FFS re. Hilaria & Alec Baldwin and normalisation of surrogacy

[PatienceVirtue]

www.etonline.com/hilaria-and-alec-baldwins-daughter-lucia-was-born-via-surrogate-161509

The Baldwins, a baby-hungry 'Spaniard' and rich Hollywood male, have had a sixth (sixth!) child six months after having their fifth. Apparently by surrogacy, well it wasn't carried by her obviously. Which means they implanted an embryo or embryos into some poor womb-holder while she was already heavily pregnant with their fifth child.

Why? FFS. I just don't understand it. Originally surrogacy was sold as solution to the utter misery of infertility and I feel a great deal of sympathy with this. But when it becomes the go-to of extremely wealthy families who already have numerous children (cf Kim Kardashian, Robbie Williams et al), then its exploitative and transactional nature is exposed.

I can't bear the way it's become so normalised to use women like ovens. Stop call it carrying a baby, like they're handbags. It's growing a baby from a microscopic dot to a newborn.

Oh and to clarify, we never had a "happy ending" - instead we have had to learn to lead a different life, one in which we didn't get a family and everything that entails. It's not always easy but you know what? I'd prefer that every time than to potentially inflict attachment disorders on another person simply for my own personal fulfilment.

@OhHolyJesus

That’s no ones right to decide to take the right away from everyone. It’s your right to decide to say no, but to remove the choice completely is terrible.

Please can you direct me to the law in the U.K. that states that everyone has a right to a family and that having a family is a human right. Thanks.

I don’t think you need me to direct you. You seem to know so much about it, so you know that it’s currently legal. That means if a woman wants to do it, that’s HER right to do what she wants with her own body.

@TableFlowerss
You are getting ridiculous by the post.
You think going to antenatal appointments is the only expense a pregnant woman may worry about?
Ridiculous as I say. There is a reason such a large number of countries have banned it. It’s trading for human babies, not much beyond that.

It's clear Tables that you think that women have rights to rent their wombs and sell their bodies and that children have no rights. You might also believe there is a right to sell a kidney or demand a doctor cuts of your foot. Your body your choice right?

If you are going to talk about rights, as in human rights, I would suggest you look at:

The UN Convention on the Rights 1989 of the U.K. Child and the Human Rights Act of 1988. If you are going to state what is a rights in a certain country or circumstance you should know what they are.

Otherwise you're just making stuff up.

I'll give you a clue, no one has a right to fresh, clean water for example. It would be great if we did and also fantastic if we could ensure that was available and true for every single person alive on the planet today. But it's not and you can't. We could try to solve that one before bringing more babies into the world and infertile couples could consider fostering or adoption, as a way of having a family, as they did often before science made embryos in petri dishes.

You could also look at the history of surrogacy in the U.K. and why the 1985 surrogacy Act was put in place. Kim Cotton, the woman at the centre of that story (note - the baby wasn't at the centre) was sold to an unknown couple, for the equivalent of about £20k in today's money. She hasn't seen the child since and the child, a daughter, may not even know.

This prize winning essay discusses many of the issues relating to surrogacy and I recommend reading it to learn more about the ethics and underlying issues.

It concludes:

"Surrogacy is incompatible with the full realisation of the rights of women and children. As I have shown, as a practice it raises a number of concerns related to medical ethics, exploitation and commodification. Its fundamental root lies in the patriarchal relationship between men and women. Whilst slavery, exploitative labour and the sale of human organs are almost universally condemned, the exploitation and sale of female bodies is accepted to a much greater degree. There is no part of female anatomy that cannot be profited from. Given the growth and increasing acceptance of the surrogacy industry it is a key contemporary issue for feminists.
The general direction of reform globally has been towards prohibition in recent years. There have, however, been notable exceptions. New York state recently legalised commercial surrogacy as its governor included legislation within the coronavirus pandemic budget. In the UK pro-surrogacy groups have lobbied for a change in the law and steered a government consultation such that the rights of women and children were far from fully considered.
Law and policy is developing and changing across the world and it is vital that the rights of women and children are always the foremost consideration. I have argued for an abolitionist approach because a regulatory harm reduction approach does not advance the aim of feminism. Industrialising patriarchal norms is not compatible with a political movement that demands the emancipation of all women. Feminism cannot succeed by sacrificing the most disenfranchised women to patriarchy, restricting its interest to making improvements to the conditions of their abuse. Surrogacy must be prohibited."

My bold. I think Lauren makes the argument far better than I can. This really isn't about individual rights. It is about protecting women and babies. The more surrogacy is normalised, the more women will get sucked into it for whatever reason and suffer as a result. Just because some women apparently suffer no harm through taking part in surrogacy doesn't mean it is safe and harmless in general, and women in general deserve to be protected. In particular I am very concerned by the Law Commission proposal to lift the current ban on advertising. I don't want young women to feel a good way to fund their university studies is to have a baby for instance. The way "expenses" are interpreted would definitely mean they could have a chunk of their university fees or living expenses paid for by commissioning parents. This is the way we are headed. Breeding babies as a career option. The Brave New World.

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

The extent to which surrogate mothers in the USA are disenfranchised by surrogacy, passing all rights to their bodies and health decisions to the commissioning parents is demonstrated in this article. I can't imagine signing away all rights and choices related to my health and medical decisions to anyone. I'm shocked this is even legal.

Hardly "her body, her choice" is it Tables?

"The intended mother was going so far as to ask me if the surrogate actually got the vaccine, could she then turn around and request a termination of the pregnancy,” Worldwide Surrogacy founder Victoria Ferrara told Vice of a surrogate who was eligible for the vaccine as a health care worker, but turned it down under pressure from the baby’s mother."

"Jordan McCutcheon, a 28-year-old surrogate and dental assistant, told Vice she signed a contract allowing her baby’s parents to make her medical choices, including the decision for her to not get the coronavirus vaccine."

nypost.com/2021/03/10/anti-vax-parents-demand-surrogates-avoid-the-covid-vaccine/

Thanks for sharing @FannyCann - completely agree with all it states.

[quote Thewithesarehere]@TableFlowerss
You are getting ridiculous by the post.
You think going to antenatal appointments is the only expense a pregnant woman may worry about?
Ridiculous as I say. There is a reason such a large number of countries have banned it. It’s trading for human babies, not much beyond that.[/quote]
So narrow minded and ignorant of other view ponies. Would you prefer to live in a dictatorship, where choice is removed!!

points

Er, that's the point though. It's pretty "dictatorial" to shape someone's whole life and existence (and potenitally damage another woman too) because of your own selfish desires.

In real life, you can't be nice and giving to everyone no matter what they want, because in so doing you are damaging others.

@zzizzer

Er, that's the point though. It's pretty "dictatorial" to shape someone's whole life and existence (and potenitally damage another woman too) because of your own selfish desires.

In real life, you can't be nice and giving to everyone no matter what they want, because in so doing you are damaging others.

Anything could potentially be seen as damaging to a baby/child though. What about women that get pregnant with feckless fathers who, low and behold don’t stick around, and are off before the baby is 6 months. Some men are never going stick around and the women know that but they go ahead and have a baby with them anyway.

No one knows what’s going to affect another human. If a couple can provide a loving and caring home then there’s no reason to think the baby would be negatively impacted. It wouldn’t share the dna of the birth mother and whilst anyone could have been the surrogate, only the biological parents could have created that child. Also it won’t recall or remember being born.

If a couple can provide a loving and caring home then there’s no reason to think the baby would be negatively impacted.

Then wouldn't this fictitious couple be best placed to adopt an existing child who is unable to be with their biological parents?

Do you know anything about the 4th trimester, attachment disorders or about adopted, surrogate born and donor conceived children who experience emotional issues throughout childhood, well into adulthood? Clearly not.

It wouldn’t share the dna of the birth mother

Only one parent needs to be genetically related in order to apply for a parental order, rather than an adoption, and mitochondrial DNA from our mothers can be found up to 10 years. If the child is born from donor gametes they aren't 100% related to both parents.

and whilst anyone could have been the surrogate, only the biological parents could have created that child

Nope. The doctors make the child from gametes provided and this totally ignore their siblings from the same eggs/sperm.

Also it won’t recall or remember being born.

Who does? So just because you don't remember being born, your argument is it doesn't matter who gives birth to you as you don't remember?

I don't remember being conceived either so I guess it doesn't matter who made me, who grew me and who gave birth to me. All totally irrelevant.

@OhHolyJesus

If a couple can provide a loving and caring home then there’s no reason to think the baby would be negatively impacted.

Then wouldn't this fictitious couple be best placed to adopt an existing child who is unable to be with their biological parents?

Do you know anything about the 4th trimester, attachment disorders or about adopted, surrogate born and donor conceived children who experience emotional issues throughout childhood, well into adulthood? Clearly not.

It wouldn’t share the dna of the birth mother

Only one parent needs to be genetically related in order to apply for a parental order, rather than an adoption, and mitochondrial DNA from our mothers can be found up to 10 years. If the child is born from donor gametes they aren't 100% related to both parents.

and whilst anyone could have been the surrogate, only the biological parents could have created that child

Nope. The doctors make the child from gametes provided and this totally ignore their siblings from the same eggs/sperm.

Also it won’t recall or remember being born.

Who does? So just because you don't remember being born, your argument is it doesn't matter who gives birth to you as you don't remember?

I don't remember being conceived either so I guess it doesn't matter who made me, who grew me and who gave birth to me. All totally irrelevant.

1- Not everyone wants to adopt.... you’d be surprised to know I have a degree that covers attachment etc...

2- We’re talking about a couple who has her eggs fertilised by her partner. No one else.

3- Yes - that child is created from the couple who provide the egg and sperm

4- Yes it is irrelevant in this set circumstances

you’d be surprised to know I have a degree that covers attachment etc...

Based on your responses I am yes, very surprised.

*We’re talking about a couple who has her eggs fertilised by her partner. No one else.

3- Yes - that child is created from the couple who provide the egg and sperm*

What are you talking about? Many surrogate born babies will not be the genetic child of both the commissioning parents, as about 40% are gay men so they have to obtain an egg from somewhere plus in many cases the woman will not have been able to supply her own egg and will need an egg from an egg seller donor. In some cases the child will have been created through "double donation" where neither commissioning parent supplied genetic material. Currently not allowed in the UK but the law commission propose allowing this in the future.

I have just been on a very interesting webinar about surrogacy around the world. The Canadian speaker supplied these slides with a link to and egg/sperm bank where you can choose genetic trait and browse the catalogue.

www.canamcryo.com/en/eggs-donor-catalogue

2- We’re talking about a couple who has her eggs fertilised by her partner. No one else.

So are you against traditional surrogacy and only support so-called altruistic surrogacy where the mother isn't genetically related to the child and where the commissioning parents are related to the mother and boy only her maternity clothes and take her to all her appointments?

3- Yes - that child is created from the couple who provide the egg and sperm

That would omit a large number of surrogacy pregnancies.

4- Yes it is irrelevant in this set circumstances

Ok so mothers and motherhood don't matter. How you got to be here doesn't matter. To you. Ok got it.

Don't you love the little baby at the end of the help line top left?

And this slide shows the number of commercially interested parties who profit from surrogacy whilst the woman who goes through nine months of pregnancy and childbirth and suffers any consequences of complications must do it "altruistically" for the joy of being kind.

Sen. Cumo suggested in the passing for the NYC law

Very glad OhHoly brought this dude up...Cuomo is currently under a lot of allegations of sexual harassment of young women. He also thinks women can make surrogacy a 'career choice'. Both tell me all I need to know about what some people think about women.

It's why Gloria Steinem (well-known, well-respected U.S. Feminist) came out so sharply against Cuomo's desire to deregulate surrogacy in NY. Of course, did Cuomo listen? No.

www.stopsurrogacynow.com/gloria-steinem-calls-upon-new-york-gov-cuomo-to-not-legalize-commercial-surrogacy/

Love this quote from Steinem made at the time the bill was was being discussed:

Under this bill, women in economic need become commercialized vessels for rent, and the fetuses they carry become the property of others,”

And this article which acts as the antidote for the NYTimes fluff

mercatornet.com/super-mom-dreams-of-having-105-children-100-via-surrogacy/70255/?fbclid=IwAR1g5gFeahOjGtJ-oEOFrfcER5-uueUH3QW-GqcLUPENy2onFraKxW3jLOM

@OhHolyJesus

you’d be surprised to know I have a degree that covers attachment etc...

Based on your responses I am yes, very surprised.

Probably know more than you!

@FannyCann

*We’re talking about a couple who has her eggs fertilised by her partner. No one else.

3- Yes - that child is created from the couple who provide the egg and sperm*

What are you talking about? Many surrogate born babies will not be the genetic child of both the commissioning parents, as about 40% are gay men so they have to obtain an egg from somewhere plus in many cases the woman will not have been able to supply her own egg and will need an egg from an egg seller donor. In some cases the child will have been created through "double donation" where neither commissioning parent supplied genetic material. Currently not allowed in the UK but the law commission propose allowing this in the future.

I have just been on a very interesting webinar about surrogacy around the world. The Canadian speaker supplied these slides with a link to and egg/sperm bank where you can choose genetic trait and browse the catalogue.

www.canamcryo.com/en/eggs-donor-catalogue

Your point is irrelevant as you know the situation I’m talking about is not the same as the scenario you made to above.....!!!

Probably know more than you!

And yet you fail to demonstrate your knowledge....

@OhHolyJesus

2- We’re talking about a couple who has her eggs fertilised by her partner. No one else.

So are you against traditional surrogacy and only support so-called altruistic surrogacy where the mother isn't genetically related to the child and where the commissioning parents are related to the mother and boy only her maternity clothes and take her to all her appointments?

3- Yes - that child is created from the couple who provide the egg and sperm

That would omit a large number of surrogacy pregnancies.

4- Yes it is irrelevant in this set circumstances

Ok so mothers and motherhood don't matter. How you got to be here doesn't matter. To you. Ok got it.

I’m not against all surrogacy (as you know, that’s clearly you) you tried to make it a problem, suggesting it would cause issues down the line with the DNA not being the same etc.... I explained that concern is moot if the surrogacy is not the ehhh doner, but the biomedical parents.......

I think the last paragraph of yours is about your thoughts as clearly you don’t think wanting to be a mother is that important when it comes to surrogacy.

@OhHolyJesus

Probably know more than you!

And yet you fail to demonstrate your knowledge....

Says you. Trying to take away the only hope some women have to experience motherhood.

egg biological