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?

I adopted my youngest daughter, she was placed in my care at birth, with her birth mothers consent (very complex situation)
Her life start therefore from a place of loss, the loss of the only heartbeat she'd ever known, the 4th trimester is a real thing (read the primal wound etc for further info on this)
It took time for my heartbeat to calm her, for my smell to comfort her. Our journey was smooth, she was adopted by 6 months and I am the only mother she will ever know, but to willingly choose to do this is in my mind wrong. To conceive a child with the aim of calculatingly taking it from its mother at birth for whatever reason cannot be right. Surrogacy is not for the child's benefit it is for the benefit of the parents/adults and that means I cannot agree with it. Adults can consent, the child cannot.

Apart from the commodification of children, the exploitation of poor women, the risk that young women will be trafficked to be surrogates...
It is creating children who have attachment disorder. Imo, as an adopter, not enough people understand attachment or brain development
We wouldn't remove kittens or puppies like we do babies. Can people honestly not see the harm

Gay men can co-parent. This was very common with lesbian couples.

Men can't have babies. Anyone who has a problem getting their head around this simple concept needs to get therapy.

"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."

Good to see you here @TheCloudBotherer for you from this adoptive parent.

I'm hoping they won't mind but below is the excellent full post from @OhHolyJesus on a different thread. It is an example of a surrogacy arrangement where all the adults had consented but it isn't difficult to spot some major ethical problems here.

In the case of Jeff Lewis and Gage Edwards, as explained by OhHolyJesus:

"The woman who was their surrogate-born daughter is called Alexandra Trent...Alexandra didn't consent to the birth being by filmed or broadcast, more specifically she didn't agree to having her vagina being filmed. The first time she became aware that her consent had not been respected was when she heard about it from a business associate. She then saw the footage online. She claims that neither her nor the medical staff were aware of the cameras rolling whilst she was screaming mid-labour and that she was filmed from behind a curtain. She is suing the TV company.

"“If I was a surrogate, and I had known there was going to be an audience, I probably would have waxed,” Lewis said on the broadcast. “And that was the shocking part for Gage. I don’t think Gage had ever seen a vagina, let alone one that big.”
Trent said she met Lewis and Edward in early 2015 when she responded to a classified ad. She had no idea she would be on a reality show, and had no interest in putting her life on display. She said she agreed to be their surrogate, and consented to the filming of ultrasound appointments to help promote the option of surrogacy."

variety.com/2018/biz/news/flipping-out-bravo-trent-1202844060/

Incidentally Lewis and Edwards are now divorced and there has been a long and acrimonious legal battle of their daughter, Monroe, including shared custody and a proposed name change, using the DNA argument to claim 'ownership'.

people.com/home/jeff-lewis-says-daughter-is-biologically-my-child-as-he-rails-against-50-50-custody-proposal/

Lewis has been 'matched' with a new surrogate mother and he has been in legal discussions with Edwards regarding the remaining, frozen embryos in order to obtain a full-sibling for Monroe."

@RepentBirthingPersonFucker

Apart from the commodification of children, the exploitation of poor women, the risk that young women will be trafficked to be surrogates... It is creating children who have attachment disorder. Imo, as an adopter, not enough people understand attachment or brain development We wouldn't remove kittens or puppies like we do babies. Can people honestly not see the harm

Hello name twin.

How weird we're both adopters!

We don't allow people to buy babies or buy kidneys. I really don't see how commercial surrogacy is any different. If anything it's worse.

I think there are probably examples you can point to where a woman may have e.g. volunteered to be a surrogate for her sister but even then you have to be careful. I once read a Julie Bindel article which highlighted cases where women had been pressured into doing it by their family and were traumatised by the whole experience.

So many of the conversations around surrogacy focus on the commissioning parents and their wants and needs. You can read a full interview with such people and the woman carrying the baby will not be mentioned. In situations where the commissioning parents talk about a miscarriage happening, they don't mention the woman who experienced the miscarriage only how sad they are and what a crushing disappointment it was on their "journey". There is never a reference to the health of the woman who carried/is carrying the Childe.

@ScreamingBeans

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.

Yeah I know I was replying to someone else, I don't think this means it's ok for gay men to buy babies

@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?

It's no different to using donor eggs/sperm surely. Isn't this also effectively "buying" a baby? But there seems to be less of an objection to use of donors - though I would have thought there is greater moral and ethical implications of that for the future child than a surrogate child who is the genetic/biological child of the intended parents

I don't have an issue with surrogacy if the baby has no genetic link to the surrogate. I know several couples who had a family member act as a surrogate for them

@Soontobe60 I was being sarcastic

@MrsPelligrinoPetrichor

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

It doesn't happen or if it does it's vanishingly rare.

It's all about what the adults want, not about the child at all.

Oh you mean when Kim Kardashian asked her huge extended family , all with access to the best medical care, to be her surrogate and they said yes, nothing would make us happier to risk our physical and emotional health to help you to achieve your dreams. Oh, sorry, that never happened did it.

@RepentMotherfuckerJust to be clear, I wasnt comparing surrogacy and adoption, even before I knew the facts I do now. My point was - a lot of people said that the main reason was that it was "buying" a child, so I wondered if their opinion was the same or different if money wasnt involved and I didnt think there was any money exchanged in adoption.

A friend of mine has JUST had a baby. The baby is a gorgeous, beautiful, vulnerable person that SHE has carried for nine months. The baby’s cells are in her body forever now. Her uterus held the baby, her blood nourished the baby. The food she ate and the liquids she consumed nourished them both. The baby knows her voice, her smell, has gained her antibodies and has had her colostrum. If that baby was involuntarily removed from her right now in the hospital room and abducted, there would be a massive man hunt, an outcry. The medical professionals would know the harm being done to that baby by being taken.

The fact that in surrogacy that situation has been created voluntarily by people other than the baby still means the baby suffers trauma surely! The baby doesn’t go ‘oh yeah, it’s ok I’ve been taken from my mother because I’ve been commissioned. Chill..’

The situation of being motherless and the ensuing trauma persists beyond being newborn, obviously.

Surrogacy is banned in large parts of Europe.

Commissioning a woman to undertake a risky pregnancy and birth to create a baby for sale is morally, ethically and biologically wrong.

Explaining to an adopted child why their biological mother gave them up (or was forced to give them up) is unspeakably difficult. I cannot imagine trying to explain to a child that their mother sold them.

[quote Blackbird1234]@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.[/quote]
Ok.
It’s a lazy assumption that it’s infertile women pushing for this.

It's no different to using donor eggs/sperm surely. Isn't this also effectively "buying" a baby?

No, sperm and eggs are not the same as fully formed independently existing infant human people

It’s not the case that a lot of posters said payment was the main reason. Posters outlined a number of reasons.

As I mentioned above. Money isn't the main issue here. Its much bigger than that, it's the trauma that is being done to children coldly and calculatingly.

@PatriotCanes

Because think of all the children who were adopted in the 1950s, 1960s and1970s and who have suffered because of the way it was handled because we didn't know better at the time.

Because think of all the children born from sperm donation in the 1970s and 1980s and who have suffered because of the way it was handled because we didn't know better at the time.

We know now children who are removed from their mothers at birth suffer. We know now children who do not know about their biological/genetic history suffer. We know selling children is wrong. And yet surrogacy is suddenly absolutely fine and doesn't harm the children involved at all?

This is different though. We are talking about a surrogate, aka the baby has no genetic link to the woman who carried that baby.

On thé other side, thé baby should have a genetic link with the mother and /or father who adopt them.

Which raises a few questions which I don’t think I’ve ever seen an answer to:

• Is the genetic link to a parent (egg or sperm) extremely strong for the baby? Do they ‘know’ that the parent raising them has/hasn’t that genetic link? I’m thinking if the implication with surrogacy but also egg and sperm donation.
• is the link the the woman who carry the baby the strongest link for the baby? Again, a good question to ask both in case of egg donation and in case of surrogacy.

I am not sure we actually know the answer as surrogacy is really an really new procedure. But I think they are valid questions to ask.

See for example, the impact that being raised by a man who isn’t genetically your father can have (Many situations there from sperm donation to women having an affair etc….)

is the link the the woman who carry the baby the strongest link for the baby?

Yes. The baby knows the woman who carried them as their mother and nobody else.

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

This is very rare (for good reason). And it would still be bad for the baby.

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.

I think if anything could be described as genuinely altruistic, you'd have to be able to decline at any moment without consequences. I just can't see how that works in a family. You agree to have a baby for your sister to raise but then change your mind. You agree to have a baby for your sister to raise but get pregnant and need an abortion. You agree to have a baby for your sister to raise but can't give it up. You agree to have a baby for your sister to raise but it has a disability and she doesn't want it.

Any of these scenarios is fairly likely and doesn't even touch on the normal outcomes of pregnancy for women. None of them, I think, would leave a family intact so I do not believe that altruistic surrogacy is possible.

@PurpleDaisies Who do you think is pushing for it?

[quote Blackbird1234]@PurpleDaisies Who do you think is pushing for it?[/quote]
Gay men, women who don’t want the effects of pregnancy of their own body, couples who can’t have kids.

Just blame the barrens for surrogacy. Fucking lazy.