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?

@Starcup

to add nothing is ever guaranteed. Even a routine operation can go wrong so I’m not entirely sure what guarantees you’d like to see…

We could start listing all the possible health risks if you want. Over nine months plus pre pregnancy treatment, it is so much more risky than a routine operation.

I am surprised that you, who have had two children, cannot acknowledge that.

Well, I just had one and it resulted in a pretty traumatic c section. That was totally unforeseen. So, I guess I have a good insight into just what the risks are even with a ‘normal’ pregnancy.

You seem to want the impossible

surrogacy is illegal in many countries. I want something that is demonstrably possible

@Starcup

**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**

Mate, you wouldn’t agree with legislation anyway. I believe you would constantly argue your ‘point’. You would never ever be satisfied.

So glad I'm not holding my breath for you to come up with any actual practical way to implement any of the shit you are spouting, 'mate'.

There is legislation in the UK which on the whole I agree with. It's imperfect but it's practical. I'm not arguing with the legislation, I'm arguing for it not to change! It's amazing that you're ten pages in without having understood that

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

You seem to want the impossible

surrogacy is illegal in many countries. I want something that is demonstrably possible

I don't think Starcup has much of a grasp of the status quo or the arguments or wants anything except to say, 'No! You're stupid!' to people on the internet tbh

I know it wasn't my task but I've been thinking of some safeguards and restrictions to put in place to make as fair as possible.

First of all yes, mandatory , independent and confidential psychiatric assessment prior to insemination, after ,all throughout the pregnancy and at least a year after birth. If things go wrong interventions and options to be offered.

The parents have no legal right to the baby or the mother up until birth. So the buyers can't dictate what the mother eats, does, what medicine she might need, they have no rights to decide if complications arise or any health issues.

On the money side, while they can't pay "for the baby" costs for the mother should be covered with documentation (time off work if unpaid,medical costs etc). They should also be responsible for any medical (mental or physical) costs as a direct result of the pregnancy/birth. The parents are legally responsible for this regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy. In the same manner they are financially responsible for the baby even if they don't want it. Any and all associated medical costs , finding them a new family , being looked after the state etc.

Checks on the parents , DBS , a psychiatric assessment for themselves , who are they,where do they come from,where are they going etc. No opportunities(or as least as possible) to just "disappear" in the ether.

The mother has the right to change her mind either during pregnancy or up to a year after birth. This is controversial and it has it's own downsides so I have to think on it a bit more.

The mother has her own panel of "support". Independent Doctor,lawyers ,maybe even a social worker to advise about any and all risks.

The option of being in the child's life is they so wish, unless that would be detrimental to child as assessed by an independent professional.Same for the child, full access and information to any and all information they might require, including the possibility of contact if they want to.

In case of death the baby (or the mother on their behalf if she chooses to keep the baby) is a beneficiary of the estate.

I'm sure I missed a lot(which shows how complex this is) but that's just the very least that is needed.

Wouldn't we all like the impossible? That every person/couple who wanted a baby could get pregnant (presuming they would be good parents).

That all children could be born to loving parents who could afford to keep them.

That every woman in a poor country wouldn't feel forced or coerced to sell her body or her children for money.

That all children would have access to their genetic information, and that they would all be happy about the decisions the adults in their lives made before they were born.

We would all like the impossible, but it's just that, impossible. Laws are not made to support the happy outcomes, but should be drafted to prevent the harmful ones.

Adoption law has changed over the years to minimise the harm caused to children. Saying "well it sometimes worked out" or "many of them did better with adoptive parents" or "that was the thinking of the time" to excuse past adoption legislation isn't a gotcha on surrogacy legislation. The fact that we know how much harm has been done to children who were taken from their families in the past should be a warning to society that sometimes we can't achieve the impossible, we can't just have a happy family because we (as individuals) want one.

“So what would happen to the kids that were removed from their parents?

If adoption wasn’t legal, what would become of the kids? Just children’s homes?

That would be a worse outcome for the child for sure in most cases…. What is he thinking”

He is thinking that in the interests of children their birth certificates should never be altered and that families in poverty should be supported by the state so that they can stay together, that any stigma against single mothers should be ended in order that mothers and babies can stay together.

He is particularly against international adoption but also argues that nationally fostering is preferable to adoption in cases where the parents are abusive, beyond help or dead. This last part about fostering being preferable to adoption is not what I would have said myself before listening to him. I am not sure I am convinced but I accept his argument about not changing birth certificates, I’m not sure that happens in the UK, I thought that an adoption certificate was a separate document but I need to look into that further. He has an interesting and relevant argument though. I invite you to listen to him yourself to discover what he says and how you feel about it, or have a look at his website.

But I agree with you that it’s immoral for companies to target women specifically

Who the fuck else would they specifically target for egg donations? Platypuses?!?

@ldontWanna

I know it wasn't my task but I've been thinking of some safeguards and restrictions to put in place to make as fair as possible.

First of all yes, mandatory , independent and confidential psychiatric assessment prior to insemination, after ,all throughout the pregnancy and at least a year after birth. If things go wrong interventions and options to be offered.

The parents have no legal right to the baby or the mother up until birth. So the buyers can't dictate what the mother eats, does, what medicine she might need, they have no rights to decide if complications arise or any health issues.

On the money side, while they can't pay "for the baby" costs for the mother should be covered with documentation (time off work if unpaid,medical costs etc). They should also be responsible for any medical (mental or physical) costs as a direct result of the pregnancy/birth. The parents are legally responsible for this regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy. In the same manner they are financially responsible for the baby even if they don't want it. Any and all associated medical costs , finding them a new family , being looked after the state etc.

Checks on the parents , DBS , a psychiatric assessment for themselves , who are they,where do they come from,where are they going etc. No opportunities(or as least as possible) to just "disappear" in the ether.

The mother has the right to change her mind either during pregnancy or up to a year after birth. This is controversial and it has it's own downsides so I have to think on it a bit more.

The mother has her own panel of "support". Independent Doctor,lawyers ,maybe even a social worker to advise about any and all risks.

The option of being in the child's life is they so wish, unless that would be detrimental to child as assessed by an independent professional.Same for the child, full access and information to any and all information they might require, including the possibility of contact if they want to.

In case of death the baby (or the mother on their behalf if she chooses to keep the baby) is a beneficiary of the estate.

I'm sure I missed a lot(which shows how complex this is) but that's just the very least that is needed.

Well the first thing I want to know is who is paying for all of that?

As an adoptive mother I think that adoption isn't ideal. It's the least worst option for children who cannot stay with families.

I would be as against foreign adoption now as I am against surrogacy, as there is no proof that the mother's giving up their children (often to middle men) are doing so willingly - they can be coerced by expectation, by financial need, or by direct payment. It may be their "choice" but in many cases in reality there is no alternative.

Foreign adoption used to be wealthy western couples bringing "home" unwanted babies from poorer countries. As it developed into wealthy couples giving large sums of money to agencies to source babies it started down a very slippery slope.

@DaisiesandButtercups

“So what would happen to the kids that were removed from their parents?

If adoption wasn’t legal, what would become of the kids? Just children’s homes?

That would be a worse outcome for the child for sure in most cases…. What is he thinking”

He is thinking that in the interests of children their birth certificates should never be altered and that families in poverty should be supported by the state so that they can stay together, that any stigma against single mothers should be ended in order that mothers and babies can stay together.

He is particularly against international adoption but also argues that nationally fostering is preferable to adoption in cases where the parents are abusive, beyond help or dead. This last part about fostering being preferable to adoption is not what I would have said myself before listening to him. I am not sure I am convinced but I accept his argument about not changing birth certificates, I’m not sure that happens in the UK, I thought that an adoption certificate was a separate document but I need to look into that further. He has an interesting and relevant argument though. I invite you to listen to him yourself to discover what he says and how you feel about it, or have a look at his website.

The problem with fostering as opposed to adoption is that by its very nature it is impermanent and can be changed. And I would argue that that leads to insecurity for both the child and the parent and that that works against the formation of strong attachment which is exactly the thing adopted children need.

But the rest of it about it being a last resort and about inter country adoption I agree with. And I think his is a really interesting perspective and one that the adoption community should be aware of.

You seem to want the impossible

What adequate safeguarding for women and children?

There is a reason why other countries ban all surrogacy. It is not an impossible situation.

Cross post with Clymene.

And Bernard.

I agree RepentMotherfucker. I think there is something important about adoption, adoptive parents make a lifelong commitment to the child and provide stability and security which is not such a feature in the UK fostering system at least.

@ldontWanna

But I agree with you that it’s immoral for companies to target women specifically

Who the fuck else would they specifically target for egg donations? Platypuses?!?

I love Platypi. I have always been the only one in the group to not see them in the wild when we used to go bushwalking!!!

@DaisiesandButtercups

I agree RepentMotherfucker. I think there is something important about adoption, adoptive parents make a lifelong commitment to the child and provide stability and security which is not such a feature in the UK fostering system at least.

Yes absolutely. And obviously what is best for the child is at the heart of our family law. But it is incredibly hard to allow yourself to truly love a child who counld literally be removed from you at any point and children need to be loved by their families.

Commercial surrogacy and adoption for any reason other than to protect the child from abuse or neglect should remain off the cards in the UK in my opinion. Personally I would like to see a total ban on surrogacy in the UK but at the very least no changes in the current legal protections for baby and/or mother.

@RepentMotherfucker the buyers of course. What did one poster say? That the amount of money spent showed how committed they were?

I suppose though that by paying, any independent and impartial advisors for the mother wouldn't really be independent or impartial. Maybe a fund supervised and distributed by a lawyer that the mother picks or supervising committee that will be initiated and funded specifically for this purpose.

Fuck me tbh... you broke all my brain work with that question. Because I can see significant issues with every possible option (including state funded) and opportunity for exploitation. Back to thinking.

[quote ldontWanna]@RepentMotherfucker the buyers of course. What did one poster say? That the amount of money spent showed how committed they were?

I suppose though that by paying, any independent and impartial advisors for the mother wouldn't really be independent or impartial. Maybe a fund supervised and distributed by a lawyer that the mother picks or supervising committee that will be initiated and funded specifically for this purpose.

Fuck me tbh... you broke all my brain work with that question. Because I can see significant issues with every possible option (including state funded) and opportunity for exploitation. Back to thinking. [/quote]
Sorry. It wasn't even your job [blush

@DaisiesandButtercups

Commercial surrogacy and adoption for any reason other than to protect the child from abuse or neglect should remain off the cards in the UK in my opinion. Personally I would like to see a total ban on surrogacy in the UK but at the very least no changes in the current legal protections for baby and/or mother.

Yes I agree. I have always assumed that the loophole for altruistic surrogacy was because it would just be too hard to police.

[quote ldontWanna]@RepentMotherfucker the buyers of course. What did one poster say? That the amount of money spent showed how committed they were?

I suppose though that by paying, any independent and impartial advisors for the mother wouldn't really be independent or impartial. Maybe a fund supervised and distributed by a lawyer that the mother picks or supervising committee that will be initiated and funded specifically for this purpose.

Fuck me tbh... you broke all my brain work with that question. Because I can see significant issues with every possible option (including state funded) and opportunity for exploitation. Back to thinking. [/quote]
You could just use whatever they use for international adoption I suppose? AFAIK the adoptive parents pay for all that. But yes, you would still have to add a level of protection for the mother. I say just continue to ban it.

**We could start listing all the possible health risks if you want. Over nine months plus pre pregnancy treatment, it is so much more risky than a routine operation.

I am surprised that you, who have had two children, cannot acknowledge that.

Well, I just had one and it resulted in a pretty traumatic c section. That was totally unforeseen. So, I guess I have a good insight into just what the risks are even with a ‘normal’ pregnancy**

No no, we’re taking currently about donor eggs….. you’re bringing it back to surrogacy but the debate we’ve both been referring to in the last few posts have been regarding donor eggs and positives/negatives.

They are very different things. You know my questions and answers were regarding a woman’s ability to decide if she wants to donate her eggs. So why are you going off point?

@RepentMotherfucker haha it's ok. I guess it just shows how difficult and complex this is ,even when you have the best intentions. Ofc , that's only if you want to protect the interests of the most vulnerable in this transaction.

@crunchermuncher

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.

@starcup

So do you have any thoughts on this?