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?

Wombs are not incubators for the infertile.

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.

And don't think this just happens in the backwaters of Ukraine and other poor countries with limited protections.
This case was in the U.K. Now the surrogate mother is raising the rejected disabled twin.

Also another case of a woman being implanted with two embryos to create twins despite it being common knowledge that the best chance of a healthy mother and child is if the baby is a singleton. I don't know details of the pregnancy but it's a reasonable bet that a singleton baby would have been born without problem.

Woman rejected disabled surrogate baby as a ‘dribbling cabbage’.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/906372bf-1f6f-4195-b75b-d18202b12bd6?shareToken=35fd7f8390815c5386091e49b49facdff_

It’s not ‘donor’ sperm and eggs in the US, it’s ‘sold’. It’s commercial.

Am against sperm and egg donation where there is sale, including discounted or ‘free’ IVF, and/or where DC don’t have access to the identity of their genetic parent(s).

@flippertyop

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

This is not the same discussion I think.

The point here is that separating the mother-baby dyad created through gestation and birth is always going to be traumatic to both parties on some level even if never acknowledged.

Bringing in payment is essentially buying one (or more) human being(s) and renting the body of another.

It is unethical, inhumane and in my opinion cannot be justified.

Maybe a new thread for the egg sperm question would be helpful?

I'll correct myself. The babies were delivered six weeks early by emergency LSCS, so significant risk to mother and both babies plus the demands in the NHS. But the disabled child seems to have congenital myotonic dystrophy. I don't know much about the condition but it wouldn't have been to do with being a twin.

@DaisiesandButtercups but many of the arguementa on here relate to not knowing the generic background of the child. That's the same with donor eggs no? So I wanted to know how you see this as different. It's a reasonable question to ask I think. For the fist family they child is biologically theirs - for an ivf couple it may not be - potentially that has as many issue in the long term.

@NotBadConsidering

Sadly they don’t in many a shit situation they’re brought in to world in

So you think it’s sad when that happens? So do I. So in surrogacy we have an entirely predictable situation where we know in 9 months time the baby will be born into a situation that you and I find sad. We have the opportunity to put something in place before it happens, so it isn’t like all those other situations you find sad. What do you suggest?

It sometimes works out

Donor sperm and eggs have been discussed earlier in the thread.

Some excellent points made above.

I think we can all agree(?) that in some cases, there could appear to be positive material outcomes from surrogacy for the child (leaving aside for a moment all the issues for the birth mother - I would also be very interested to hear of any examples of how women being prevented from choosing to be surrogates has any negatives for them. But I digress).

However....

One or two cases of happy surrogate children, anecdata, can not be extrapolated to society as a whole. We don't know how unusual this positive outcome is, but all available evidence suggests it is very unusual.

As others have said, there is plenty of evidence that attachment issues result from babies being removed from their mothers soon after birth. These can manifest in later life and colour all that person's subsequent relationships. These can't be erased by other material benefits that the child may gain.

So, there is no point arguing about whether or not the children will suffer mental health issues - evidence shows they as a group do (granted, there may be the odd exception, but that's not what were talking about). It is arguably impossible to weigh up how much the potential material advantages of being raised in a wealthy /loving home , neither of which are guaranteed, make up for the probable mental health disadvantage of being a commissioned baby. The question therefore is:
'knowing that there is evidence of probable mental health issues, attachment disorders, genealogical bewilderment etc, to what extent is this acceptable to knowingly inflict on a child in order to satisfy the commissioning parents desire for a baby'.

I think some here, myself included would argue that it is never acceptable.

For those who believe that it is acceptable, how do we as a society then decide how much damage is acceptable? How do we measure it? How do we implement safeguards to prevent this line from being crossed? When forming policy, we need to understand how this could work for society as a whole, not just some specific situations in which it was, luckily, apparently ok (that's a bit like saying 'there's no need to wear a crash helmet, I don't bother and I've been ok'- a sample of one is not statistically significant). If you say you agree with surrogacy but don't explain how it could / should work safely for all, you can't expect others to take your argument seriously.

If we can agree that there is likely some psychological harm to the child, surely we can agree that this, then, is a problem that society should be concerned with (rather than shrugging our shoulders and saying 'women's right to choose innit').

If you would argue that there is no evidence of harm, I would invite you to look at some of the links posted upthread before forming a response.

[quote flippertyop]@DaisiesandButtercups but many of the arguementa on here relate to not knowing the generic background of the child. That's the same with donor eggs no? So I wanted to know how you see this as different. It's a reasonable question to ask I think. For the fist family they child is biologically theirs - for an ivf couple it may not be - potentially that has as many issue in the long term. [/quote]
They're two different things. A child has a bond with the woman who gestated and gave birth to it. That is a profound bond which damages children from birth if it is ruptured (surrogacy). A child raised by people who it is not genetically related to will experience a different kind of trauma/loss.

In the U.K., anonymous gamete donation became illegal in 2005 in acknowledgement that children who are born using donor gametes have the right to know who their parents are which mitigates that trauma/loss to a degree

@OhHolyJesus

With respect, you’ve got so many posts I haven’t got the time sadly to read each one. I don’t know what you can’t answer the question I asked.

Do you agree with IVF?

Do you agree with IVF with another with different eggs?

Do you think the NHS shouldn’t pay?

Just interested to hear your point of view

@Helleofabore

That’s not very kind now is it?

The expectation of ‘kindness’ is a good example of a type of coercion.

Don’t disagree, or call out the disparities in my arguments, it isn’t kind….

I didn’t though 😉

@Helleofabore

What I also have found surprising, is one poster’s attitude that people should not get involved in attempting to protect women and children.

Nothing to do with us directly, so we should all ignore the issues and let those with vested interests set the policy.

What a shock that feminists would be advocating against the exploitation of women and children.

On a feminist board on a parenting ….

Oh. That’s ok, we are not the right kind of feminists!

I forgot.

I love how you want to get involved and save the world and be the champion.

Yes coercion can happen and there are ethical issues surrounding it, in some situations but you and others want a blanket ban on surrogacy and that’s your right to exercise but you fail to take in to account that some women actually are wanting to do it.

You can argue the toss all you like but it doesn’t take away the fact that sometimes it can be absolutely fine for all involved and you or anyone else on this thread can’t decide that they are incapable of making a decision

@flippertyop

I know two people who have used surrogates. Both were very wanted babies, they have private schooling and everything they could ever want including two fabulous loving parents. I absolutely see the issue in going somewhere like the Ukraine but both of them had their surrogates in the US and the birth mother wasn't forced into anything. Those kids have a better life than many who are still with their natural parents and so I don't get the problem. I don't see any psychological issues in these kids - it's not like adoption where you grow up with the thought ur parents didn't want you or it's an abusive household. They've had a great start in life and are very much loved and cared for. The baby is created to be born to these parents - it's nothing like selling another human being. They wouldn't exist if the surrogacy process hadn't happened

Lovely to hear.

It sometimes works out

This is a conversation for grown ups about real lives, real women, and real children, so maybe come back when you’ve had a chance to think more deeply about your answers.

@OhHolyJesus

Nothing to do with us directly, so we should all ignore the issues and let those with vested interests set the policy.

Exactly.

Imagine if...

Women who haven't yet experienced the menopause were involved in improving awareness for employers around the biological process and how is hinders women at work

Women who have never had an abortion campaigned for access to safe and legal abortion

Women who were over the age of 30 drove Parliament to vote for women under the age of 30 to get the vote

Women who have never sold their body for sex campaigned for prostituted women to be rescued from the sex industry...

The position of liberal feminism to me can be summed up as "I'm alright Jackie" vs radical feminism which is "are you alright Jackie?".

. I think you can speak for everyone about every topic

@flippertyop

The fact is you don't know these children. They are not in any way poor children they are some of the luckiest children alive both emotionally and financially. I see you pick up on the private school but not the fact they have loving parents hi h I also mention. There are probably a million children in the U.K. born to shitty parents who can't or won't look after them. Save your sympathies for them not for the kids who are perfectly happy and have every available advantage given to them. In terms of health issues one is a donor egg one is the biological child of both parents. The donor egg child has full access to the medical history of the egg donor. Neither were the egg of the birth mother.

Most people on here won’t accept the children are fine as will either be sarcastic, spiteful if they can’t create a real argument, such as picking up on the fact these kids had a great education etc… I knew they’d jump all over that.

Ah, not so much ‘I’m alright Jackie’, more ‘It’s sometimes alright, Jackie, nothing to see here, none of your business’

@FannyCann

I'll correct myself. The babies were delivered six weeks early by emergency LSCS, so significant risk to mother and both babies plus the demands in the NHS. But the disabled child seems to have congenital myotonic dystrophy. I don't know much about the condition but it wouldn't have been to do with being a twin.

The genetics of the embryos is not clear from the article.

Myotonic dystrophy is inherited from one parent in an autosomal dominant pattern. It demonstrates anticipation, which means it gets worse with each generation.

This means either the donor or the sperm, or the donor of the egg (the horrible woman?) is also affected, but may not know it yet. It is also theoretically possible the other twin is affected but isn’t showing signs at a young age like the baby girl, but it’s not clear if the boy’s egg and sperm are from the same donor, or if doctors tested the boy after the girl’s diagnosis became evident.

sometimes it can be absolutely fine for all involved

fuck me

that's your argument @Starcup ?

sometimes it's OK?

yikes

*Donor of the sperm

@ldontWanna

What I really want to know is what's the downside or negative effect on the mother (since she's the one taking all the risks) if surrogacy is not allowed? I obviously expect answers from the posters that support it, but everyone is welcome.

No whatabouterries or analogies or how other things are bad too. Just one(at least) negative impact for a woman not being allowed to be a surrogate.

She won’t be able to do such a selfless thing for her sister/best friend and it will mean her sis or friend will never be able to be a mother. That will likely be a topic that is discussed at length for several years.

If only there was something I could do to help take this pain away?… oh wait….

@Starcup

•      you fail to take in to account that some women actually are wanting to do it.
  

You can argue the toss all you like but it doesn’t take away the fact that sometimes it can be absolutely fine for all involved and you or anyone else on this thread can’t decide that they are incapable of making a decision*

So give me one example of a negative impact on women that would completely freely choose to do so, but not being allowed. I'll just settle for one.

She won’t be able to do such a selfless thing for her sister/best friend

oy vey

the upside for the woman is that she gets to risk her health and her life to satisfy the wants of someone else? you really think women are support humans don't you?

Sorry, crossposted. I'll be back in a bit