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?

And I suggest you look up some of the US stories of egg donors who may die, have strokes directly after or loose their own reproductive capacity because they get paid to produce and donate eggs. (Sometimes going to Canada to be ‘harvested’).

Please tell us how putting a donor’s body into hyper ovulation for someone else’s benefit is not exploiting them. Even with full consent.

Adoption is a necessity as the child is already there amd yes the fact that money isn’t changing hands is significant. There isn’t a woman being treated like a commodity at the centre of it.

@TreesoftheField Why is surrogacy massively in the interest of men? I would've thought it was for women a lot more so.

[quote Blackbird1234]@TreesoftheField Why is surrogacy massively in the interest of men? I would've thought it was for women a lot more so.[/quote]
Gay men can't acquire a newborn any other way really

LI would've thought it was for women a lot more so.
Why?

The other thing with adoption in the UK is that private adoptions aren't allowed. Adopters have to have a social services assessment, and as has been said, the priority is finding the right parents for the child, not finding a child for the parents.

[quote Blackbird1234]@TreesoftheField Why is surrogacy massively in the interest of men? I would've thought it was for women a lot more so.[/quote]
You're raising a lot of different points and not coming back to say what you think about the answers OP.

Lots of posters have said very intelligent things about the comparison you raised with adoption. Can you now see why surrogacy is different?

@NynaeveSedai Ah, didnt think of that! Are there any stats on the percentage of surrogate "buyers" being gay men?

@PurpleDaisies Probably a naive/stereotypical view, but I would've thought that it would be women who would try absolutely every single avenue to acquire a child rather than men. When I think of a baby, I think of a woman, not a man and that a man would find it easier to live without one, rather than consider surrogacy.

The baby can't consent.

This, we have to think of the rights of the unborn child.

Probably a naive/stereotypical view, but I would've thought that it would be women who would try absolutely every single avenue to acquire a child rather than men.

It’s a lazy assumption that infertile women want to exploit other women to have a baby.

Gay men can't acquire a newborn any other way really

Men exploiting women again, when will it stop?

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

LOL.

Rich women don't sign up to have babies for other people, except in vanishingly rare cases of doing it for an infertile sister/ friend etc. and no money changes hands.

Paid surrogacy is a terrible abuse of women and babies. Men and women who buy babies make me sick.

@RepentMotherfucker I haven't come back and "shared what I think of the answers" as the thread was started less than an hour ago, so not much time to assume a full opinion on a matter I know little about - hence me posting to find out more.

So far, I agree that surrogacy in terms of a family member providing a baby for another family member, thus the child growing up with the bio mum and the new mum is ok. The other type that most posters have spoken about doesn't sit right with me and I see why it isn't necessarily a good thing that all parties can consent to, so probably not a very good thing to do.

Gay men can't acquire a newborn any other way really

So what?

No man or woman has the right to "acquire" a newborn baby.

Women weren't put on Earth to fulfill gay men's needs. Or any other men's needs for that matter.

Show me a rich surrogate and I might change my mind.

@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?

I've mentioned this before on a similar thread but I was adopted as a baby. My birth mother voluntarily gave me up for adoption and had another child within a year, who she kept. I had a very happy, loving childhood with my adoptive parents, but the knowledge that I was given up by the very first person who was supposed to love and care for me is nothing but painful, frankly.

The situation of a child being separated from it's mother is not one which people should purposely create. It's a situation which will occasionally have to occur, when a parent is unable or unwilling to look after their child, but it's not one which adults should be creating.

I'd have a very different opinion of my adoptive parents if I found out that they had essentially commissioned me and that I'd been conceived for the purpose of being given away. Not only would I not have a parental relationship with my birth mother, but I'd have a very conflicted one with my adoptive parents.

@PurpleDaisies I'm not assuming that infertile women are fine to exploit other women, I'm not sure where you got that from? Until about an hour ago I thought that surrogacy was fine in most cases because I didnt know the reality of it. My assumption is that a woman is more likely than a man to try and acquire a baby if they're infertile, but would assume that most women who arent savvy about surrogacy would then think "fuck that" once they found out more about it, like me.

@PurpleDaisies

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

How often do you think that actually happens?

I’m curious about this. I knew someone who tried several times with one surrogate but it didn’t end in a pregnancy, and then several times with another.

All women were comfortable financially (as far as she was aware) so there was no financial manipulation or advantage, and indeed she was paying extraordinary sums to cover their “costs and expenses”.

@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?

Because the main party in surrogacy is the baby. Who clearly has no say in the whole process. The birth mother is sidelined after she’s paid money to put herself at risk of many things, both physical and mental. Human beings, even unborn ones, are not commodities to be bought and sold.

@ontana

Yeah that's why loads of really wealthy women sign up for it out of pure altruism

This.

@ontana

Yeah that's why loads of really wealthy women sign up for it out of pure altruism

Could you provide evidence of this?

[quote Blackbird1234]@RepentMotherfucker I haven't come back and "shared what I think of the answers" as the thread was started less than an hour ago, so not much time to assume a full opinion on a matter I know little about - hence me posting to find out more.

So far, I agree that surrogacy in terms of a family member providing a baby for another family member, thus the child growing up with the bio mum and the new mum is ok. The other type that most posters have spoken about doesn't sit right with me and I see why it isn't necessarily a good thing that all parties can consent to, so probably not a very good thing to do.[/quote]
Excellent. I am glad that that point has been made.

I don't agree that a baby who is brought up by its (for e.g.) biological aunt will be 'growing up with its bio mum' and actually I can foresee enormous identity issues for that child and for the biological mother.

But I am glad to see that you aren't going to be using adoption as a comparable situation anymore.

Look up the Ozturk family in Georgia. They "commisioned" 20 babies in a year and employ 16 nannies.
Nothing can convince me that's ethical. Its extreme, but part of the reality of surrogacy.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

If all parties consent and it is a voluntary offer by someone who knows the person who wants a child (sister having a child for childless and desperate sister, for instance) then I think there is nothing wrong with it.

If it is a wealthy Westerner using the body of a woman in a poor country and paying money, then it's just another form of slavery; twice over, because the mother's body is bought and the child is also bought.

If you read the section on "Targeting the vulnerable" at www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47826356
you will get an idea of the purely practical objections, even leaving to one said any question of the mental health of either mother or infant.

How do they get the baby’s consent?