New feminist campaign "Stop Surrogacy Now"

[RabbitOfCaerbannog]

A new feminist campaign has been set up against the commodification of babies and women's wombs for rent - Stop Surrogacy Now. Looks like an important cause to get behind. From Stop Surrogacy Now's home page:

Surrogacy is the social practice where a woman is ‘used’ for her body, her fertility and reproductive capacity to grow and birth a baby without the intention of being a mother to that child and giving that baby away, or ‘gifting’ that child to ‘Intended Parents’.
We see Surrogacy is the sale of a child where any profit is made. No amount of pretending its ‘gestational service’ changes the reality. Commissioning parents want a baby not a service, the baby is the ‘end product’.
Surrogacy as a practice developed from the demand of wealthy, infertile people to have exclusive parenthood of a biological child.

1. exploiting women as baby making machines does not advance women’s rights
2. The child’s right to have a relationship with all its parents are disregarded
3. It perpetuates that same old structural injustice where poor/ vulnerable women are used for the benefit of the wealthy – the power imbalance in surrogacy is a key argument ‘Using a surrogate’ means replacing the only mother a child has ever known. “People who seek a surrogate have a very specific desire…it is not only a desire to raise a child, but also a demand that the mother be absent.” ~ Kajsa Ekis Ekman “Being and Being Bought”

This is the website:

stopsurrogacynowuk.org/2021/04/22/welcome-to-stop-surrogacy-now-uk/

You don’t think attachment disorder exists in adopted children?

I’ve only seen small studies on this - too small to draw firm conclusions

Yes, but when one systematic review has looked at 55 “small” studies and they all have the same results and conclusions....on what basis can you and others still think that all these studies must be wrong? and the opposite result is the real truth?

@Pota2

You don’t think attachment disorder exists in adopted children?

I’d like to see the science on the existence and prevalence of attachment disorder among children adopted at birth.

Silence. @Pota2 you do know that attachment disorder can happen to any child? Good luck finding a study showing that children born via surrogacy and adopted at birth have a higher chance of developing an attachment disorder.....

I’m sure you’ll find lots of studies regarding adoption of older children, especially in cross border adoptions, but that’s not really applicable is it?

That’s a shocking thing to say. Women in poor countries are just as ethical as those from rich countries. Their ethics may be different from yours due to cultural differences,
You know I didn't mean women in poorer countries have no ethics.
Their ethics may be different through cultural and lacking choices through dreadful poverty.
If my DC or siblings would starve otherwise I'd do anything.

I wouldn't think a DC would have an attachment disorder maybe questions about their birth mother and what her situation was like.
My DS has a severe attachment disorder he's never been detached for more than a full day at a time.

Separation between birth mothers and children at birth does create trauma. Babies are first aware of the bond with their birth mums when they are in womb.
Unborn children develop to understand scents and sounds, associated with their mothers during this period.
When born, babies seek reassurance and safety and connect the sounds from their time in the womb with the person caring for them. Babies need the mother to be physically near and able to respond to them.

Separating the baby from its mother in the context of child protection still involves trauma and the separation/loss. But this separation is considered the necessary cost to promote future welfare and safety for this child.

Bowlby - the famous English psychologist from the 1950s developed attachment theory which is used around the world in education and health sectors. His work is widely accepted and respected in the UK too.

Children do experience attachment disruption but there are several risk factors contributing to that such as poor maternal mental health and neglect during infancy and early years. Early loss and separation from birth mums is a factor as well.

None of us on this board are demonising children born from surrrogacy arrangements.

We cannot say that children separated at birth are at a greater risk of emotional harm when separated from birth mums but that somehow, the bubble of surrogacy arrangements and financial/socio-economic privilege means babies born and separated from surrogate mums are not.
An unborn baby developing in the womb cannot distinguish whether their birth mum is a surrogate mum (can't keep the baby) or a mum in the wider population (will keep the baby.

@WeRoarSometimes
Separation between birth mothers and children at birth does create trauma. Babies are first aware of the bond with their birth mums when they are in womb.

Evidence for this? Can’t find any. Just a few woo pages waxing lyrical about “womb theory” but no actual science.

@PlanDeRaccordement

Did you just call Bowlby 'woo theory'?

@EmeraldShamrock

Ok, sorry to misunderstand you. You mean mostly that women in poor countries lack choices due to extreme poverty and therefore are most vulnerable to exploitation. I agree this is true which is why I think surrogacy should be tightly regulated to prevent exploitation. I don’t think that the risk of exploitation justifies taking away choices from fellow women.

Similar happens in regards to working class men and women joining the armed forces as a way out of poverty. In this scenario, they are risking life and limb in return for decent pay, a pension after 20yrs service, and often free degree level education. The armed forces is well studied as an avenue for social mobility for the working class to move up to middle class. Is there risk of exploitation? Yes, especially during wars. But do we say a poor man or woman cannot make this choice because they are poor?

[quote OhHolyJesus]@PlanDeRaccordement

Did you just call Bowlby 'woo theory'? [/quote]
No.

Bowlby’s theory actually supports that separation at birth would not cause trauma because it’s an extension of imprinting found in the animal kingdom. The infant bonds and develops an attachment with its primary caregiver(s) AFTER BIRTH.

The OP is referencing womb theory which claims that attachment forms BEFORE BIRTH. That’s not Bowlby’s theory.

I actually think given the harms of attachment disorder, the onus should be on those wanting commercial or even altruistic surrogacy to prove that surrogacy - and particularly removal at birth - poses no greater risk of this to the child than for children who stay with their birth mother.

The onus should surely be to prove no harm before it's allowed? In any other situation involving a child the risks need to be examined and analysed comprehensively. Unless there are horrendous harms (which there aren't because you have to deliberately create a life in surrogacy), usually even the slightest suggestion of a big risk to health and wellbeing would be enough to prevent something from happening. But enough money and apparently this basic safeguarding measure seems to be done away with.

There is extensive evidence that puppies removed before 8 weeks from their birth mother suffer trauma and have behavioural problems.

Dogs have shorter lifespans and puppies are dependent for less time than human babies.

The onus should be to show this harm does not exist for humans before creating a life deliberately to inflict removal from birth mother at birth.

IIRC I have read about some altruistic surrogacies (I think involving family members) where there was a staged handover. So the baby was cared for by birth and adopting mother for the first ? 3 months, and gradually the baby was handed over more fully to adopting Mum. It seems obvious this would be less traumatic for the baby. And then birth mother continues to have contact throughout the child's life. Again, clearly less traumatic for the child, particularly as they get older.

I do think children born of mothers who are treated as rent-a-womb and left in often dire situations by commissioning parents will have enormous mental damage on learning the truth. And the truth will out, of course.

@PlanDeRaccordement

www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/earlybrain.pdf

And not just studies but books. Are they 'woo theory' too?

Never heard of Primal Wound by Nancy Verrier?

Heather Forbes, Billy Kaplan, Karyn Purvis.....

Babies aren't made by The Matrix.

I mean, imagine if you find out that your 'parents' left your mother in a disaster zone while they spirited you away? Horrendous. Or that your mother was poor, and after the surrogacy had health complications so couldn't work again, and ended up on the streets and then dead.

How could you ever, ever speak to your parents again?

Maybe the commissioning parents don't care, maybe once the kids have grown up they won't want a relationship with them. Who knows.

Or even just that they cut your birth mother out of your life and denied contact for your whole life, treating it like a business transaction? I think even that would be damaging. Especially if you're female as it implies something about their attitude to (usually poorer) women.

@IloveJKRowling

The onus should surely be to prove no harm before it's allowed?

And it has been proved. Please see my first post with references to scientific studies showing no psychological differences between children and teens adopted via surrogacy and children and teens raised by their birth parents.

@IloveJKRowling

I mean, imagine if you find out that your 'parents' left your mother in a disaster zone while they spirited you away? Horrendous. Or that your mother was poor, and after the surrogacy had health complications so couldn't work again, and ended up on the streets and then dead.

How could you ever, ever speak to your parents again?

Maybe the commissioning parents don't care, maybe once the kids have grown up they won't want a relationship with them. Who knows.

Imagine imagine. Maybe read actual studies where they interviewed teens who had been born via a surrogate mother. No distress. No psychological harm. Positive feelings towards surrogacy.

[quote OhHolyJesus]@PlanDeRaccordement

www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/earlybrain.pdf

And not just studies but books. Are they 'woo theory' too?

Never heard of Primal Wound by Nancy Verrier?

Heather Forbes, Billy Kaplan, Karyn Purvis.....

Babies aren't made by The Matrix.[/quote]
Your link goes to an article about the effects of maltreatment in early infancy. The time period that occurs after birth when the infant is already with the intended parents? There is nothing in what you posted that supports the contention that there is any attachment between baby and birth mother before birth or any trauma in being separated at birth and given to another primary caregiver to raise.

The information actually shows the attachment takes months of a baby’s early life to develop....months after birth. How can there be an attachment disorder if there was not enough time for any attachment to develop?

There is extensive evidence that puppies removed before 8 weeks from their birth mother suffer trauma and have behavioural problems.

Not comparable. Puppies in these studies were then hand reared by humans. So that is cross-species adoption. To actually compare you’d need to compare an infant animal being raised after birth by another of its own species. Which do exist in sheep and other livestock. When a mother sheep or cow dies in childbirth or shortly afterwards, the lamb/calf is presented to another nursing sheep/cow preferably one whose own lamb or calf has sadly died. Results, no trauma suffered, no behaviour problems, successful bonding.

How can there be an attachment disorder if there was not enough time for any attachment to develop?

The attachment develops before birth. A baby knows his or her mother from inside her body, separating the baby from their mother is what would cause the attachment disorder. An attachment from baby to mother doesn't need time to develop, it already exists pre-birth.

To the earlier point re different cultures, here is a 2018 study on pregnant women in Iran (my bolds).

"Data gathering would start at the first trimester of pregnancy, continue during second and third trimesters of pregnancy, first visit after delivery, two, four and end 6 months later."

In a sample size of 400.

"This process should be studied during pregnancy and also after delivery so that the effect of related factors and the changes in attachment over time could be determined and comprehensible information about the effective underlying conditions on this issue would be gathered.... Inappropriate development of attachment would have an adverse effect on the regulating part of child’s right brain; different related studies have reported lower emotional and mental development, weak social interactions, school refusal, and more aggressive and hostile behaviors during childhood, behavioral disorders during adolescence and more tendencies toward drug abuse during adulthood 100, 255].... Since all of the mother’s behaviors, actions and thoughts during pregnancy could have more permanent effects on the fetus than any other period of child’s life 422_] and also since pregnancy is considered a critical period in the development, therefore it is necessary to evaluate mother’s attachment to her fetus more accurately."

Discussion
The results of the study will be provided to maternal child health policy-makers in the health system. This information could not be obtained through cross-sectional studies and through one episode of data collection and more studies are needed to provide us a perspective of the mother-infant relation over time. Studying attachment during pregnancy would provide us a chance to learn more about this process."

During pregnancy - as in. It happens. Surrogate mothers calling themselves 'extreme babysitters' and 'ovens' might soothe their minds but the baby doesn't separate himself or herself (or themselves) from their mother.

"Attachment as a set of internal behaviors that would cause the infant to become close related to his/her main caregiver, who is usually the mother, was first introduced for the post-partum period, but it is believed that attachment starts long before birth, during pregnancy.According to the evidences, this relationship could be affected by different factors like nationality, cultural, mental and social conditions and individual’s past; namely women who have not experienced a secured attachment during their childhood might encounter problems in developing an attachment to their infant.
The review of literature about related factors to prenatal attachment among different groups of pregnant women have emphasized that despite the numerous evaluations and different methods of studies, further studies are required in this field."

See link with references/citations here

https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-018-0620-6

I know this doesn't meet your narrative Plan and I know you have a long history of being involved with surrogacy as we have discussed before on other threads.

We have different points of view on this and I expect that no amount of reading or sharing links will change that, nor does it need to.

The information actually shows the attachment takes months of a baby’s early life to develop....months after birth.

Sorry to be so unscientific but I'm pretty sure my two babies were attached to me (and I to them) from birth. I definitely wasn't caring for some inert being that wasn't remotely interested in me for months! Eye contact, first smiles, first laughs, being soothed when in my arms but not those of another family member.

Months and months of lovely Mother and baby time and I think I'd not only have found it less enjoyable and less rewarding but I would have been extremely worried about my baby's neurological development if there was no sign of attachment in all that time!

*I mean, imagine if you find out that your 'parents' left your mother in a disaster zone while they spirited you away? Horrendous. Or that your mother was poor, and after the surrogacy had health complications so couldn't work again, and ended up on the streets and then dead.

How could you ever, ever speak to your parents again?*

I agree IloveJKRowling

I often think about the babies that were "rescued" from the Nepal earthquake by an emergency evacuation by the Israeli's, leaving their mothers to take their chances.

Fact is many of these studies involve self selected groups of satisfied customers.
The International surrogacy trade has only really taken off over the last twenty years or less, so we will only start seeing the results filtering through in time to come.

We can have different views on surrogacy.
The argument about individual choice versus state policy intervention is an interesting one.
It is often cited in discussions around issues where views are very divisive.

If we step back and think about the countries where surrogacy is banned completely by the state, these are not countries well-known for the state being a controlling force in every day life. These countries are in fact considered to be developing the wellbeing and health of their citizens. These countries all promote the rights of women recognising how women's biology places them at risk of exploitation.

Germany
Sweden
Netherlands.

And then we consider the countries where women have the 'freedom' to be surrogate mums and all the other progressive rights enjoyed by women in those countries
Ukraine
Russia
India (until recently)

Is it possible somehow that women do not feel the need to show kindness to an amazing level in Sweden or Germany?
Or could it be the state recognises the exploitation element of surrogacy arrangements towards women?

Though not directly related to surrogacy, this is a survey from last year (481 respondents from 15 countries).

For me, it pulls out some themes or trends that would correspond with surrogacy, trauma (or rather how it can be avoided) as well as whether donor conceived children being able to tell their parents their true feelings (just over a 3rd).

www.wearedonorconceived.com/2020-survey-top/10-highlights-from-the-2020-we-are-donor-conceived-survey/

We know that people who seek to adopt go through a rigorous process including training, or learning so to understand the trauma a child put in their care would likely to experience and how to help them deal with this. This isn't done in surrogacy, by agencies or by social workers. Once the parental order is processed (U.K.) they are out of all 'systems' and it's on the parents to tell them the truth and raise them. The same could apply to surrogate-born donor conceived children. This has been explored in surrogacy and donor conceived related threads before, and also on the relevant boards.

There are plenty of materials that analyse and support the theory (though I would say fact), as noted here and on other threads, that early trauma is caused by separation of mother and child.

To deny or refute this would suggest to me the 'I'm alright Jack' argument, as in, perhaps I might know a child born of surrogacy who appears to be perfectly fine, has experience no trans and has a close relationship with the parents, whether they know of their origins or not, therefore ALL children born of surrogacy must be fine.

The truth is, like anything, it's mixture and like a PP says we haven't had commercial surrogacy around for that long (U.K.).

Baby Cotton turned 37 in January and possibly has her children.

The full extent of the psychological harm if any won't be evidenced for many years.
It is bound to have some effect whether it be positive or negative.
Commercial surrogacy will be looked back on unkindly in the future or regulated harshly.
A high percentage of new parents are past the age of natural fertility or same sex male couples that goes into the whole buying the egg too giving the baby the mother's genetics.