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?

@OhHolyJesus perhaps they will have issues in the future. Perhaps not. I doubt they will see it as being sold. I certainly don't. I see it as them being created as a longed for child. People have issues regardless of whether they are children of surrogates. My DSis committed suicide and was brought up in a loving family by both biological parents. Who knows the future - but what you certainly can't say is that these children will have any more issues than my DSis or the millions of kids who are brought up without a loving home or the financial advantages that these kids have.

@zweisamkeit I don't disagree with what you say however to spend tens of thousands on a child means you really want it. Contrast that with the millions of kids who are born as an accident or without the proper means to bring them up? Who do you think will be worse off in the long run? For the children I think there are worse things than being the child of a surrogate mother

They are not in any way poor children they are some of the luckiest children alive both emotionally and financially.

I find the discussion here about ‘financial’ advantage to be irrelevant to a child’s well being. Sure providing a child with copious financial resources (by whose standards) is nice to do. But it is being used here as support for ‘these children have a better life than those without copious financial resources’. Is that really what you are saying?

Just like the poster who declared that a child born into poverty conditions (by whose standards again) is in as bad situation as being removed from their mother at birth.

We are discussing surrogacy. Whether a child is placed in a family that is rich or poor, the child has been removed from its mother as an infant. This will have impacts as the child reaches adulthood (or even before) when they process the implications of their birth. It maybe a minor impact, or it may be life changing to realise how their creation came about.

The affluent financial situation of that family actually is not the issue. It is the same if it was a less affluent family situation and they went to a state run school.

Both may also have very loving parents, but the mother who gave birth to that child was deliberately removed from their life in a transaction that resulted in their creation.

They know they are surrogate children. I can guarantee at their age they will be wondering who their mother(s) is/are. Will this make them unhappy? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe in the future. Maybe not.

But you cannot determine happiness from privilege.

@Helleofabore I disagree. Private schooling, the ability to attend whatever clubs you want. Have personal training if you are good at something, go to amazing places and experiencing amazing things absolutely enhances a child's life and sets them up for the future. The financial situation of a child is absolutely related to their experience of life and the advantages that will bring them.

flippertyop but there is no objective means by which you can measure the level of disadvantage to those who are born via surrogate to wealthy families versus those who are born into poverty/addiction/etc. Just because these children are not materially disadvantaged does not guarantee them to be emotionally less so.

I don't disagree that both couples we know will bring up their children with all the love in the world. But there will be a little part of their family history that will always be missing - not some distant great aunt, or a long lost sibling, but the woman who gave birth to them. Unlike adoptions, which I wholeheartedly support, this has been a deliberately engineered and crafted process from before the child was even born. The emotional complexities of understanding that may be far less visible than, say, financial poverty, but we will never be able to measure whether it's a "better disadvantage" or, indeed, whether private schools and the best holidays will be able to compensate for that.

but what you certainly can't say is that these children will have any more issues than my DSis or the millions of kids who are brought up without a loving home or the financial advantages that these kids have.

No I think you absolutely can say that that is very likely. If not certain. A much higher likelihood of attachment, trauma and self esteem issues and resulting difficulties with relationships going forward.

‘ The donor egg child has full access to the medical history of the egg donor’

Does the DC also have access to their biological mother’s identity?

The US system - commercial sale of sperm and eggs and commercial surrogacy - is unethical. Lots of the reasons are outlined on this thread, including risks for DC born these ways.

@flippertyop

I didn't say they would have more issues than other children. They have been bought but they may not feel they have been bought. I don't think it would be right to ask them, given their ages, that would be wrong.

They have the full medical history of their genetic mothers, well that's good, but they may want to know more than that. I'm assuming that the eggs that made these children were not under U.K. HFEA and they won't have the name and details of their genetic mother/mothers? Under U.K. law anonymous donor gametes are not permitted. This sounds like a commercial arrangement, perhaps based in the US or the Ukraine? Most likely US given the age of the children.

These children you mention may or may not experience genealogical bewilderment, like some other donor conceived and adopted children. Who knows? They only know one of their mothers, the commissioning mother who is their social parent, not their biological mother nor their genetic mother. I'd say that creates a situation where genealogical bewilderment is more likely, rather than less likely. This can be triggered in adulthood, particularly around the time they wish to start their own biological families.

We also don't know anything about the mother, the women who have birth to them. The arrangement she entered into may have been a friendship-based situation, where she fully expected to be in the child/children's lives until her death. Everyone can make promises at the beginning but no one can force this by law. See the Drewitt Barlows and their first surrogate mother who was adored up and promised lifelong friendship until she gave birth to their first set of twins, and then dropped within a few weeks of their birth. I wouldn't expect you to know about her side of the story as you have only heard what you have been told by the commissioning parents and witnessed the children's behaviour. Depending on how close you are, you may only see their best behaviour and not know their inner most feelings (of the children, not the parents).

One surrogate born adult has said that the birthday cards from their parents every year feels like a reminder of the pay check to their biological mother. I'm not suggesting for a moment that every surrogate born child feels that way, but for even one adult to feel that way (they didn't feel this way as a child) is sad, I think we all can acknowledge that and that not everyone thinks or feels the same. This thread alone is an example of that.

[quote flippertyop]@zweisamkeit I don't disagree with what you say however to spend tens of thousands on a child means you really want it. Contrast that with the millions of kids who are born as an accident or without the proper means to bring them up? Who do you think will be worse off in the long run? For the children I think there are worse things than being the child of a surrogate mother [/quote]
What about the babies that are really wanted and then they're not anymore, because they're disabled,relationship breakdown etc.?

What about the ones that are wanted but then don't fit the ideal that their parents expect from their child? With the added pressure of "we paid £xxxxxxxx for you"

What about the ones that are wanted for all the wrong reasons?

If DC won’t, when an adult, have access to the identity of their biological mother, for example, they may suffer detriment.

What about the ones that are wanted for all the wrong reasons?

Like Adam Truong. He was very much wanted. By paedophiles.

[quote flippertyop]@Helleofabore I disagree. Private schooling, the ability to attend whatever clubs you want. Have personal training if you are good at something, go to amazing places and experiencing amazing things absolutely enhances a child's life and sets them up for the future. The financial situation of a child is absolutely related to their experience of life and the advantages that will bring them. [/quote]
That is great. We can disagree that the type of privileged life you are describing negates the impact of a child’s creation.

You cannot ‘buy’ a child’s mental well-being.

And yes, the DC will lean that one or two women, likely in much worse financial circumstances than the parents who brought them up, were paid.

And that their sibling is / is not the biological child of both parents.

What about the ones that are wanted but then don't fit the ideal that their parents expect from their child? With the added pressure of "we paid £xxxxxxxx for you"

Absolutely… not only to have you created especially for that couple, but then all the money spent providing that child with everything they ever wanted.

I agree with pretty much what most of you are saying but I don't think you can argue just about the negative parts of being a surrogate child without also discussing the positive parts such as the financial advantages that they will have. There could be issues with being a surrogate child there could also be issues with being a child with no opportunities and brought up in poverty. There may also be issues with absent parents etc. my point is not many people have the perfect life and we are all effected by somethings in one way or another, so yes the surrogate child may end up having issues from being a surrogate but are privileged in other ways that other children are not. All I can say is I see no signs of any issues so far and the children are part of a very close family and very happy. As for what happens if the child isn't wanted anymore? This isn't a surrogacy issue - that's an issue faced by many children regardless of their gestational circumstances. Many of you focus on all the negatives and completely disregard the positives and also use issues that effect many children to relate only to surrogacy. I don't think this is a rounded view

@Helleofabore I didn't say it negates it. If 'it' actually exists as a problem which it may do for some. But you can't only use the negative aspects and ignore all the life experiences that being financially secure will bring to those children over and above others - who may still be with the biological mother. You can't pick only the negatives because that suits your agenda .

‘ I don't think you can argue just about the negative parts of being a surrogate child without also discussing the positive parts’

Strongly disagree. The negative aspects of commercial egg sale and surrogacy are specific to those practices and have implications for women and DC more generally.

‘whataboutery’ with respect to other problems / DCs’ situations is irrelevant.

‘I don't think you can argue just about the negative parts of being a surrogate child without also discussing the positive parts’

That is absolutely not how safeguarding works!

I used to be in favour of altruistic surrogacy, but threads like this have made me change my mind. Adoption is for the benefit of the child, but can sadly still cause issues.
Surrogacy is not for the benefit of the child, and supporters don't seem to want to discuss potential issues at all. They don't seem to want to acknowledge there could be issues. Its pretty disturbing how attempts at discussion have been ignored.

But being well off as a child from a surrogacy arrangement is pretty much a given, because only rich people get children this way. So it’s not a positive. The child wouldn’t exist if the intended parents didn’t have the money to facilitate the child’s birth so to say the child is privileged as a result is paradoxical.

And this leads to the argument that surrogacy is only good because wealthy people do it because the money makes the negatives worthwhile.

And the family may look happy to external observers. And maybe the children genuinely are. Or maybe they daydream about a woman they don’t know. Maybe they cry sometimes and their parents don’t see it. Who knows. Only the children themselves can determine this when they’re older, and accounts from other children of surrogates above suggest the outcome isn’t certain.

That’s why as I said earlier in the thread, there’s no such thing as 100% successful surrogacy; there is surrogacy that got through a pregnancy without serious complications (do you know this for sure in this case?) and a couple crossing their fingers their child won’t grow up and feel the trauma of it. Only decades later can you say a surrogacy has been successful.

[quote flippertyop]@Helleofabore I didn't say it negates it. If 'it' actually exists as a problem which it may do for some. But you can't only use the negative aspects and ignore all the life experiences that being financially secure will bring to those children over and above others - who may still be with the biological mother. You can't pick only the negatives because that suits your agenda . [/quote]
You have brought wealth into this. I am saying in this decision, level of wealth is irrelevant. Wealthy families should not get to exploit other women’s bodies to produce children just as much as families in poverty.

This isn't a surrogacy issue - that's an issue faced by many children regardless of their gestational circumstances.

In terms of non-perfect babies being rejected, it is actually very much a surrogacy issue.

Having paid lots of money for a much-wanted and longed-for baby, do you think that (some) commissioning parents wouldn't reject the child based on a disability or birth defect? They have paid for a top quality product, with commercial arrangements detailing even what foods a surrogate mother should eat during the pregnancy.

An extreme example (on the numbers of children alone) shows what the commissioning mother does to ensure she and her wealthy criminal husband get in terms of the end product.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/14022922/mum-of-11-wants-100-children-and-will-pay-for-it/

@OhHolyJesus yes that is an extreme example - as are some parents who can't afford one child and have ten - also an extreme example. Could you honestly look a happy surrogate child in the face and say that they shouldn't have been born. If surrogate children have issues I will absolutely listen to those but you are arguing on behalf of children who wouldn't have existed otherwise and I don't thinks it's your place to say they shouldn't have had the opportunity of living a full and happy life

So out of interest how do you guys feel about infertile couples using donated sperm and or eggs? Why is that any better - or is it not? Genuine question

All donor conceived children wonder about their origins. The fact that the children you know @flippertyop are pretending they don't because they live a privileged life (with kind people like you surrounding them telling them how very lucky they are) doesn't mean they don't think about it. All the money in the world cannot ever compensate for the fact that they don't know who their mother is.

The child who doesn't know either their biological mother or their actual mother will be doubly damaged.

Denying a child access to that information is abusive. It is parents treating children as possessions. I don't care how wealthy the people who bought them are.