Surrogacy ends in abortion and ends a friendship

[OhHolyJesus]

This is an 'altruistic' surrogacy story between two friends in New Zealand.

A woman offers herself for the pregnancy for her friend called Jane for the purposes of the article (who had a very traumatic pregnancy and labour with her daughter and she was told a second pregnancy would keep her in hospital for months at best).

"Jane's friend piped up with the offer of a lifetime. "Out of the blue, she said, 'I'd make a good surrogate because when I had my pregnancy, I didn't really feel it,'" recalls Jane. "She said she'd talk to her husband and get back to me." Not long after, they began the process of surrogacy."

All seemed to go well with separate legal and medical advice but he surrogate mother struggled and her and her husband were clearly traumatised:

"When the Weekly approached the surrogate couple to share their side of the story, they asked to remain anonymous. The surrogate's husband said, "We entered into the agreement with a genuine desire to help. Unfortunately, things did not go to plan and she became very sick with prenatal depression. This is probably a more complicated story than it appears on the surface. Jane and John do not really know the whole situation."

(So not every pregnancy is the same, even if you have had easy pregnancies in the past, perhaps the depression was connected to a sense of inevitable grief?)

"Today, the couples are no longer in contact and Jane still doesn't know why their baby was terminated. "On reflection, it started to go downhill while prepping for the embryo transfer, but John and I didn't see it," she says. "The surrogate didn't like the process at the fertility clinic or the one choice of counsellor we had. I think she felt like she was let down."

Their baby.

To me, Jane appears to believe she has rights to force her friend to continue with the pregnancy.

""It was our biological baby and Jenny's biological sibling. I could've explained how it was going to affect the rest of our lives. Even though everyone has walked away from this and even though it's painful, I'll talk about it. I never expected I'd have to worry about someone terminating our baby. It never crossed my mind."

The article mentions that law reform is being discussed, or rather looking to be enforced:

"Labour MP Tāmati Coffey, who, with his partner Tim Smith, welcomed their son Tūtānekai by surrogate in 2019, currently has a members' bill in ballot calling for modern laws for modern families. It includes reform of birth certificates, providing a way
to enforce surrogacy arrangements and creating a register of potential surrogates."

www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/kiwi-mums-heartbreak-after-surrogate-terminates-her-pregnancy-i-went-into-shock/52Y6PO5M4LV73RGZF67TX5E4LU/

I read a comment from a celeb recently who is widely believed to have used a surrogate mother to provide her with a baby. She said something like 'a beautiful little blessing has chosen me to be her mother'.
And it's striking how that statement is the complete opposite of the truth.
The baby, which based on the celeb's age likely is NOT even from the biological egg of this celeb, has had no choice in the matter at all.
As far as that baby is concerned, she was created purposefully to order, to be removed from her mother at birth or soon after.

None of that was her 'choice'.

We don't, as a society, seem to have any clear agreement on what constitutes a mother.

I agree in part, but we do have legal recognition in the U.K as outside of adoption and fostering, the woman who gives birth is the mother, though the law commission seek to change this with surrogacy reform with the CPs having rights at birth, similar to the pre-birth orders done in the US.

It's not surprising though that those who seek to remove the word mother from common language and/or change its definition have a significant overlap with the surrogacy industry, in particularly within surrogacy ethics (chair of Surrogacy U.K. ethics Dr Harjeet Marway is quoted in saying a surrogate mother is "usually a woman" and Andrew Spearman, also on the Ethics Board is Freddy McConnell's lawyer and has worked on surrogacy cases https://www.laytons.com/people/andrew-spearman

And also this case

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/2164.html)

Personally, I consider changing your mind and keeping a baby that isn't genetically yours to be unethical - so we need to make sure that women really are fully counselled before entering into this.

Though I see what you're saying I take the opposite approach. The woman who supplies the egg is not considered the mother in egg donor pregnancies so why in surrogacy pregnancies does the CM get the label of mother when all she did was provide an egg? Same for sperm donors, in fact the law in the U.K. made sure that even when you can find your biological Dad he owes the mother no maintenance payments so he's not the legal father. Providing genetic material is the very smallest part of the pregnancy process that bring this new life about.

Mary Beth Whitehead is a historical case that applies to this, I would say it was entirely ethical for her to fight for her parental rights and at times she was very poorly treated by the New Jersey Family Court.

I would also feel comfortable banning all surrogacy, but if it is kept legal then the woman who is pregnant should retain parental rights and then relinquish them, not the other way around. I think you can counsel women all you like (and they do, women are counselled and convinced they are 'ovens', 'extreme babysitters' or a 'carrier') they should still be able to change their minds and no one, nor the law should be able to force an abortion, motherhood or force the removal of the child.

The Ukraine recognise that the woman who gives birth can provide a baby but they do not recognise her as a mother, barely as a human tbh. She is not able to change her mind "it is a legal process".

https://www.midlands103.com/news/midlands-news/irish-surrogacy-laws-leave-offaly-mother-in-limbo-in-ukraine/

I think surrogacy is a major case of just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should.

It's fraught with difficulties, and whilst the reasons for wanting a child via surrogacy are, I am sure, many and complex, no-one 'needs' to have a child.

I think all surrogacy should be banned everywhere.

Becoming a parent is not a right.

Personally, I consider changing your mind and keeping a baby that isn't genetically yours to be unethical - so we need to make sure that women really are fully counselled before entering into this.

I would also take the opposite approach, for two reasons.

1). Because of the physical and psychological effect of going through pregnancy, which can’t really be predicted.

2). Because, regardless of the law (and as with all men), the commissioning parents can absolve themselves of responsibility by simply disappearing.

I would absolutely agree that commissioning parents should not be given parental rights over a baby that exists in another woman's body. The absolute mess that would result in if there's a difference of opinion during pregnancy. Very dangerous for women's bodily autonomy.

MrsHunt

While many people are against surrogacy for just some of those reasons, ALL of those reasons illustrate why it's so problematic.

@justawoman

I’ve never been pregnant and don’t have children (or want them) so I offer my opinion with some circumspection, but I see it exactly the opposite. I think the person who grew the child in her body has more claim to be the mother than the genetic mother. This is partly because of the unbreakable bond that relationship creates, but also/mainly because most of the substance of that child, what the child is, comes from her body. She’s not just an incubator: she is providing every bit of the nutrients that go into making the child in an absolutely unique way.

I think you show very well how this is also a woman's rights issue

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

I would absolutely agree that commissioning parents should not be given parental rights over a baby that exists in another woman's body. The absolute mess that would result in if there's a difference of opinion during pregnancy. Very dangerous for women's bodily autonomy.

Yes!!!

@FannyCann Thanks for posting that case.

The shift in attitude and entitlement is very high as we're seeing, even in cases of so-called altruistic surrogacy.
Somehow engaging with surrogate mum to provide a baby is treated a bit like a consumer order - a bit complex, other parties involved.
However, the entitlement over another woman's body and wishes is awful. Surrogate mums are assumed to have no agenct whatsoever when they are pregnant.
How is this not coercive practice?

Surrogacy in any form is an ethical minefield; it should be completely banned.

Do the campaigners for binding contracts say they should apply equally on the intending parent or couple, so that they would have to accept any children born under the contract? (And if not then the woman could sue them?)
Or is it only ever a woman’s body that is subject to terms of a legal contract?

Probably not, but they bloody well should. There's a horrible case of a little girl born in to American parents, who have refused to take her because she is disabled. Poor child is considered stateless because she isn't considered to have the nationality of the surrogate mum and is stuck in the care system. In some countries it's very clear that the surrogate is not the legal parent. The USA should be compelled to take the child and pursue legal measures against the 'parents'.

I wonder what would happen in these cases, and commercial surrogacy cases, if the genetic parents want a termination but the surrogate doesn't and yet doesn't want to keep the baby either. There are so many ethical minefields around surrogacy.

For that exact example @EsmaCannonball I recommend The Unexpected Mother by Susan A Ring.

A 'foetal reduction' (selective abortion) was done against her wishes but eventually with her cooperation. The foetus was not 'reabsorbed' as she was told it would and she expelled and buried the baby in the garden after giving birth to the twins she had to take home as the commissions parents cancelled their order due to their pending divorce.

It sounds far fetched but her book was published and not as fiction.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Probably not, but they bloody well should. There's a horrible case of a little girl born in to American parents, who have refused to take her because she is disabled. Poor child is considered stateless because she isn't considered to have the nationality of the surrogate mum and is stuck in the care system. In some countries it's very clear that the surrogate is not the legal parent. The USA should be compelled to take the child and pursue legal measures against the 'parents'.

I don't understand how, after this happens one time, the powers that be don't go "oh yes, this is terrible, we need to stop it happening ever again" but instead just... carry on allowing it? Oh yeah I suppose it's the same with allowing anyone to have guns when there are mass shootings all the time. Knock yourselves out but don't ever pretend you give a shit about women or children.

A 'foetal reduction' (selective abortion) was done against her wishes but eventually with her cooperation. The foetus was not 'reabsorbed' as she was told it would and she expelled and buried the baby in the garden

That was in the USA ? @OhHolyJesus

Laws are different in UK. I remember a case where one twin had anencephaly and was "reduced" - it became a foetus papyraceous (mummified) so when it was born the couple had to register it as a still birth and have a funeral.

Yes that was USA.

I guess those who don't want a termination, don't want to keep the baby but also don't have adoption services via social services to assist with finding some parents for the poor, unwanted newborn, probably abandon the baby or give it to an orphanage.

In the U.K., as you have said @FannyCann social services would step in after the birth.

The pregnant woman in the screenshot was advised to contact an adoption agency I believe.

I think (but not sure) that the USA contracts allow for termination of any or all foetuses without need for explanation. Not sure about changes of mind.

That article seems to hint that the law should be changed to force the woman to continue the pregnancy irrespective of circs.

In this case the circs could have been anything. As she had mental health issues as s result of the pregnancy.

That's really scary.

@NiceGerbil

I think (but not sure) that the USA contracts allow for termination of any or all foetuses without need for explanation. Not sure about changes of mind.

That article seems to hint that the law should be changed to force the woman to continue the pregnancy irrespective of circs.

In this case the circs could have been anything. As she had mental health issues as s result of the pregnancy.

That's really scary.

The US has no federal laws governing surrogacy so each state has widely different laws (or no laws).

For example, Colorado has no laws but is considering one that makes CP legal parents before birth. But as abortion has few restrictions in CO, it's unclear what happens when CP want an abortion.

Louisiana only allows surrogacy for married heterosexual couples using their own egg/sperm but legally recognizes the surrogate as the birth mother and bans traditional surrogacy because it considers it selling a baby. So it's a mixed bag as it's a homophobic law but stronger on mother/child bonding rights. Abortion, while still legal is very difficult to get in LA and i believe may be illegal after 20 weeks or viability.

Michigan is most like the UK and only allows altruistic (think they call it compassionate because the intent is for surrogacy like when mother had uterine cancer or similar). And they prosecute for compensation surrogacy. While abortion is relatively easy to obtain in Michigan compared to other states, you can't receive public funds for an abortion in Michigan but CP can't compel a mother to abort.

This is a cursory, and very limited, sampling. It's the Wild West and powerful lawyers like this Ken doll want to open up what I consider pre-Gilead laws.

www.iflg.net/who-we-are/rich-vaughn-esq/

While I was researching, I found this gem, "We guide you every step of the wayfrom conception to birthnegotiating tough issues such as your role during the pregnancy and birth, circumstances under which embryo reduction or termination of the pregnancy may be considered, and the surrogate’s responsibilities to you and your child
^
Cause your surrogate owes you accountability, doesn't she?^

Not even the most shocking part of the story but this really stood out to me:

"When the Weekly approached the surrogate couple to share their side of the story, they asked to remain anonymous."

So after everything, the "commissioners" went to the papers and presumably passed on address/contact info for a couple they admit were "traumatised" who were then blindsided with a ready-to-print story.
Just trying to get my head around the idea of going through something like this and then a journalist turning up on my doorstep with that much personal information, asking to "share my side of the story" (in other words, what have you got to say for yourself you selfish woman?) What the actual

Quite horrified by the amount of posts against surrogacy recently on mn. Really don't know how to put across what I feel but in short I think it's shocking the amount of people ready to deny hope to couples whose lives it could change. I'm willing to bet 95% of these people haven't experienced long term infertility.

areyouthereyet
I am opposed to surrogacy because primarily , I lived in the Ukraine where it is a huge and criminally run enterprise . Women are cohersed into being surrogates at the detriment of their own health and wellbeing.
Surrogates die and it is covered up.
Lots of arrangements fail and the babies are added to the over 100,000 orphans in state care in the country.
But the sunny face of surrogacy where Mr & Mr Weathly or Mr and Mrs I Need a Baby is all the world sees.

@areyouthereyet

Quite horrified by the amount of posts against surrogacy recently on mn. Really don't know how to put across what I feel but in short I think it's shocking the amount of people ready to deny hope to couples whose lives it could change. I'm willing to bet 95% of these people haven't experienced long term infertility.

Ethics trump hope.

@areyouthereyet

Quite horrified by the amount of posts against surrogacy recently on mn. Really don't know how to put across what I feel but in short I think it's shocking the amount of people ready to deny hope to couples whose lives it could change. I'm willing to bet 95% of these people haven't experienced long term infertility.

Having a child is not a human right. It sounds harsh and unfair, but it is true.

When it comes to the point that women's bodies and babies become commodities, yes, we need to start looking at the bigger picture. I still haven't made up my mind fully on the issue with regard to altruistic surrogacy, but I do not think a person's desire for a baby trumps all other ethical considerations.