stable relationship with.

This discussion has only strengthened my opinion.

How is 'the baby commissioner' - which I used in the specific context of those who back out and don't take up the responsibilities of parenthood - 'nasty' but 'the surrogate' is all fine and dandy? I thought it was an appropriate neutral descriptive term, actually rather restrained and polite in the circumstances I was referring to.

What term would you prefer for these particular people?

@Uhohmummy

Does anyone know why the BBC is pushing this agenda so agrressively at the moment? Where are the dissenting voices in their coverage, the discussions over concerns, the debate? I am very worried this is all part of a campaign to normalise surrogacy so that changes to the law can be pushed through with minimal scrutiny. Also, didn’t we used to talk about “surrogate mothers”? The shift in language to “surrogate” feels very cold and clinical - even sinister.

Queer theory. The decoupling of biology from gender. Anyone can be anything and get anything they want - it doesn't matter what biological sex you are.

Many of the posters here have stated outright ‘once they had their children’ they realised they were against surrogacy. Again, very convenient

It’s called biology, human mothers are primed to love their offspring above all else, as babies are primed to love their mother above all else.