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/

I certainly won't be reading it but doesn't the 'gene fetish' point rather make the case for adoption? If we don't 'own' our children (and I certainly do see my child as a possession) and genetics and biological family as a concept is negative, or doesn't matter, then doesn't that rather point to how adoption would be a good idea? Isn't surrogacy doing the opposite and being a 'gene fetishist'?

I ask this of those who have read the book.

As a Marxist Feminist, 'quirky' is probably the least she is attempting.

@OhHolyJesus
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

All the studies posted for me to look at have actually proven my points. That attachment forms AFTER BIRTH not before. Remember Bowlby? The poster that waxed lyrical about attachments in the womb and Bowlby’s work? Not even realising that Bowlby showed that human infants form attachment bonds AFTER BIRTH similar to how certain species imprint AFTER BIRTH. So let’s be clear on that. No one has posted a single scientific study at all.

All we have are some heartwarming, quasi religious anecdotes about newborns “recognising” voices when that has already been debunked. They’re turning their head to listen to a new sound. They don’t know enough yet to associate a certain sound with their mother, father, a close relative, the postman or the family dog.

I’ve read primal wound and found it most anti-feminist motherhood worshipping woo with no real science. She goes on about “intra-psychic mother infant bond” and how in the womb the mother and baby are “spiritually connected” and then adoption at birth causes a “wound in your child’s soul” It seemed specifically designed to cause mum guilt in working mothers when it went on about early childhood and how baby just wants it’s mother.

@Pota2

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.

You know humans are consistently the subjects of many commercial contracts so I don’t see that as taboo. In fact, I’d rather surrogacy be tightly regulated and the surrogate mothers rights protected with a contract than have this go back to black market with no protections. Contracts can also be used to legally impose the more strict laws of one country on another, stopping cross border exploitation we see today.

I disagree that surrogacy is selling and buying a baby. It is preplanned adoption instead of reactive adoption.

@Kokeshi123

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.

It’s not the woo. It’s mostly the fact that your sample of babies are all medically disadvantaged due to genetic and behavioural factors of their mothers and fathers. It’s these well studied factors that cause these children to have higher chance of developmental and behavioural issues than children of healthy mothers.

Low IQ is genetic, so child is more likely to have low IQ and hence developmental delays

Personality Disorders, also genetic factor so child more likely to have a PD and exhibit behavioural anomalies.

Alcohol/Drug abuse, Alcohol known to cause birth defects called Fetal Alcohol Symdrome which includes alone three...affects IQ, development and behaviour. Similar with drug abuse as well. Addiction is well known to have a genetic link as well.

Psychotically violent men as fathers- psychosis genes from the fathers side.

Besides, they’ve already studied children of surrogacy long term through childhood and teen years and found no psychological, developmental or behaviour differences between them and control children naturally born. So if you view that with a study of children adopted via SS intervention at birth, it’s pretty clear it’s not adoption at birth causing the higher risk for developmental delays, behaviour but the genetic factors plus poor inuterine environment (drugs and alcohol).

The vast majority of mothers experience and can describe a deep connection with their children pre-birth. That is why most women who have given birth would recognize mothers would have deep psychological pain being separated from their baby. Mental health checks are recommended if mothers don't experience bonding.

Mother/prenatal bond has not been debunked, studies show limited research on the topic, which is unfortunate. I imagine it's tough to get funding for much mother/infant bonding research as this relationship has been observed and experienced since time immemorial. Research dollars are probably better spent funding child cancer cures.

I do take your point in the abortion argument, how, especially in the US, mother/prenatal bond data could be twisted for nefarious laws to prevent women from receiving abortions.

I suppose the "genetically inferior" babies ready for adoption at birth is why some people want to buy donor eggs from pretty, young college women. Shopping for superior offspring indeed!!

I disagree with Sophie Lewis completely. She’s just trotting out the old Marxist trope that family is just a capitalist tool used to oppress women. Early on, the Soviets tried to abolish family and enforce communal living. Even building communal living complexes and trying to force groups to live as a commune instead of family unit. The ideal was to abolish privilege and social status based on family connections. So everyone could have same communist start in life and through devotion, dedication and loyalty to the communist party and soviet government rise through the ranks commensurate with their abilities and not due to privilege or family connections as the overthrown Russian aristocrats had done for centuries.

But once the Soviet Government was firmly established...by early 1930s the new elite were used to their power and privileges....better housing, better food, access to luxuries, etc...and thought why shouldn’t their (obviously superior) children not inherit their place in society to become the new soviet elite? So the abolition of the family was reversed and Soviet Russia then strengthened it. Mostly to justify deporting entire families to gulags as enemies of the state if only one of them seemed disloyal.

@Delphinium20
The vast majority of mothers experience and can describe a deep connection with their children pre-birth. That is why most women who have given birth would recognize mothers would have deep psychological pain being separated from their baby

My view is that this connection is one-sided. The mother isn’t actually bonding with her baby, one being to another being as the baby is completely unaware. The mother is mentally preparing for motherhood by visualising and imagining what her baby might be like, how she will hold them, the things she will teach them, etc. It’s a love affair that occurs entirely within her head. So yes, separation can cause trauma to a mother who intends to raise the baby, but as studies I posted have shown this not the case where a surrogate mother spends her pregnancy mentally preparing to give birth and then give the baby to be adopted by the intended parents.

There is no evidence that from the fetus viewpoint that there is a bond created before birth.

So to my mind, the mother-baby prebirth bond is a matter of faith and belief, not science and fact. If you and other women, have this belief, and because of it would not choose surrogacy, that is fine by me.

To use this as a reason to justify banning surrogacy outright is literally imposing your beliefs on other women.

PlanDeRecordament: I disagree that surrogacy is selling and buying a baby. It is preplanned adoption instead of reactive adoption.
............
There is absolutely no need for 'preplanned adoption'.
It is selfish in the extreme, risky and cruel.

Babies and children are hard-wired to search out caregivers when their primary ones are absent or lost, so in that way, babies can and do bond with caregivers who are not their biological mothers. And that's a good thing for their survival, but it doesn't mean they didn't experience abandonment despite later thriving! I don't believe there is any evidence to prove a baby ISN'T hardwired pre-birth to their natal mother. We observe this bond, but only the mother can verbalize it. Babies can't fill out a survey.

Having an experience of bonding with your baby is not simply a belief in the importance of mother/bond, it's an experience and observation that shapes our understanding of babies. Because this is the majority experience of motherhood, having a minority view that bonding is a one-way experience for the mother only is something you'd need to accept if you hired a surrogate.

Besides, they’ve already studied children of surrogacy long term through childhood and teen years and found no psychological, developmental or behaviour differences between them and control children naturally born. So if you view that with a study of children adopted via SS intervention at birth, it’s pretty clear it’s not adoption at birth causing the higher risk for developmental delays, behaviour but the genetic factors plus poor inuterine environment (drugs and alcohol).

I thought studies were 'woo', or is it only the studies that don't conclude in support of your view that are 'woo'? You can't have it both ways.

I disagree with Sophie Lewis completely.

That's good to know, I'm happy to take your book recommendation to read more about how babies and mothers don't have a connection before birth.

I disagree that surrogacy is selling and buying a baby. It is preplanned adoption instead of reactive adoption.

Do you know of any examples where in 'pre-planned' adoption, large amounts of money were paid to the woman who is pregnant?

'Pre-planned adoption' is, as I see it, where a woman decides to rescind her parental rights to a child that is her's both legally and genetically. She has an unwanted pregnancy and she doesn't agree with or want an abortion. It is not the result of a deliberate attempt to get pregnant with either her egg or having an embryo with the DNA of others deliberately implanted in her womb. It is also far less common than it used to be (U.K.) and money doesn't change hands, not even for 'expenses'.

You know humans are consistently the subjects of many commercial contracts so I don’t see that as taboo.

In modern day slavery arrangements? No I don't think they have contracts. If you mean in terms of employment, are you saying surrogacy is like a job and should be payment should be made appropriately based on skills and experience?

Humans aren't part of commercial contracts as a product or service to be sold though are they? Are you comparing surrogacy to prostitution?

In fact, I’d rather surrogacy be tightly regulated

Would you like the commissioning parents to be forced to take the child according to contract? Would you like to ensure that 'foetal reduction' can be forced upon a woman who is pregnant with a surrogate pregnancy with triplets when the commissioning parents only want one?
Would you like to see background checks for commissioning parents so there is no risk that children going into their care are safe from abuse?

There is a higher likelihood of the commissioning couple's relationship breaking down than there is of the surrogate mother reneging on the 'deal' and then the law isn't necessarily on her side already (U.K), so tighter regulation and enforceable contracts would result in unwanted children going to commissions parents who aren't in a stable situation so to raise them in the loving, cohesive home as planned.

it’s pretty clear it’s not adoption at birth causing the higher risk for developmental delays, behaviour but the genetic factors plus poor inuterine environment (drugs and alcohol).

Bad blood, you mean?

You know humans are consistently the subjects of many commercial contracts so I don’t see that as taboo.

No, they make contracts. They are not literally bought and sold like chattels. Unless you’re talking about slavery a few centuries ago.

Also, a reminder that Sophie Lewis did a PhD in critical geography. She has done no empirical research whatsoever that can be used to argue either for or against surrogacy. The book is her opinion set against a backdrop of queer theory. Nothing more.

In the UK ( and in fact in most western countries ) , adoption is not seen as a good thing that we want more of.

Adoption is a humane response to the distressing situation of parents who are unable or unwilling to raise their own child. It’s better than the alternative of children growing up in the care system.

In some countries where abortion is illegal or highly stigmatised, adoption is promoted as a way to avoid abortion for women with an unwanted pregnancy.

It’s not good - it’s a necessary evil.

No one sets out to conceive a baby then have it adopted. Young women are not recruited to make babies for adoptive parents.

There are no websites or groups encouraging women to conceive a baby to be kind and make someone else happy. Indeed, the opposite is true - there are lots of groups who encourage the use of contraception so that there are fewer unwanted pregnancies.

Many organisations and charities exist to help women who are struggling to raise their child, so that they can stay together.

In an ideal world we would have no adoption, because every baby would be born into a family who could raise it well.

Adoption is not a service to create babies for those who can’t or won’t give birth to them. It’s a service for children.

All the legal rights are on the side of the child, then on the biological parents. The prospective adopter have no legal rights at all until they are relinquished or removed by the courts and given to them. They only get rights because they need them to raise the child. Otherwise they have none.

Money is not given to the birth parents at any time in any way, it would be totally illegal. They don’t get a penny in “ expenses “ or anything else.

It’s NOTHING like surrogacy.

Adoption is about the rights of disadvantaged and vulnerable children . Surrogacy is about the wishes of privileged and entitled adults.

Awake early and this caught my attention. It’s become so normalised - look at that weekly column in Sunday Times Style. Awful.

And I have to say, I have issues with two blokes essentially buying a baby and leaving it motherless. Progressive? I don’t think so.

@LoveFromDeauville

And I have to say, I have issues with two blokes essentially buying a baby and leaving it motherless. Progressive? I don’t think so.

That’s homophobic, a child doesn’t need a female parent (mother). To think two men shouldn’t raise any children at all, because neither can be a mother....and thus the child is “motherless”.

@Pota2

You know humans are consistently the subjects of many commercial contracts so I don’t see that as taboo.

No, they make contracts. They are not literally bought and sold like chattels. Unless you’re talking about slavery a few centuries ago.

Not in contracts involving children, born or unborn. Children don’t have the same rights as adults. They are viewed as incapable of giving consent.

Every contract regarding a minor is made by their guardian/parent.

For example, the Covid vaccine trials going on with children. The children are the subject of this contract to participate in the vaccine trials. But as they are minors, their parents consent on their behalf. These trials do carry risk of physical harm, even death from an adverse reaction. But we as a society still allow the parent/guardian to make the decision and sign the contract.

Many child actors/actresses and singers are the subject of contracts, but again do not make them and consent is given on their behalf by their parents or guardians. Money changes hands and doesn’t go to the child but to the parents/guardian.

You send your child to a fee paying and/or boarding school...that’s another contract with the child as a subject, but not a signing party.

In surrogacy, the surrogate mother is consenting on behalf of the unborn child. It’s odd to argue that you can’t have a fetus be a subject in a commercial contract, when we allow constantly allow children to be subjects in commercial contracts.

@OhHolyJesus
I thought studies were 'woo',

No. All the scientific studies posted both myself and others were valid and not “woo”. The problem is that people have bane dropped Bowlby and then misrepresented his studies and theory as proving attachment BEFORE BIRTH...when in fact all his scientific work and his attachment theory relate to attachment developing AFTER BIRTH. The same with the poster that linked to a systematic review of studies done on early infant development...100% of the scientific studies and the review again stated that the attachment develops AFTER BIRTH, not before.

No one has posted a single scientific study supporting the belief that mother and fetus develop attachment BEFORE BIRTH. And Primal Wound is not a book with any scientific references by the way...so yes it is woo because all the scientific evidence collected to date, over decades of research indicate that attachment develops after birth, and not before.

so tighter regulation and enforceable contracts would result in unwanted children going to commissions parents who aren't in a stable situation so to raise them in the loving, cohesive home as planned.

Only if you pass stupid regulations and write even stupider contracts. Thats like saying enforceable contracts for child actors would result in violation of child labour laws and children growing up uneducated and ill-prepared for adult hood.

@Maggiesfarm

PlanDeRecordament: I disagree that surrogacy is selling and buying a baby. It is preplanned adoption instead of reactive adoption. ............ There is absolutely no need for 'preplanned adoption'. It is selfish in the extreme, risky and cruel.

Saying something is selfish, risky and cruel is a moral judgement based on your belief system that an unborn fetus is a person who suffers as a result of surrogacy.

You may not need surrogacy, but others do. Why should your beliefs take precedence over their beliefs? You can have your belief and also ignore the actual science which says that newborns bond with whoever their primary caregiver(s) are and that there is no difference between a child raised by a primary caregiver who is their birth mother or another person...but again, why impose your beliefs on other women?

Questions of attachment are only one aspect of surrogacy Plan

I am utterly opposed to surrogacy as I see it as farming women and trading in babies for sale creating a class of women who are paid breeders.

I still find it extraordinary that anyone would think it was OK to ask a woman to go through nine months pregnancy and childbirth and give away the baby. The man on the recent BBC3 programme The Surrogates complaining he didn’t have access to a womb and whining that surrogates have all the power, they are so picky those mean women, choosing who to have a baby with. How rotten, not to just let any old man make use of your womb that you are selfishly allowing to lie redundant in your body.

I am prepared to concede that within the U.K., where surrogacy has been fairly niche and low in numbers, and with the protection of the NHS to offer top class care to women having high risk pregnancies, there have not been very many problematic cases although I imagine there are far more than those that have made public record either in the courts or the newspapers.
The woman who described her terrible experience for Nordic Model Now is unlikely to be alone. In fact when NMN invited signatures and comment to a letter to the Law Commissioners as the consultation closed there was one woman who replied describing how surrogacy had destroyed her life. As she remained anonymous it was not possible to find out more about her story. I have no doubt there are who women end up deflated, depressed, perhaps with birth injuries, but who remain private about the whole thing, doing their best to put it behind them.

Also there are some women who appear not to have difficulty giving up there babies. I recall a teenager who basically used adoption as contraception - ie she didn’t bother with contraception, she just gave the babies away when they arrived, with no concern at all. She really missed out on the opportunity to make money there. Because surrogacy appears to be some sort of magic word. So called “traditional” surrogacy, where the woman is not only birth mother but genetic mother, using her own egg, really isn’t surrogacy at all. It is a woman agreeing to sell he baby. What is the difference between that scenario and the teenager advertising her unwanted pregnancy on gumtree and making a few £000 ? Oh yes, the genetic relationship of the father. Genetic fetishism I’d someone say?

And what about safeguards? Does anyone do genetic tests on these babies before handing them over. I’m not saying it HAS happened but is seems perfectly simple that it COULD happen. Woman tells maternity hospital it is a surrogacy arrangement and hands baby over to man accompanying her at delivery. One is home DIY insemination for agreed surrogacy and a fee the other arranging to hand over the baby inseminated the “natural” way for a fee.

Meanwhile what protections are thee for the women who engage with this? There certainly have been some very questionable cases from a medical point of view in the U.K. and I am shocked that commissioning parents and fertility clinics are so cavalier in their attitude to the risks to the woman.

Take the case of Jill Hawkins. She did DIY insemination for her first seven surrogate pregnancies, so not much can be done to prevent that but the commissioning parents were either unaware or didn’t care about her medical history, including depression and a suicide attempt. Then she was impregnated via a fertility clinic, with twins at the age of 47. Hardly a surprise that the pregnancy ended in a near death experience and the babies required a spell in NICU.
The case is actually discussed as an example of poor practice in the USA, as the commercial imperative and high costs of healthcare over there mean that no one would use her as a surrogate over there. It’s quite disgraceful that a fertility clinic in the U.K. went ahead.

abcnews.go.com/Health/biggest-surrogate-mom-jill-hawkins-pregnant-9th-10th/story?id=15803413

There is also the case reported in the Times earlier this year, of Ria Pawlow.
Seven surrogate pregnancies in eight years. After her fifth she had a life threatening haemorrhage requiring a four litre blood transfusion and a spell in ICU but went on to have another two. It isn’t reported how soon after the fifth she became pregnant with number six but that baby was delivered in December 2019 and her seventh was due in March this year meaning she must have had IVF treatment to become pregnant again in about July last year, just six months after the sixth (and in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic). I discussed this case with the lead consultant for the blood transfusion service at my hospital. She started off “of course I’m perfectly alright with surrogacy obviously” and then spluttered with outrage at the four litre blood transfusion, the cost of ICU, the number of pregnancies “it’s a business obviously, this is how she earns her living” and the close timing of the pregnancies which gives her body little time to restore iron reserves and means she is more at risk in future pregnancies.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a5a8dbd8-4ac5-11eb-81f9-1b786036a268?shareToken=963b7b9fb454353ac3c6f65e52069333

If the law commission proposals go ahead then we will start seeing more problems for sure.
The NHS of course will pick up the pieces. As will the courts and social services. I guarantee the U.K. will become a destination for international baby buyers, especially perhaps fro European countries where it is banned, as evidenced in the link I posted previously. With the arrival of advertising the SurrogacyUK format of get to know you parties and meet ups and best friends forever will go out of the window and hard contracts will be the norm. The sort of problems seen in other jurisdictions will arrive here and all those people who thought surrogacy was a jolly nice thing to do for a friend will suddenly get a nasty shock as the dark underside makes itself known.

Can't remember if I have previously posted this link but her it is, a woman who had a disastrous experience of surrogacy.

nordicmodelnow.org/2020/01/29/i-was-an-altruistic-surrogate-and-am-now-against-all-surrogacy/