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.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro

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.

Yes, I agree.

I think it is very sad that these men think they have the right to take this child, which is actually her child, and not even give her the chance for skin to skin or to have any relationship with it going forward. I don’t really understand why she wanted to do this either. But it is expected these days that men have this right even if they are gay (and couldnt ‘naturally’ have a child) and women are meant to fall in line with this and behave by using their bodies in this way.

I used to be all for surrogacy and in some situations I still think it’s suitable but the majority...no

I’ll never forget reading about the twins who were separated because the parents wanted the NT boy and rejected his sister who had Down syndrome

I read this and my main thought was that none of them seem to have thought about what an absolute head fuck it will be for the child to know that their mum gave them away while keeping their half sibling.

Rights and needs of the child not considered in any way.

Awful.

@Soubriquet

I think you mean David and Wendy Farnell?

David Farnell was a convicted paedophile and he and Wendy wanted Gammy aborted. It was the Surrogate mother Pattaramon who said no and that she would raise him.

David died last year so Pipah doesn’t have to have weekly lessons about why she can’t be left alone with her father anymore.

'Before I met Kev and Aki, I felt very very low,' she recalls. 'Living alone, dealing with Jacob as a single parent, it all evolved from that. Even though I had my son, it didn't feel like I had much meaning. I didn't really want to continue with life.‘

This sounds terribly sad, both for her and her little boy. Imagine him reading this later on. I would guess she might need MH help, for PPD or depression, to get to the bottom of what caused this disconnect for her. I fear she’s been taken advantage of.

@FFSFFSFFS

I read this and my main thought was that none of them seem to have thought about what an absolute head fuck it will be for the child to know that their mum gave them away while keeping their half sibling.

Rights and needs of the child not considered in any way.

Awful.

I agree. I do think there'll be a reckoning though in the years to come when some of these children become adults and realise what was done to them. The 'happy ever after' scenario is never guaranteed where children are concerned.

Trying to distance the fact that she has deliberately conceived her daughter to give her away by referring to 'her own egg' as though it was something she bought at the supermarket and has no permanent connection with her, is complete self delusion,no doubt encouraged by the entitled men.

There needs to be far more stringent regulation but it appears we're going the other way.

Could you not mind your own business

Sure we could.
But we're concerned about protecting women and babies.
We want the law to increase protection to women and children.

Could you not mind your own business

Sure. See a woman attacked in the street, walk on by, just minding my own business....

Parent smacking and abusing their child in the supermarket.....just minding my own business.

@PutItInNeutral

'Before I met Kev and Aki, I felt very very low,' she recalls. 'Living alone, dealing with Jacob as a single parent, it all evolved from that. Even though I had my son, it didn't feel like I had much meaning. I didn't really want to continue with life.‘

This sounds terribly sad, both for her and her little boy. Imagine him reading this later on. I would guess she might need MH help, for PPD or depression, to get to the bottom of what caused this disconnect for her. I fear she’s been taken advantage of.

It's sad. I feel sorry for her. I wonder what will happen next for her? Will she start to feel lonely again and go looking for another couple?

I'm sure there are some lonely women who will get something from the attention of a couple, but then once they get what they want from the women they will just want her to go away.

No empathy or knowledge about what it can do to a child to remove them from their mother at birth.
What can it do to a child to remove them from their mother at birth and immediately place them with another loving adult? I don't support surrogacy btw, just questioning where the evidence is that this damages a child.

@Kendodd I don't think it's really going out on a limb to suggest that, whilst not certain, it is highly likely that this scenario will cause a level of damage to a child.

How would you feel if your mother did not consider herself to be your mother and gave you away - but somehow she does consider herself to be your half siblings mother and kept him??

I think the question should be where is the evidence that this would not damage the child?

@Kendodd
This does happen for a small number of children coming into care following birth. The threshold for the courts to mandate removal of those children at birth in this country is very high and is about safeguarding and the babies are typically placed with foster carers to provide the care to babies.

Removing children at birth as an outcome to a contractual arrangement is different.

We know that children will suffer issues with attachment and identity when removed from their birth, even if the the children are removed at birth.

That didn't make sense - hit post instead of preview.

We know that children will suffer issues with attachment and identity in their later years, even if they are removed at birth. Many adopters learn about this during their homestudies, it forms part of their learning and adoption assessment.

The 'what about adoption' line is always pulled out.

Adoption:

Long, arduous training for parents: lesson one of that training being 'adoption is rooted in loss on both sides and is no one's first choice, you are taking on not a blank slate kitten or puppy but a human being who has lost their birth parents, and may well suffer accordingly, and your job will be to help them survive that and accept that they will always have emotional bonds to parents other than you. You value and honour their past and their story'.

In depth, highly invasive vetting of prospective adopters, by no means all pass

Careful matching of child to adoptive parents, supported settling of child focused entirely on child's wellbeing and needs. Lifestory work and other measures to support the child's loss and transition.

None of that happens in surrogacy.

And this is a child in a situation of devastating loss being given the best possible alternative of parents and family. This is a child being intentionally planned and created to suffer that situation of loss and confusion.

There are ethics here. A lot of them.

I used to be very much in favour of surrogacy - I used to view it as a lovely altruistic thing to do. But it has now morphed into something where people feel they have a right to this - as if it's a service that can be purchased much the same as getting a cleaner for their house. There's no recognition that pregnancy is physically risky for women and that commodifying our bodies is morally wrong, or the importance of the 4th trimester for babies or the sheer level of exploitation this exposes women to.
I've watched an awful documentary on YouTube about surrogacy in the Ukraine. I advise people to watch it - it's a real eye opener.
No one seems to be thinking about the women or the babies in many of these situations.
I wouldn't ban it totally because I do think it can still be a wonderful thing but when it happens, it ought to be stringently regulated so that we can be sure that everyone knows their rights and responsibilities.

I watched the programme last night and felt very uneasy about this particular set up.

The young lady is clearly vulnerable. Kevin and Aki have made her feel useful, part of the family and valued but I'm certain that came to a quick end once they'd got what they wanted.

It struck me as very abusive.
And I think she was slightly motivated by money. The £7k+ she had got from them was more than she was going to make (minus childcare) in a traditional job.

The single man was on Womans Hour with the surrogate a few weeks ago. It actually made me feel queasy. The first thing the mum mentioned was the money and then said the man was a good fit partly because of how well he got on with her husband!? The man just wanted a baby, not a family. Last night he came out with line (hope I have it correct, "Its only because I'm gay that I cant access a womb".

I was less concerned about the woman carrying for her boss. That did seem more altruistic on the part of the carrier and less exploitative on the part of the woman.

Ultimately, I'm not comfortable with using someone's body for your own gain. And I notice that you dont see financially strong women regularly doing it.

But it has now morphed into something where people feel they
have a right to this - as if it's a service that can be purchased
much the same as getting a cleaner for their house.

So many issues now feel like they are about turning aspects of the human body into things that can be bought and sold.

And stripping away the relationships and roles that we used to attach to these things, which had history and cultural meaning, and turning them into something else. Something that can be traded on a market.

Gestational carriers.
Sex work.
Uterus-havers etc

In this language, dignity is lost.
Everything becomes impersonal.

In a market, people buy and sell, make their own choices. And the assumption behind so much of this new ideology is that individuals can and should treat their bodies the same way. Having problems funding your degree - sell your body online. (It’s just work, after all.) Don’t like your “assigned gender” - then change it (there are medical and cosmetic industries you can pay). Can’t pay the rent - rent out your uterus. And anything that gets in the way - well, “woman” and “mother” are so endowed with meaning and history (however argued about). So better get rid of them from law and language.

Maybe this move is in the interest of some, even some women, but it’s a fundamental change in the way we see human relationships. And we live in a vastly unequal, globalised world with so many vulnerable people ripe for exploitation. Maybe especially children.

Well said @CocoaPopFan

We know that children will suffer issues with attachment and identity when removed from their birth, even if the the children are removed at birth.

A slight derail. I know a little boy who was left with his grandparents at 5 days old so the parents could go on holiday for two weeks.

He's now 6, he has behavioural problems, difficulty socially at school, doesn't make eye contact and has been slow to learn to talk. All of this may not be related but I do notice he is clingy with his mother in the way a toddler would be and I do wonder if it goes back to when he was left to be cared for by family who were effectively strangers to him as he only knew his mother (smell, voice, heartbeat etc) when he was brand new.

I agree this woman was vulnerable. When she spoke it sounded like she was looking more for a co-parenting relationship with the couple rather than to be a surrogate mother. She was looking for emotional fulfilment and I don’t see how conceiving your biological child with the purpose of giving it away is going to help her in the long run. I think there will be a lot more upset for her and both her biological children. I think surrogacy needs to be better regulated to assess the reasons why a woman would want to be a surrogate and whether they’re emotionally prepared. Ideally she would have been screened out, at least at this point in her life.

I’m pregnant with my 2nd at the moment and it’s such a toll physically that’s there’s no way I’d be a surrogate mother for a stranger. I would probably only do it for a family member like my sister but even then I wouldn’t use my own eggs. I often wonder why intended parents don’t approach immediate family and close friends if possible. There’s been a few happy cases of grandmothers giving birth to their grandchildren.

I consider myself a liberal person but I’m not comfortable with single men using surrogate mothers to have children. I get that it maybe considered an imbalance in that a single woman can simply buy some sperm for artificial insemination, but hey things generally haven’t been fair for women simply for the fact that they bear children. I think co-parenting is the better option if single men are desperate for children.

@OhHolyJesus
Not a derail at all.

A slight derail. I know a little boy who was left with his grandparents at 5 days old so the parents could go on holiday for two weeks.

I couldn't bear to be parted from my babies for even a short time. I remember with DD1 when she was I week old my parents came over and after lunch I was sent to bed to rest while Mum triumphantly put the baby in the buggy and headed out for a walk. I didn't sleep at all and just lay there weeping. When they got back I could hear the baby crying downstairs, my husband came up to see how I was and I just howled "bring me my baby".
I can't imagine heading off for two week's holiday and leaving my newborn behind.
So that style of parenting and any behavioural problems may not be unconnected.

A slight derail. I know a little boy who was left with his grandparents at 5 days old so the parents could go on holiday for two weeks.

That just makes me shiver...I couldn't imagine. Like others said, the mother infant bond is so intense that even the 30 minutes passing my 5-day old to my MIL so I could shower and care for myself seemed like an eternity.

Now, as DD are older, I've loved their week at grandma's!! Haha

I agree with PP, surrogacy seems to have moved from a rarity for close family members (grandmother as surrogate for her daughter who had uterine cancer) to a right for strangers to shop for a baby maker. Nobody in this second scenario is thinking about the mother/child bonding nor about the child's separation at birth. It is quite different from adoption.