Surrogacy again, why is the BBC selling this?

[WeRoarSometimes]

I am in despair again, at the so-called beliefs of some men and women, that they have a right to having a baby. And convincing a woman with vulnerability to do it.
I'm linking the Daily Mail story as this is the first search result when looking under Google.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9351973/Single-mother-23-says-gay-couples-surrogate-gave-life-new-meaning.html

This lady is 23 and a single parent already.

If we had to guess, she is likely to be much more vulnerable than two men, in terms of the power dynamic between the parties, in terms of access to money (power), in terms of her own responsibility to care and raise the child she already has.

It sounds as though she was vulnerable, feeling low, possibly low self-esteem after her relationship ended and she became a single mother.
This is predatory.

All her self-worth is tied up in them thinking that she is helping them out, by giving them her egg and carrying the baby during pregnancy.
She has clearly been groomed into thinking she is giving the child back to the original parents.

It's also very convenient to have a home birth in these circumstances.
No hospital team to question what is going on.

The first skin on skin contact is also with one of the chaps. They couldn't even let her hold the baby as soon as it was born.
Honestly, this makes me cross. No empathy or knowledge about what it can do to a child to remove them from their mother at birth.

These new surrogacy laws the law commission is working on will only go to erode protections for so many women who will be vulnerable through their economic status or family circumstances.

What exactly is your issue with this though? She actively sought them out on an app, they'd been looking for a surrogate for three years (so not like they've jumped at the first opportunity) and she's said it's given her purpose and meaning

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions. Being a single mother or 23 doesn't immediately make you vulnerable. You're basing your post on a lot of assumptions which doesn't make for a very good case

Above all else, how does this effect you? Not your body = not your choice

No empathy or knowledge about what it can do to a child to remove them from their mother at birth.

This is why so many people cannot see the dangers in surrogacy.

Its quite sad though isn't it 23 she could be anything but she chooses to be a broodmare.

She has clearly been groomed into thinking she is giving the child back to the original parents.

Could you advise, specifically, what in the article suggests she has been "groomed"? Quite the word to use with no basis for doing so

It's also very convenient to have a home birth in these circumstances.
No hospital team to question what is going on.

What half decent care provider would be asking her probing questions anyway? Not every baby is born to a mum and a dad in an "ordinary" situation you know?

The first skin on skin contact is also with one of the chaps.

Just as it is for lots of babies for various reasons if mum can't be there after birth

Honestly, this makes me cross. No empathy or knowledge about what it can do to a child to remove them from their mother at birth.

So what's your opinions on adoption?

Its quite sad though isn't it 23 she could be anything but she chooses to be a broodmare.

Interesting choice of response on the feminism board. How is there anything sad about a woman exercising the right to her body autonomy? Is that punishable because that choice doesn't align with your views?

It's also a parenting site. We think about the rights of children here too, babybee.

Body autonomy to sell a baby? Is this was body positivity have feminism? Is this a version of sex work is work?

When the men and this woman were told no they went against the regulations and she used her own egg and one of them organised into a pot, and so her son has a half-sister. Her future children that she plans to have will also be related to their 'cousin'. Even her mother warned her.

Her 'expenses' were low compared to the national average but £7k+ is a lot to a single mother. Even the surrogacy agencies warn against this and want better regulation, though they would wouldn't they as then they get paid.

Surrogacy is quite different than adoption of an infant. In adoption, the goal is protecting an existing child and ensuring the child has a safe and loving family. This is why open adoption is often sought, and why social services are involved and why adoption is highly regulated. Adoptive parents are often provided with counseling support as all parties understand that within the joy of being part of a new family, a loss has occurred to the child and birth parents and extended birth family (and on their own, adoptive parents will find often seek additional support to help their child and themselves navigate these circumstances).

Purposely creating a child to go through this loss is surrogacy vs. helping a child going through this loss (adoption). Both may end in a joyful family, but the beginnings are VASTLY different.

The thing that worried me most about the whole situation is that it's her egg, so biologically her child.

She did say she hopes to still be involved in the child's life, but I assume once the papers are signed that's no completely in her control.

I'm still on the fence about whether surrogacy is right or wrong. But I definitely think there needs to be more regulation to ensure that the women get free counselling and legal consultation before going ahead. To make sure vulnerable women aren't being taken advantage of.

I have no problem with any of these people.

I do have a problem with media coverage that tends to focus only on success stories

But I definitely think there needs to be more regulation to ensure that the women get free counselling and legal consultation before going ahead.

I think counselling is advised so the woman can be assessed as to her mental stability and consider any chance that she might run off with the baby, so I agree in principle but it would depend on where the conselling was coming from and whether there was a bias coming from the provider, for example, if it was the surrogacy agency. (Obviously not applicable in this case)

To make sure vulnerable women aren't being taken advantage of.

I'm not sure it could assess that, I think even a trained counsellor can't predict how a woman might experience post natal depression or have postpartum psychosis, which by the way requires specialist treatment and whilst I'm not an expert by any means, I understand that the approach is very much to keep the mother with her baby but to watch over her, so that the child does not suffer harm from being separated from their mother.

I agree that independent legal advice should be compulsory, and this woman will be signing away her parental rights and responsibilities in the first 6 months of the baby being born with a parental order, overseen by a judge. She may see Mia again, she may not. Even before that point there are no guarantees. Once the baby is outside of her body it's anyone's guess.

I am reminded of the Drewitt Barlows who promised faithfully that their first surrogate mother, of twins Aspen and Saffron, would be in their lives, but who was unceremoniously dumped within the first coup of weeks, pretty much on the flight home as far as I can tell from the documentary at the time. Words are cheap and so was her womb rental.

Another surrogate to feature in this film had a baby for her boss at work. If that’s not an imbalance of power then I don’t know what is.

I genuinely wonder how she will feel when baby is born. She has a child already, can she just "switch off" with this one or will nature take over?

The lady in the news story became a mother at 21, it reports she is 23 and has a 2 year old son already. She is separated from the father of that child and is a lone parent.
She already mentions that she felt 'very low' 'dealing with Jacob (her son) as a single parent'. She also mentions 'not wanting to continue with life' prior to meeting the couple in this story.

This does strike as someone who was clearly vulnerable prior to becoming pregnant with the child she will have to give up.

We are not policing what women choose to do with their bodies.
It simply sounds as though this woman has been highly encouraged to disregards any rights she may have and focus on the feelings of the couple who want the child.

The coverage in this BBC series is worrying, that surrogacy is about helping out people who cannot have birth children. Even the title - 'The Surrogates', depersonalises women. Not long ago, women carrying babies for others were referred to as surrogate mothers. Now they are referred to as surrogates.

In order to be pregnant and birth a child for someone else, women will be risking their reproductive and emotional health, this is an issue we should be able to talk about.

I truly hope (and I'm being terribly naive) that the gay couple and the mother can have a shared parenting arrangement. If the men truly cared about this child, they'd want its mother to be able to breastfeed and bond with her baby, and for the child to have the opportunity for a relationship with her mother and brother?...how can these men claim to be good parents and not know anything about babies and child bonding, development and family attachment? I believe men can be excellent parents, but something seems really off here.

This is heartbreaking,

"Emma says: 'I get a warm fuzzy feeling about the future with Kevin and Aki, and it's something I'm very excited for.'"

She really believes she will be in their lives.

@Delphinium20
It's so very sad.
She really believes that this is a shared venture and that they will keep her involved in the future.

She is vulnerable.

The coverage in this BBC series is worrying

I agree and I suspect that the BBC will push it as a lovely, generous gift of a thing and isn't it wonderful how happy they will all be...but...

Sophie Beresiner (The Mother Project, The Times) said it was a missed opportunity (think she had a preview as it's not broadcast til Sun) so maybe it will be truthful, mildly critical even?

I'll be open minded (and drinking) whilst watching and I may follow it up with Big Fertility on Amazon Prime.

I respect people making the choice to be a surrogate mother but I can’t help thinking that one so young might not fully understand the impact this could have on her life.

Some women might be fine with it but I can’t imagine how you wouldn’t think of the little baby you gave up every day for the rest of your life.

I find these stories such tragedies. She clearly comes across as having issues. What's twisted is the way they try to sell them as happy success stories.

I also disagree with the whole "choice" argument. It's void of context and it's always poor/vulnerable people doing things most normal people wouldn't want to do. You could use that argument in lots of situations, such as poor young people selling organs, body parts to survive. But hey no one put a gun to their head so all is right with the world.

Even IF you could be 100% certain that a woman is in no way vulnerable, being coerced, fully autonomous, fully altruistic, fully in control, and has absolutely 100% entered into the agreement in full understanding of the risks, it still creates two major problems:

1. a baby is being created to be traded like a commodity and

2. it artificially and falsely validates all of the scenarios that do not meet such stringent criteria, and paints a rosy picture of success that glosses over the huge amount of misery and exploitation that goes on in the surrogacy industry.

She said
Knowing it's my egg, it won't be like that's my girl, because it's not my daughter

How can she possibly have come to that conclusion? The baby is her daughter in exactly the same way her son is. She seems to think of herself as a human incubator.

What's twisted is the way they try to sell them as happy success stories

I wonder whose decision and motivation it was to go to The Daily Mail?

The paper itself is presenting it neutrally and letting her do all the talking without editorial comment. The btl comments are extremely sceptical about it and largely taking the same view as on here.

It's really interesting to see the follow up to the OP, is it really like Tinder?

What it's like to be a surrogate: 'We met on an app like Tinder for fertility' - BBC Threee_

I found this thread from 2019

Critical BBC comment piece on surrogacy | Mumsnett_

The link in that thread had this by Claire Fenton Glynn

Surrogacy: Why the world needs rules for 'selling' babies - BBC Newss_

Dr Fenton Glynn who specialises in children's right has a series on Surrogacy coming up...
_
Cambridge Family Law Centre on Twitter: "Lecture Series on Surrogacy, co-organised with @CECSCJN - First Lecture: 'Global trends and challenges on surrogacy' by @CFentonGlynn, 30 March, 16:30 GMT: t.co/upyQf2hyBo. #ChildRights #ChildLaw #Parenthood #Parents #Reproduction #Pregnancy #AssistedReproduction t.co/b09ptR3t3L" / Twitter

Sorry here is the link:

twitter.com/CFentonGlynn/status/1369635947583791104?s=20