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’re still talking about buying and selling children here. Human beings are being made the subject of a commercial contract. If you can’t see the problems with that, I don’t know what to say.

Adoption from birth used to be much more common than today and children who were adopted still had psychological effects. Attachment takes place in the womb.

The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Surrogacy held a webinar earlier this week. I couldn't go due to being at work but I think I'd have smashed my computer if I'd been listening to it.

What is advertising if not commercial? It's not as if advertisers offer their services for free. Why advertise? Oh, to drum up trade and increase availability of wombs for rent.

twitter.com/appgsurrogacy/status/1386625097805574147?s=21

Hopefully this link works, these are the types of advertisements that will flood social media targeting our daughters, and their friends, seeking "kind" young women for eggs and womb rental.

www.heyreprotech.com/p/ads-that-target-young-women

@Pota2
Attachment takes place in the womb.

Woo. There is no science behind this. The fetus doesnt have conscious awareness and so cannot form an emotional bond with the surrogate mother. And be careful arguing this...because if you claim a fetus can feel emotion like a person, and can form emotional bonds and attachments with other people...then that means abortion IS the murder of a feeling, sentient being. This is the reason why the Catholic Church is against surrogacy and surrogacy is banned in majority Catholic countries. You are being led down a rosy path that if you agree that surrogacy should be banned because the fetus is sentient enough to form an emotional bond with the surrogate mother such that separation and adoption at birth is too bad of a trauma and immoral....then that makes late term abortion very very problematic. Because you can’t argue it’s a fetus with no awareness and feelings when talking about ending its life but then argue a fetus does have awareness and feelings enough to form emotional bonds and attachment when talking surrogacy.

The full extent of the psychological harm if any won't be evidenced for many years.

How many years? The studies have proven there is no harm whatsoever in children and teens born via surrogacy....what evidence do you have that adults are going to suddenly feel distressed?

if you agree that surrogacy should be banned because the fetus is sentient enough to form an emotional bond with the surrogate mother such that separation and adoption at birth is too bad of a trauma and immoral....then that makes late term abortion very very problematic.

I actually think most people (at least those who know anything about what is involved) find late term abortion problematic. Of course it depends on the definition of late term. 20-30 weeks? Anything up to term?

The number of late term abortions performed in the U.K. is very small, a tiny proportion of overall numbers. Usually related to the health of the mother or for severe fetal abnormality. And for that reason I wouldn't ban it. But most people recognise it as a dirty business if done for any other reason. 35 weeks? I've just been admiring the pictures of a colleague's grandchild born at 35 weeks. Very definitely a sentient being.

You are being led down a rosy path that if you agree that surrogacy should be banned because the fetus is sentient enough to form an emotional bond with the surrogate mother such that separation and adoption at birth is too bad of a trauma and immoral....then that makes late term abortion very very problematic.

Late term abortion is problematic, and it is rare. Abortion within the legal range in the U.K. is also traumatic. I don't think anyone is arguing that abortion isn't traumatic or that late term abortion isn't problematic.

It's quite a regular pattern on a surrogacy related thread that abortion comes up and also why those against surrogacy as an exploitative concept are linked to religions as if we all have to have one way of thinking snd therefore would agree on other issues too.

For the record, I'm not religious, I have had an abortion and I'm against surrogacy, but maybe this isn't relevant as I'm not the one conflating abortion with surrogacy over the question of sentience. Babies know their mothers at birth before they know them before birth. This we know as a fact.

Your view @PlanDeRaccordement appears to be that newborn human babies are completely unable to form connections with their mothers from inside the womb. I don't want to put words in your mouth (or write them for you) so I ask, when do you think it is that a baby recognises their mother and when do you think it is they develop a connection to their mother or anyone else who is caring for them, at what age does this happen (if it doesn't have pre-birth)?

My apologies this wasn't clear

Babies know their mothers at birth before they know them before birth. This we know as a fact.

I meant to say

Babies know their mothers at birth because they know them before birth. This we know as a fact.

There is such a wealth of materials to prove this I don't see how there can be any doubt.

Your view @PlanDeRaccordement appears to be that newborn human babies are completely unable to form connections with their mothers from inside the womb.

Yes, this is my view as I have found no science to suggest otherwise. I’ve seen a lot of speculation, with a heavy dose of motherhood worshipping and woo, but no facts.

when do you think it is that a baby recognises their mother and when do you think it is they develop a connection to their mother or anyone else who is caring for them, at what age does this happen?

I think connection develops over the first few months of life. As with all connections/bonds it starts out tenuous and small, then strengthens and deepens the longer the primary carer(s) and infant interact. Another poster pasted a link upthread that summarised various scientific studies into early infancy development and how attachment begins after birth, not before.

Babies know their mothers at birth because they know them before birth. This we know as a fact.

No, we really don’t.

I'm not the one conflating abortion with surrogacy over the question of sentience

I did not conflate abortion with surrogacy, you must not know what the word conflate means. I was merely pointing out that arguing against surrogacy by believing that a fetus is sentient and has an emotional attachment to its mother before birth is a very bad argument to make as a feminist if you also want to keep abortion legal.

Much better off sticking with the “protecting” poor women from making bad choices, and calling it a form of human trafficking arguments.

When a baby is taken from its mother at birth by social services in the 21st century (Note), it is nearly always because the mother, or both parents (if they are both involved and present):

--have a very low IQ and cannot take care of the child properly
--have personality disorders of various kinds
--are addicted to alcohol or other substances
--(mother) keeps forming relationships with psychotically violent men
--have been abusing or neglecting their other children (often due to abovementioned factors of addiction, personality disorder and violent boyfriends)

Many of these children, when adopted at birth, show significant developmental, behavioral or personality-related disorders as they growing up.

It could be some kind of woo-y Primal Wound type attachment disorder... or, it could be, you know, the fact that their parents were difficult people with a lot of personality problems. People who are reasonably smart and functional, you see, tend not to have children removed from them.

I am against commercial surrogacy (though I think altruistic surrogacy is fine). But the data I have seen suggests that the psychological outcomes from children born from surrogacy are similar to those of kids born in the "regular" way.

(Note) It used to be common for teenage girls and young unmarried women to have babies taken from them by force. Not any more. If you have your baby taken from you these days, it's because you have screwed up your life in a major way.

Babies know their mothers at birth because they know them before birth. This we know as a fact.

No, we really don’t.

Yes we really do, but you don't believe this to be true. That's fine. You refer to what we know to be true as 'woo'. Ok. I can refer to scientific studies but there would be little point if your general approach is to ignore the studies already provided to you. You would simply dismiss them. You have your own 'facts'.

I would agree that the bond formed in the womb, develops further outside of the womb, but I would disagree with your view that it isn't there are birth.

Even if I was willing to dismiss or reject the decades of research on attachment theory or even say that babies aren't harmed by being removed from their mothers at birth in broader terms, as a concept, there is also the matter of what we know based on experience (as well as what is supported by scientific research).

There are, I'm guessing, hundreds of comments on Mumsnet and other platforms about a woman's experience of labour affected her newborn and how her baby would cry incessantly when he or she (or they) goes to their father or another relative, only to stop when held by their mother, or about how if a baby is passed around visiting relatives or friend she then can't settle her baby or feed at night them because they are so upset and have spent too much time away from her. I wonder how much time you have spent listening to mothers or if you have been so steeped in the view that surrogacy is socially acceptable that you have any real experience to refer to. I say this to engage as I'm genuinely interested. Do you consider babies to be a blank canvas? I ask as you already believe that there is no connection at birth so I wonder what you know about traumatic births or widowed fathers for example? Coping with newborns whilst the mother is being operated on or worse.

I would strongly recommend reading The Primal Wound, though I fear you are too closed minded to consider an alternative view, but I say this as it might help you to at least understand where other people's opinions differ and why.

I would make a promise in return to read any reasonably priced book on the subject of how babies aren't connected to their mothers at birth with one caveat, as long as it's not Full Surrogacy Now by Sophie Lewis.

Babies can form connections with people other than their mother before birth. When my youngest was hours old, her five year old sister came in the room to meet her. Baby heard sisters voice, turned her head to the sound and as big sister talked and walked slowly up to her, baby followed her voice by moving her head, despite not seeing big sister (newborns have limited distance vision). She didn't do this for the midwives or the grandparents. It was beautiful but not surprising as nine months of my five-year-old chatting at my belly level taught baby daughter who was who. That is a connection. From birth, if my youngest was fussy but not hungry, her sister talking to her would calm her. How is this not a connection made before birth?

And I'm 100 percent in favor of legal abortion. I'm not religious and I support the science of early childhood development. While more longitudinal research is needed specifically on the mother-fetal attachment theory introduced in 1960s, mother-fetal connections are well studied. Here's some recent coverage

www.pewtrusts.org/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/11/12/researchers-explore-the-science-behind-the-maternal-fetal-bond

Late term abortion is almost exclusively used as a way to end a dangerous pregnancy, end a non-viable fetus or a end gestation of a severely malformed child (done typically out of compassion). Most mothers who have late-term abortions have very wanted pregnancies.

It was indeed and quite common for the mother never to see the baby, a sheet was raised when the baby popped out.

That was traumatising for the baby, to be whisked away from the person he or she has 'known' for nine months & put in a cot in a nursery.

Now babies are given to their mothers, even if adoption is on the cards. They need to have contact with their birth mother, however brief (unless there is a safety risk). New babies are put against the skin of their mothers as soon as possible after birth, it reassures them.

It is years since I read anything on the subject, but it's something to do with neurotransmitters.

Of course if the mother dies there's nothing that can be done, however an orphaned child will at least be reassured that they were not rejected or 'torn away' from their mother.

'The Primal Wound' by Nancy Verrier is a book worth reading - I highly recommend it.

Much of what we are discussing here about adoption, equally applies to surrogacy.

Surrogacy is totally unnecessary.

Delphinium20 Fri 30-Apr-21 16:20:52
Babies can form connections with people other than their mother before birth. When my youngest was hours old, her five year old sister came in the room to meet her. Baby heard sisters voice, turned her head to the sound and as big sister talked and walked slowly up to her, baby followed her voice by moving her head, despite not seeing big sister (newborns have limited distance vision). She didn't do this for the midwives or the grandparents. It was beautiful but not surprising as nine months of my five-year-old chatting at my belly level taught baby daughter who was who. That is a connection.
......
That is absolutely lovely!

(By the way, my previous post was in response to Kokeshi123.)

I read some of Sophie Lewis' Full Surrogacy Now and it was rather obvious how Lewis had little understanding of a healthy mother/child relationship. We need more mothers writing about surrogacy, not less.

@Delphinium20

I read some of Sophie Lewis' Full Surrogacy Now and it was rather obvious how Lewis had little understanding of a healthy mother/child relationship. We need more mothers writing about surrogacy, not less.

I think she had a strained relationship with her own mum. Then her boyfriend decided he was really a woman and she stuck by him and is now a ‘lesbian’ and he’s her ‘wife’. I actually feel a bit sorry for her, although her obnoxious manner makes it a bit hard.

I think she had a strained relationship with her own mum.

That would explain a lot - is Sophie Lewis a mum?

"Full Surrogacy Now makes a feminist argument for, as the author puts it, “abolishing the family” by no longer attaching any importance to biological relationships between people. In such a world, all of us—all of us in the category of “people who gestate,” that is—act as surrogates to one another. No one “owns” the children they give birth to or provide genetic material for. None of us would be paid to act as surrogates, because no one in Lewis’s utopia would be paid for anything."

https://quillette.com/2020/03/30/full-surrogacy-now-feminism-against-family-a-review/

And from the same article, this:

"Lewis attributes to the family a host of ills including “discomfort, coercion, molestation, abuse, humiliation, depression, battery, murder, mutilation, loneliness, blackmail, exhaustion, psychosis, gender-straitjacketing, racial programming, and embourgeoisement.” To free us from these burdens (yes, even “embourgeoisement”) we need to call a halt to the “gene fetish” which privileges biological kin. We should instead be encouraged to form more radical family networks, with no special meaning attached to our biological connections with one another."

Gene fetish? Gene fetish?

I can't even.

I don’t think she has any children. I don’t think that fact makes her opinion any more or less valid though. I know plenty of mothers who agree with surrogacy and plenty of childless women who don’t. But I do find Sophie’s views pretty abhorrent generally.

She's entitled to her opinion, sure. She's not coming from a position of having had a baby if she hasn't been through pregnancy, labour and raising a child though, if she isn't a mother, (surrogate mother or otherwise), so there's only so much headspace I would give her.

If she rejects family as a 'concept' I don't think we would find ourselves with much in common.

Her current relationship and her family history as mentioned, if true, goes a long way to explain a lot about that book. I couldn't get past the premise, let alone the first chapter.

Yeah the book is a bit of a headfuck. There’s also little of substance in it so I am not even sure what she is recommending.
And her point about gene fetish is particularly applicable to surrogacy where people insist on a biological child over adoption. So I am not sure why she is so against feminists who disagree with surrogacy. I think she just wants to be seen as quirky and original.

@Pota2

Yeah the book is a bit of a headfuck. There’s also little of substance in it so I am not even sure what she is recommending. And her point about gene fetish is particularly applicable to surrogacy where people insist on a biological child over adoption. So I am not sure why she is so against feminists who disagree with surrogacy. I think she just wants to be seen as quirky and original.

Agree!

I don't think anyone is required to be a mom to have an opinion about children/pregnancy/childbirth...my teen DD hasn't had a child but is against surrogacy and is interested in child psychology so she has opinions and interest. I just think someone advocating for the abolition of the family is likely to not have experience with a healthy version of family.