To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

[Blackbird1234]

I've seen a few posts on some threads in this topic, from people condemning surrogacy. I don't understand why it is seen as bad, if all parties consent. Can anyone explain, please?

So how about if it was a rich couple using another rich woman as a surrogate - would that be viewed in a better way?

It doesn't happen or if it does it's vanishingly rare.

It's all about what the adults want, not about the child at all.

Not sure how this fits in but a main issue seems to be the fact of people "buying" children. Does that mean that you also see fault with adoption? Or no, simply because money isn't necessarily exchanged?

@Blackbird1234

Would a baby really notice that its new mother is not the one it was grown in? I don't have children, so genuinely don't know.

Yes.

Surrogacy is commercialised in many countries. How many rich women do you suppose act as surrogates in those countries, & how many infertile women in poverty receive the precious gift of a baby?

In countries where it is not commercialised, why is surrogacy much less common? Why?

How is renting a woman's body for 9 months different to renting it for half an hour? They are both financial transactions to which the woman has, presumably, consented.

And yes, women and babies die in pregnancy & labour, even now, in first world countries. I nearly died at birth, as did my mother. DD & I nearly died when she was born.

Removing a baby from its mother is a traumatic event for both.

Creating babies who will be subject to trauma as soon as they are born is a horrific thing to do.

@Blackbird1234

Not sure how this fits in but a main issue seems to be the fact of people "buying" children. Does that mean that you also see fault with adoption? Or no, simply because money isn't necessarily exchanged?

Children are not adopted lightly and they are often taken from heartbreaking situations that it is entirely for the child’s benefit to be removed from. It’s a totally, totally different situation to surrogacy.

@Blackbird1234

Not sure how this fits in but a main issue seems to be the fact of people "buying" children. Does that mean that you also see fault with adoption? Or no, simply because money isn't necessarily exchanged?

When was the last time you heard of a pregnant woman considering her choices and going 'Hmmm, OK - I'll have the baby and give it up for adoption?' That is vanishing rare (in the UK) today. Adoption tends to happen after a tragedy or after a long, drawn-out process where everything that can be done to keep a family together is done. The two things aren't comparable these days.

The US adoption system has some major issues too!

@Blackbird1234

Not sure how this fits in but a main issue seems to be the fact of people "buying" children. Does that mean that you also see fault with adoption? Or no, simply because money isn't necessarily exchanged?

The obvious difference is that babies are not created to fulfil a demand for adoption. There are children available, and some kind folk adopt them. It is better than a lifetime in care, which is what they would otherwise face.

It's a completely different situation!

But in the UK money doesn’t change hands with adoption.

@Blackbird1234

Not sure how this fits in but a main issue seems to be the fact of people "buying" children. Does that mean that you also see fault with adoption? Or no, simply because money isn't necessarily exchanged?

The difference between surrogacy and adoption is significant. A child put up for adoption already exists, their mother (and in many cases, their father & any other family members) may not be available to take care of them. The parents may have died, there are many reasons why the biological family may not be able to care for the child. Do you really not see the difference between between that & commissioning a child via surrogacy?

Indeed. Most children adopted are not babies.

No one can fully predict what effect a pregnancy can have on their body... it can end in disability or even death. Can a price be put on that?
Thats before the rights of the child are taken into account.

I have massive sympathy for people that cannot have their own children, including gay couples, who would make fantastic parents. But buying a baby isn't the answer.

@Blackbird1234

Not sure how this fits in but a main issue seems to be the fact of people "buying" children. Does that mean that you also see fault with adoption? Or no, simply because money isn't necessarily exchanged?

Adoption is recognised as being trauma to the child but a better option than remaining with his or her birth parent. Usually because there is no other safe option for the child. Before adoption is considered social workers will look to see if there is another family member who can care for the baby long term to ensure the child still has some of their birth family to keep those bonds. Only when this is not possible iill adoption be sought having been approved by the courts and the adoptive parents thoroughly vetted.

@Blackbird1234

Not sure how this fits in but a main issue seems to be the fact of people "buying" children. Does that mean that you also see fault with adoption? Or no, simply because money isn't necessarily exchanged?

Adoption is about finding parents for children. Surrogacy is about creating children for sale. Totally different.

Years ago I saw a story on some day time tv programme or other about a sister who had carried her younger sisters baby, it seemed so lovely and supportive, a genuinely heartwarming thing. No money changed hands and baby had his mum and bio mum. Then I grew up and had my own babies, I became aware of the dangers to our bodies, how bloody precarious our female reproductive health is in a western civilisation. Not to mention many babies are not born “perfect” and there are so many stories now where the baby is rejected by the buyers and dumped. When you think of the amount of women and children sexually trafficked and you hear about the “finders fees” to connect wealthy westerners to poor desperate women around the world it’s pretty sickening. Imagine being locked up and breeding a baby that will be ripped from you and sold on? When I think of it in those terms, not the lovely sisters on the this morning sofa, I know it’s wrong. We aren’t entitled to babies.

The problem is that far more often than not it is 'consent' out of desperation. That's why you don't actually find a lot of rich surrogates having a baby for a stranger. You find it is poor women, often from poor countries with little to no state help that basically rent out their womb in order to survive.

Twenty years or so ago my local job centre was carrying adverts for women to work on sex chat lines. With increasing crackdowns on benefits I don't want to see a situation where women are expected to carry babies as a legitimate 'job'. Legalising commercial.surrogacy brings that a step closer.

Far-fetched? I think 10 years ago nobody would have thought a male born swimmer would be sweeping women's competitions in America or that men would be allowed into women's changing rooms on their say-so. Cultural norms change, protections can be erased, particularly it seems when it's what men want.

My friend was a surrogate a few years ago. Of course in England you can't officially be paid for it, but her expenses seemed to include having her entire house redecorated and new furniture.

Her MH was awful after she had the baby. I was seriously worried for her life at one point. She's still not the same 9 years later.

It’s illegal to remove puppies or kittens from their mother before 8 weeks old isn’t it? It’s cruel and detrimental to their welfare.

We know it’s the same for humans, we know there are poorer outcomes for adopted kids separated from their mothers (even though being adopted is better than not being) so why would anyone advocate for creating a situation that does exactly that?

@Blackbird1234

Not sure how this fits in but a main issue seems to be the fact of people "buying" children. Does that mean that you also see fault with adoption? Or no, simply because money isn't necessarily exchanged?

Adoption (in the UK) is nothing like surrogacy:

• the child already exists
• usually these days the children are being placed for adoption because their birth families are unable/unwilling to care for them properly
• where a baby is relinquished the birth mum can't make a final decision until 6(?) weeks after the birth
• no money (even 'expenses') changes hands
• it is really the 'least worst' option for the children

Surrogacy you are creating a child with the initial aim of removing the child from its birth (/gestational) mother.

Removing a child from its mother at a very young age creates an instinctive loss in the child. Choosing to do that (rather than needing to) is highly dubious morally I thnk.

Often surrogates carry donated eggs so that they are not the genetic mother.
These types of pregnancies involve a lot higher risks to the mother.
I think the risks of pregnancy can be so high, not just mortality but birth injuries that can be life changing- I don't think anyone should ask a woman to go through that for them.
I find people are really keen on 'a woman can choose what to do with her body' when it comes to sex work or surrogacy but we Don't hear the same arguments about people selling their organs. It's massively in the interest of men for these issues to be sold as empowering when they're massively exploitative.

Because how can anyone be so very sure that there is absolutely no guilt, no coercion at all in even a consentual non- economic agreement.

Because what about those women who sign up for multiple surrogacies ‘because they like it’ and continue to do it even after nearly dying during the last one or two? What about that is not exploiting someone’s mental health issue?

Because if, as it has happened recently, a sister dies or is left incapacitated during pregnancy, is this then written off as ‘well, she wanted to help?’.

What family or friend is NOT exploiting a loved one’s willingness for their own gain?

And that is before even looking at the rights of the baby. Is that infant where the rich mother doing it going to have a relationship with that child for life?

How do you propose that now adult child process the fact that this was not just ‘assisted’ conception (ie, like in an IVF situation involving only the parents eggs and sperm) but they are a child that was conceived and carried for the sole purpose that someone who wouldn’t have had a child, gets one made to order? Because that is essentially what it is. A new person made where so much effort has been expended to fulfill someone’s need to have a child of their own, usually with a biological link to them, but commoditising another woman’s body for nine months.

There is a reason people want the word ‘gestator’ used. There is nothing but commodification happening here.

@Blackbird1234

Would a baby really notice that its new mother is not the one it was grown in? I don't have children, so genuinely don't know.

If a baby wouldn't notice, why is it so important for a baby to have skin to skin contact with its mother soon after birth? Why have maternity units stopped removing babies from their mothers and putting them in a group nursery room (used to be done to allow new mums to rest)?

If you're really interested, there's plenty of info on the subject available out there that you could have a read of.