Where New Zealand's surrogacy laws could be headed

[Dangertime]

www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/pregnancy/conception/300237663/where-new-zealands-surrogacy-laws-could-be-headed

if a child is born in an arrangement subject to a court order, the surrogate would cease to be the parent from birth,

Couldn't be more chilling. Your baby inside you, woman? We'll be taking that the moment it's out of your body. No, nothing you can do. You've no right to your own child inside you.

"with no biological connection to the child"
Except an umbilical cord.

Couldn't be more chilling. Your baby inside you, woman? We'll be taking that the moment it's out of your body. No, nothing you can do. You've no right to your own child inside you.

I genuinely thought that the barbarism of that line of thought and those attitudes had been ruled out as cruel and unusual from before I was born.

I was so wrong.

No biological connection?

Other than the cluster of cells that were originally implanted, the entire baby is built by the "surrogate's" body.

My information may be out of date but i am sure that through Epigenetics, the person growing the baby influences its regardless of if its their egg or not, similarly though less important fetal cells pass to and remain in the mothrers body including brain for many years.

It seems to read as people wondering why they can't just have a list of nice women to bribe to carry the risk of having children for them and then have the state pay for it.
No one should have the right to "comission" another human being. They aren't things. Everyone that wants to be a parent should be eligible to go through the adoption process but how can people feel they have the right to use women like this?
Do they think about the wider issues of this being normalised as just another job that a woman could have?
One day it may be one of their children that is pushed into being a surrogate because if they haven't considered surrogacy as an job option then they aren't trying hard enough and therefore can't access benefits?
This makes me so upset. I have a PhD science subject educated friend that was super gung ho to be a surrogate for her gay friends. She just hasn't a clue (as I didn't before I actually had children) about what it involves and how visceral it is. How much it changes your body, how risky it can be, how they are literally a part of you.

"no biological connection"

while talking about PREGNANCY

/waiting for mind to stop reeling/

Another flattening example of the complete utter absolute total invisibility of women and their work. Brain-numbing. Women do not exist for these people. They're clay pots or milk bottles or robot hoovers stored around the house.

I had really awful infertility and losses before finally finding the cause and having my children. So I always feel both sides of this.

Surrogacy as a commercial (with unrelated people) concept, and parental rights lost, is unbelievably disturbing.

But I can see where a sister or best friend offer and continue to live that child and be in their life, it could be something good.

continue to love the child

You untether the legal bond between a mother to her child - you undermine the most important child safeguard in all of humanity...

As PPs have said - even when the mother has not provided the egg, the uniqueness of her body will fundamentally impact upon the baby.

She just hasn't a clue (as I didn't before I actually had children) about what it involves and how visceral it is. How much it changes your body, how risky it can be, how they are literally a part of you.

I made this point on an earlier thread-once you go through pregnancy and birth, you have a completely new appreciation for what it is. These kind of articles freak me out...I would strongly urge any woman to stay the hell away from offering themselves like this.

Parentpower20 I can see your point if there is a personal connection, that's not what these people are describing and asking for though.
These are more general points about the article, not your stance.
They are complaining about their informal arrangements breaking down and so they want the law changed to make it like a business transaction. I hope my kids would never be destitute enough to be in such a crap situation but I want the law to protect them AND all other women from exploitation regardless.
It seems even worse they are asking for state funding. If you are a gay couple or a single man, should you have the right to rent a woman's body so you can have a child? Surely your sexuality (or just not wanting to be in a relationship of any sort) is more important to you and therefore you have to accept it isn't possible to have a child with your DNA but you could adopt and have a family. Or is it right to demand that the state buys a woman's body to create a child for you?
I have children, but, if I couldn't have there is no way I would be so entitled to think it would be appropriate to get another woman to do this for me, in my case for love money, but I can see why some might do it for love.

Delphinium 20, I did! I think she was expecting me to go "oh how wonderful!" Like her other friends and not point out that firstly I thought it was a really bad idea and not to be taken lightly then gave her a lot more detail about what happened in my fairly non remarkable pregnancies... I don't think she's going ahead with it.

Must surrogates I know are in favour of this. Their greatest fear is people perceiving a link after birth where there is no longer a link.

They can't decide to withdraw anybody's biological connection to the woman who gave birth to them, or vice versa.
It exists, however much anyone might be willing to pay to make it not so.
The phraseology is mind blowing.

The article uses the phrase 'growing families' a couple of times. To me now, that phrase will never just mean 'families getting bigger'!
Now it sounds like farming babies.

@Defmy

Must surrogates I know are in favour of this. Their greatest fear is people perceiving a link after birth where there is no longer a link.

If a pregnant woman cannot face up to the reality that if her body is creating the baby, it's her baby, and if she has to artificially create a severance of the link between a woman's body and her rights to the baby inside her to justify to herself what she's doing, she isn't mentally prepared for the reality of her situation.

If you have to contrive an artificial justification for what you do, you are deluding yourself about the exact nature of your choices.

A woman is free to create a baby, birth a baby, and she is free to sever her own rights to her baby. But every woman must be seen to sever her rights entirely free from coercion, and in the full knowledge that she has those inalienable rights in the first place.

But if she has to tell herself that sometimes babies inside women aren't even theirs anyway, but instead belong to someone else? If she has to tell herself that some pregnant women don't have any rights over their babies inside them in the first place? If she has to tell herself that to live with her own decision, then she's seeking to rewrite women's rights to their babies to sell to her own conscience that what she's doing to her child is of no consequence. She's seeking to build an artificial obligation upon women to sacrifice their own babies by contriving that some women don't have, and shouldn't have sacrosanct rights over their children.

To donate blood or organs, a donor doesn't have to lie to themselves that they don't really own them and have an obligation to give them away. To donate, you have to give informed consent and have full capacity to give it. You can't sign away your rights months ahead and watch a recipient override you if you no longer consent.
Consent is something that can always be revoked.

The idea that gametes are all that are relevant is a very male view.

It's very binary- their sperm their child, not their sperm not their child. Of course this has been a source of paranoia and a major reason women have been oppressed and awful stuff like fgm happens etc.

For women there's the egg and then there's the pregnancy. The baby is grown from your body. It hears your heart beat and your voice. You are all it knows. It uses your body to get what it needs- calcium leached from bones and teeth etc.

The idea that a woman who grows and births a baby is totally unrelated to it is a male view, a misogynist view, and also a view of female as a vessel.

Barracker

No, you aren't prepared for the realities of surrogacy. That's fine. You're clearly not in the right space for it.

Reading the article

'the couple are still waiting for a child.'

Strange phrasing. The couple are waiting for a woman to agree to carry and birth a baby for them and then hand it over, is what they mean. Sounds like waiting for a bus or something :/

'But at the same time, I’ve got nieces and nephews that I don’t want to give back at the end of the day.'

???

Well erm. They're not yours do you have to? They are the children of your relatives? That is also an odd thing to say, to me.

'Same-sex couples are clear this isn’t just a rainbow issue – it’s about fairness for all families. But Cameron says it is important to highlight inequalities. The system makes it hard for anyone to access surrogacy, he says. “We’re just at the bottom of the heap.”

Same sex female couples have fewer barriers as they have the female reproductive system. I have learned that the industry of reproduction is putting barriers and expense in place for lesbians which is. Rubbish. When he says same sex couples is he including lesbians? Can he think of a reason why 2 men having a baby might be less 'equal' in couples where at least one person is female?

'Emily will be 50 next year, and after she almost died following a miscarriage, surrogacy became the only option. But going overseas hasn’t saved them from a string of complications. At his lowest point, Alex penned a letter to Ardern.'

Heterosexual couple already have 2 kids. Woman is 50 doesn't say about the bloke. Not ready to 'retire from active parenting'.

What can they do? Well obviously she can't risk her life. Hmmm. Pass that risk onto another woman. Yay!

My cut and paste has stopped working.

2 more.

The heterosexual couple have spent 300k and gone through a lot of stress etc. What effect is all this having on their existing children?

And finally. Lamenting that a woman got turned down by authorities as a surrogate as she was 46. 46! Pregnancy is hard work and so is giving birth. To consider 46 yo women for this is, well it's surprising.

FYI I am against surrogacy full stop.

The idea that a woman who grows and births a baby is totally unrelated to it is a male view, a misogynist view, and also a view of female as a vessel.

Precisely.

Just as the male view of the vagina is merely a receptacle for a penis, and not a complex component of an entire reproductive apparatus, hence the validity of the "neo-vagina".

Defmy how come you know so many surrogates?

It's not that common is it?

The argument for me is the same as women in porn and prostitution.

The fact that there are a small minority who are aok with it and all goes well is dwarfed by the massive harm to so many vulnerable women.

There are terrible things reported about surrogacy around the world.

If we lived in autopia where all the women doing porn, prostitution, surrogacy. Were doing it through genuine choice, enjoyed it, there was no financial or other incentive. Then I'd say ok then.

We are nowhere near that place and so the answer from me is a blanket no.

Incidentally we have similar rules in the UK to NZ by the sound of it.

Suddenly there's a big push to change to the USA style.

The fact it's not fair that people 'have' to go abroad to get what they want is pushed as a reason to change the laws. For convenience. And because not enough women want to do it for altruistic reasons. And because the women who carries and births the baby is recognised as it's mother. So old fashioned! So difficult! Must be changed.