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 don't have an issue with surrogacy if the baby has no genetic link to the surrogate.

A baby is formed from the body of its mother and the mother will carry fetal cells from that baby potentially forever in her own body. The mother who carries and births the baby isn't a sterile and interchangeable nest, her and the baby are linked forever.

I can’t imagine circumstances in which I would be willing to risk someone else’s physical and mental health to that extent in order to fulfill my own desires. No matter how enthusiastic they were about helping me.

[quote ontana]@Soontobe60 I was being sarcastic [/quote]
Apologies, I’ve got the rage reading some of these posts!

Babies don't care about gametes. They care about the bond they build with their mother - the woman whose heart beat they hear, the women who grows them in her body.

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

Are you aware @bonetiredwithtwins that the risks of pregnancy are massively increased when carrying a baby conceived with a donor egg?

Do you think putting more than 25% of surrogates and babies at risk of serious complications is acceptable?

https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/assisted-reproduction-using-donated-eggs-has-higher-risk-of-complications-for-mothers-and-babies/

Extract:

Assisted reproduction with donated eggs carries about double the chance of some risks for mothers and babies when compared to pregnancies from natural conceptions or assisted reproduction using the woman’s own eggs. These risks include high blood pressure and pre-eclampsia, preterm birth, low birthweight and a higher risk of caesarean section. In multiple pregnancies, high blood pressure and pre-eclampsia can affect more than 25% of mothers carrying multiple pregnancies following donated eggs.
This systematic review included a large sample of 16,000 women receiving donor eggs from 35 observational studies and national registers. The authors adjusted for the influence of maternal characteristics and multiple pregnancies which can also affect risk of these complications.

On top of all the other points that have been made, there doesn't seem to be any safeguarding at all involved. There is nothing to stop paedophiles buying babies by this means.

@PurpleDaisies Are you saying that I, specifically, am blaming infertile women for surrogacy? Or are you saying that in a general way that they are usually the ones being blamed by society?

@Coyoacan Wow, that's terrifying!!

@Coyoacan

On top of all the other points that have been made, there doesn't seem to be any safeguarding at all involved. There is nothing to stop paedophiles buying babies by this means.

Very true.

Unlike with adoption, in the U.K. at least, where adoptive parents are vetted and prepared, there are no checks and safeguards for 'surrogate' parents.

So, do you get it now then, OP?

I know someone who was a surrogate. She is a professional woman with a husband and 3 of her own children. She had absolutely no financial need to be a surrogate and she put herself forward after reading about someone who couldn’t get pregnant. The egg and sperm were from the couple she was surrogate for. It was straightforward and successful: she has no regrets at all: it was simply something she says she had always wanted to do,

@ThirdElephant I do, thanks! I genuinely knew hardly anything at all about it and assumed it was a very rare and very kind thing that some people are ok to do for other people, so I'm glad I've learnt thats not the case :)

I haven’t read all the posts so sorry for this has been said before but (through work) I know about the legal side of things. To all of the people who say that it doesn’t consider a child’s right to their “biological family” I am not sure if you are aware that in order for it to legally be a surrogacy agreement/situation in UK law the baby HAS to be biologically related to at least one of the parents (not the woman that carried them). So either has to have the mothers egg or fathers sperm and then placed in the surrogate. Very rarely is a surrogate carrying a child that is biologically related to her. This applies even if the baby was born outside of the UK. To get a parental order here (the order that makes surrogacy legal) you have to prove a direct biological link. Otherwise it is just inter-country adoption (totally different beast).

So often the surrogate has no biological link to the child. Also UK law says that there is only allowed to be “reasonable expenses” currently set about £15-20k. This sum applies regardless of where the child is born and doesn’t go far in the UK for in country surrogates (there are a number of agencies who have British, well informed, altruistic women on their books) BUT it goes a lot further in poorer countries hence why more women there are willing to sign up (often equivalent to a year or two’s wages). America has a huge surrogacy “market” but bringing the babies back here is really tricky as they charge £100k+ and the UK can’t qualify that as reasonable expenses and so it is considered buying a baby! That’s not to say the Uber wealthy can’t find a way round it but there is a LOT of red tape, huge court costs and often they have to end up adopting the child even if they are biologically related as the courts won’t make the orders.

In addition to the many excellent points raised by other posters I would also add that surrogacy epigenetics means that the surrogate can influence the development of the child, it isn’t as simple as the egg and the sperm coming from the ‘parents’ determining the health outcomes of the baby. The surrogate mother also has an influence. She is inextricably linked to that baby forever, she isn’t merely an incubator.
www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/making-babies/0/steps/15924

@Oneforthemoneytwo That's exactly what I thought it was in all cases, just a very kind, rare gift. How lovely of your friend :)

Humans aren't for sale, who wants a human baby slave?

So often the surrogate has no biological link to the child.

No, Unsure, that is not true. The mother who gestates and births the child has an extremely strong biological link to that child and vice versa. Wombs aren't inert incubators. Babies are plumbed into their mothers bodies, you don't get a much stronger biological link than that.

@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.

Yes. Babies do recognise the difference.

Down the physiological changes in their hormones when they're being held by their mum Vs someone who is not their mum.

They can recognise their mothers smell, voice, heartbeat, touch, gait etc.

As mammals, they deserve their mother's milk. The only person who should veto that is the birth mother and that's after making an informed decision. But they really do deserve the opportunity to be with the person who can give them that.

@Oneforthemoneytwo

I know someone who was a surrogate. She is a professional woman with a husband and 3 of her own children. She had absolutely no financial need to be a surrogate and she put herself forward after reading about someone who couldn’t get pregnant. The egg and sperm were from the couple she was surrogate for. It was straightforward and successful: she has no regrets at all: it was simply something she says she had always wanted to do,

That's very selfless, but surely a vanishingly rare scenario, which doesn't change the ethics of the issue (bit like the 'happy hooker).

It's great that it worked out for your friend but as many people have pointed out here, it's an ethical, emotional& physical car crash for most mothers and babies. The fact that it's not harmful 100% of the time doesn't make it morally right, or a good idea.

It's great that it worked out for your friend but as many people have pointed out here, it's an ethical, emotional& physical car crash for most mothers and babies. The fact that it's not harmful 100% of the time doesn't make it morally right, or a good idea.

We can't say it wasn't harmful to the baby.

I don't think the baby's consent is a reasonable argument. Babies are unable to consent to everything but the decision to drink milk

But that's why as parents we need to make decisions that are in the child's best interests, and that should apply pre-conception too. It's not a responsible or child-focused decision to create a life knowing you will remove it from it's biological mother. There are other ways to be a parent. I say this as someone who has had 4 miscarriages.

I am genuinely shocked by the comments here that seem to see a womans womb and pregnancy as of no biological significance to either her or the baby, as long as the embryo isn't hers!

This is how surrogacy is damaging. You have bought into this myth which devalues both mothers (the one who carries the baby) and babies.

Pregnancy may be natural but it is neither effortless nor risk free and leaves physical changes on/in the woman for ever. We are not incubators!

@ThirdElephant

It's great that it worked out for your friend but as many people have pointed out here, it's an ethical, emotional& physical car crash for most mothers and babies. The fact that it's not harmful 100% of the time doesn't make it morally right, or a good idea.

We can't say it wasn't harmful to the baby.

Very true.

And if a woman is simply treated as a gestator with a womb to rent (even as a gift) what is the next step? Growing infants in bags for parents?

@Oneforthemoneytwo I know someone who did that too.
Had her own business, two dcs of her own and was passionate about supporting women/pregnant women
She saw surrogacy as a way to support another woman and to give a beautiful gift.