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 to be clear following on from my previous post, that twin baby girl being diagnosed with myotonic dystrophy possibly also diagnosed someone else with the same condition, the genetic donor of either the sperm or the egg. What is not clear is who that person was and whether they were told about that possibility. In normal circumstances the parents who were present looking after their baby would find that out they also might have it and be offered genetic counselling as to whether they wanted to know. But this is surrogacy so the questions are:

1. was the sperm donor informed and did he receive genetic counselling?
2. was the egg donor informed and did she receive genetic counselling?
3. do either of these two people have any other children?

So as well as the tragedy of the diagnosis, the horribleness of the recipient, the heart of the family to look after the baby, there is also the unknowns about whether two people have ever been told about the risk they have a genetic disease.

But hey, sometimes it works out, so all good eh?

Thanks @NotBadConsidering

I hadn't thought about the wider picture of the genetic inheritance.

There has been a growth in unregulated sperm donation (easy to find some threads on Mumsnet) which usually involves making contact via Facebook or similar SM and DIY home insemination. (Apologies I'm digressing slightly from surrogacy). It seems to be a very risky thing to do, legally, socially and medically (STI being the most obvious medical risk) but the absence of any medical screening for inherited disease is the other big one.

With egg donation clearly this will be done via a fertility clinic so basic screening is guaranteed I assume but what about follow up if something like this becomes apparent after the birth?

Could you honestly look a happy surrogate child in the face and say that they shouldn't have been born.

At no point have I said that surrogacy shouldn't happen at all, nor would I ever say that a surrogate born child, or an adopted child, or a donor conceived child, should not have been born. I would advocate for legal, regulatory frameworks built around the norm and the extremes so to protect, as far as possible, everyone involved in surrogacy, including the child. The example I shared if the Ozarks was shared with the point of them being an extreme example. I made that point in the post.

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

No, you have misunderstood. I have never said any child shouldn't exist or that the opportunity of a full and happy life isn't afford to surrogate born children.

Your point about wealth is a relevant one but not all children born into rich families are happy. By saying this doesn't mean rich families shouldn't have children, nor does it mean poor couples shouldn't have children, that would be wilfully misinterpreting my point which I note only so to avoid it happening again 🤞🏻

I think you can speak for everyone about every topic

I think I can speak about whatever I like and subjects of interest to me, that I do a lot of reading about and therefore now a lot about, are the subjects I am most likely to engage with.

You are the one who said I was famous for my views and as I have said, I consider my view to be an informed own, based in all the reading I've done.

Have you managed to find and read my comments about IVF yet?

@starcup

Still waiting for a reply to my questions on how society is to handle this issue.

Still......waiting.....

Of course you can have a different point of view, but if you can't back it up with evidence and have no reasonable and considered response to others who challenge your point of view, you can't expect your point of view to be taken seriously, to be given equal weighting.

I would like to understand how you think surrogacy could work and what appropriate and effective safeguards could be put in place. I am willing to rethink my opinion. But you have not given me (or anyone else) any reason to, apart from repeating yourself that having laws is apparently unreasonably infantilising.

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

I love how women working and campaigning to make life safer for other women and children, to prevent exploitation, is considered to be something to be mocked.

@FannyCann

Thanks *@NotBadConsidering*

I hadn't thought about the wider picture of the genetic inheritance.

There has been a growth in unregulated sperm donation (easy to find some threads on Mumsnet) which usually involves making contact via Facebook or similar SM and DIY home insemination. (Apologies I'm digressing slightly from surrogacy). It seems to be a very risky thing to do, legally, socially and medically (STI being the most obvious medical risk) but the absence of any medical screening for inherited disease is the other big one.

With egg donation clearly this will be done via a fertility clinic so basic screening is guaranteed I assume but what about follow up if something like this becomes apparent after the birth?

I wasn’t entirely sure but I found this on a preeminent IVF company’s website:

monashivf.com/services/genetic-testing/genetic-carrier-screening-kit/

If you are planning to use a known donor (someone you know personally), the couple test is recommended. This will help you to understand you and your donor’s combined genetic information, so you can make informed decisions about your options for conceiving. If you are planning to use a clinic-recruited donor or an international donor, the single test is recommended. Clinic-recruited or international donors have usually already been screened for single gene conditions.

Usually. But maybe not always. In the car you linked who knows where the gametes came from. And I would have to cross reference the list of single gene diseases tested for. But the battery of testing for single gene diseases antenatally is only fairly recent, wasn’t available in 2014, and isn’t extensive. So there is still a chance a donor needs to be told their genetic offspring carries a disease relevant to them. I don’t know what legislation there is for that.

Just add it to the 1001 ways legislation can’t solve all the potential things that can go wrong with surrogacy…

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.

Yes. Until proper, reliable safeguards are in place and a sure way to insure that no harm at all will come to the women whose bodies have been reduced to egg producers and incubators. Until it can be assessed all psychological effects there could be for the child that cannot be mitigated.

Until then, yes. I do think surrogacy needs to be put on hold.

How many women and children are acceptable collateral damage in this pursuit of procuring children for someone who cannot have them?

As PP asked, what are the negative effects on woman who would-be surrogates if they are not used as surrogates? And what would those negative effects be?

[quote crunchermuncher]@starcup

Still waiting for a reply to my questions on how society is to handle this issue.

Still......waiting.....

Of course you can have a different point of view, but if you can't back it up with evidence and have no reasonable and considered response to others who challenge your point of view, you can't expect your point of view to be taken seriously, to be given equal weighting.

I would like to understand how you think surrogacy could work and what appropriate and effective safeguards could be put in place. I am willing to rethink my opinion. But you have not given me (or anyone else) any reason to, apart from repeating yourself that having laws is apparently unreasonably infantilising.[/quote]
Starcup has offered to put together a document on this today. I am assuming it will be posted here.

TBF a couple of bullet points showing evidence of any kind of engagement with any of the intelligent arguments posters have tirelessly repeated in the face of 'you're so mean', 'what about babies with no heads, they are sad too' and 'you can't legislate against stuff that's bad, that's like denying that women are human beings' would do me at this stage. Still not holding my breath though.

Thanks @NotBadConsidering

Just add it to the 1001 ways legislation can’t solve all the potential things that can go wrong with surrogacy

I will!

Of course if the condition had been diagnosed pre-natally the commissioning parents would presumably have requested either a foetal reduction of the one twin or an abortion of both. Which the surrogate mother may or may not have been happy to agree to....

@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.

Very much so. When DS was born I was all he knew. He knew my smell, my voice, my heartbeat. He wasn't happy being away from me for months.

No one thinks of the child and that says a lot to me about the people who feel entitled to buy a baby.

Until I see some facts around this I can't believe that a surrogate child has the potential to be more unhappy about their lives than any other child. I totally accept that some surrogate children will grow up with issues but so will many non surrogate children. Until you can genuinely present facts that these children are worse off than those born into poverty, or that are the result of a broken home I don't think the argument is valid.

@roarfeckingroarr I think you just had a clingy baby. I had to go back to work after a few weeks. My kids turned out just fine

@flippertyop

Until I see some facts around this I can't believe that a surrogate child has the potential to be more unhappy about their lives than any other child. I totally accept that some surrogate children will grow up with issues but so will many non surrogate children. Until you can genuinely present facts that these children are worse off than those born into poverty, or that are the result of a broken home I don't think the argument is valid.

Why do they need to be worse off than a child born into poverty or a child from a 'broken home'?

Why can't they just be worse off than other children?

How would it not traumatise a baby to be removed from its mother? Would it traumatise you if I told you you were never going to see your mother/kids/whatever again? What if I provided you with an alternative who promised to be nice to you? What if they paid for loads of shit for you? Would that be ok? What if they had given me 50 grand for you? You ok with it now?

Not good etiquette, flippertyop to ask other posters to post information and evidence, rather than look this up yourself or consider the arguments.

@RepentMotherfucker if I knew that I was a much wanted and planned child and my parents had gone out their way financially and emotionally to have me I don't think I would have an issue with it. I think your view of children being ripped from their mothers arms is a little over dramatic. That was the plan - always. You can't compare that to my circumstances and my children. I wanted to have them and so of course if they were taken it would be devastating - but that is not the same as this situation. You see the money being paid as Bad thing. I see it as a sign of commitment to wanting a child really badly. It is by no means guaranteed they will have issue when they get older they may well be perfectly happy with their lovely parents and wonderful upbringing. You have no facts to back up that they are any more likely than nY other child to have issues

@Dozer I haven't asked anyone to post any information. There are no facts around this. And I am speaking from experience of two families I know well who have very happy children.

@Dozer and I am considering the arguments but disagree - in the same way as you disagree with mine. That doesn't make me wrong

I genuinely don't understand why some posters are so wedded to the notion that it is ok to engage a woman to conceive a baby with the express purpose of giving it away at birth.

How is this good for the baby? How is it good for the birth mothet?

No facts? There are plenty of facts. Some examples follow.

It causes babies distress to be separated from their birth mother.

Women in the US can sell their eggs and their womb, and wealthier people can buy them.

One of the DC of the couple you mention will not have access to the identity of his/her biological parent. This puts him or her at risk of psychological harm.

@flippertyop

Until I see some facts around this I can't believe that a surrogate child has the potential to be more unhappy about their lives than any other child. I totally accept that some surrogate children will grow up with issues but so will many non surrogate children. Until you can genuinely present facts that these children are worse off than those born into poverty, or that are the result of a broken home I don't think the argument is valid.

You could also say about adoption children (especially if adopted by wealthy families) that they are better off than kids living in poverty or in a broken home.

We don't just let anyone adopt though do we? There are legislations and safeguards put in place aren't there? The bar isn't "is this kid going to have a wealthier life than Jimmy down the street who lives in a box?". There is work still being done, and debates,and campaigns to improve outcomes even further.

And these are children/babies already here so a generally positive outcome is actually the best we can hope and strive for.

@flippertyop

Until I see some facts around this I can't believe that a surrogate child has the potential to be more unhappy about their lives than any other child. I totally accept that some surrogate children will grow up with issues but so will many non surrogate children. Until you can genuinely present facts that these children are worse off than those born into poverty, or that are the result of a broken home I don't think the argument is valid.

Which argument don't you think is valid?

Many sources of evidence have been posted upthread by many posters- but you apparently can't be arsed to read them.

Can I draw your attention to my last post (scroll up on this page). What are your thoughts?

[quote crunchermuncher]@starcup

Still waiting for a reply to my questions on how society is to handle this issue.

Still......waiting.....

Of course you can have a different point of view, but if you can't back it up with evidence and have no reasonable and considered response to others who challenge your point of view, you can't expect your point of view to be taken seriously, to be given equal weighting.

I would like to understand how you think surrogacy could work and what appropriate and effective safeguards could be put in place. I am willing to rethink my opinion. But you have not given me (or anyone else) any reason to, apart from repeating yourself that having laws is apparently unreasonably infantilising.[/quote]
Here. Posted again for ease of reference.

There's no point saying 'some surrogate children are fine' - that point has been addressed, repeatedly, and is not moving the debate forward.

[quote flippertyop]@Dozer I haven't asked anyone to post any information. There are no facts around this. And I am speaking from experience of two families I know well who have very happy children. [/quote]
Of course there are facts around this

www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/how-mother-child-separation-causes-neurobiological-vulnerability-into-adulthood.html

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111102124955.htm

theconversation.com/a-sudden-and-lasting-separation-from-a-parent-can-permanently-alter-brain-development-98542

First page of google. There's a lot more.

Of course, this distraction about wealthy families of course removes the need to look at the many health risks taken by egg donors and surrogate mothers.

And back up thread are plenty of accounts of women suffering those. But maybe, they are again the wrong sort of women, and anyway, they ‘knew what they were doing, didn’t they’?