Surrogacy summed up in one photo

[Imnobody4]

This is absolutely chilling, twitter.com/liambrunetti/status/1540966900556959744?t=l6UnV24IZ7Kzv0-MrClalA&s=09

It doesn’t matter if it was a surrogate egg, this is still the mother

The mother is the woman in whose body the baby develops and who then gives birth to the baby. In the UK this is how we define motherhood legally.

From what I can see, she chose to be a surrogate. Her body, her choice

Where do we draw the line on that? Paid kidney donation? Or living cornea donations? We know that pregnancy and birth take a major toll on the mother, almost without exception. There's plenty of evidence that almost all surrogates are already mothers, with other children who are at risk if they lose a parent. Also more evidence that there is a toll on babies who are immediately taken from their birth mother (even if it's by wonderful and caring people). Unfortunately also plenty of examples of surrogacy gone wrong.

Paid surrogacy is often done with good intentions. But given all of the above - it's not as simple as saying 'her body her choice'.

Yeh cos they think it’s the “best” one.

@FunnyTalks read it as a response to the comments re reducing the woman to a cattle status, knowing her place, the woman only being regarded as a uterus, etc. There could've been a woman at the forefront, together with the one (blurred, lurking, etc.) at the back.

There's two different issues for me on this thread (I'm sure I'll be told if I'm wrong!)

1. Is the photo offensive to women/ undermining carrying a baby/ giving birth (I don't think it is)

1. Opinions on surrogacy - I don't know where I stand on this tbh.

I once had a client who was carrying a baby for another couple. She commissioned a custom, thoughtful gift for the parents and she seemed to be absolutely thrilled about them and happy with her choice to do that.

That poor baby. In a few months it'll be taken from its mother and probably never see her again.

In any other context, everybody would agree it's tragic. But when it's a surrogate, it's "her body her choice."

I agree with pp she probably wanted to be less identifiable but I feel for the baby who will be removed from their mother

Unless it’s shared care (which I doubt) but even then time apart

Yeah, it's pure narcissism. Faceless woman and baby are practically blurred out in the background, all the focus is on them.

They have commissioned her to sell them her baby. There's nothing charming about it. Commercial surrogacy is banned in most of Europe.

It's very telling that abortion is banned but buying babies is big business in the US.

I’m thinking the exact same thing

It’s amazing how surrogacy makes people think and talk in such appropriating , creepy ways. I heard two women talking in public the other day about their ivf struggles and they wanted to consider surrogacy. One woman said “it’s so much better in America. The baby isn’t the property of the surrogate but is the parents property. And they don’t have to wait a year to adopt their own child.” Women two then interjected with “it’s shocking the surrogate could just steal their baby if she wanted to in the U.K. it’s sickening to me that she’s called the legal mother . She’s not a mother at all.” These women both desperately want to have kids and seem perfectly nice but the way they were talking about surrogacy like it was purely transactional was very chilling.

Handmaid’s Tale.. Are we but broodmares to these men?

If it's okay to sell your babies, why isn't it okay to sell your children?

I wonder how the person these men are commissioning will feel about this photograph in years to come?

When they're past the cute awww baby and toddler stage, the decade or two that they'll be providing an experience for those men and have a life of their own to live. Many adoptive adults explain how difficult it is to live with being a desired acquisition of parents, and supposed to share in their parents' view of this being lovely, and the role of their biological mother being subordinated and minimised as inconvenient. And that woman, whether her body is growing her own genetic material or not, is the child's biological mother.

Isn't one of the men likely to be the baby's father? It's not like it's been put up for sale in a slave auction.

This is an interesting post in view of the story earlier in the week about a Nigerian teen allegedly trafficked to London to be used as a living kidney donor for a wealthy and influential family. I think most people reading that story would have felt sickened and horrified, yet surrogacy is accepted . Hard to see the difference really especially when it seems that what actually drives the trade is who has money and who doesn’t.

You need kidneys to live so it is a bit different.

Possibly @ancientgran but who knows. Men have paid women before to have babies for them to abuse (I'm not saying these men are abusive).

The point is that buying and selling other human beings is wrong. No matter what age they are. Inflicting a profound trauma on a baby by removing it from its mother immediately after birth is wrong.

We treat puppies better.

Where do we draw the line on that? Paid kidney donation? Or living cornea donations? We know that pregnancy and birth take a major toll on the mother, almost without exception. There's plenty of evidence that almost all surrogates are already mothers, with other children who are at risk if they lose a parent.

What about a parent who does a dangerous job and takes money (wages) for doing it. Do you think it is OK for their children? I mean anyone from a firefighter to racing car driver is taking a risk. My husband was a police officer, he was permanently disabled in the line of duty when I was pregnant, it has had a big impact on our children, he could never carry them round, never have a game of football with them. I because his carer as well bringing up 4 kids.

It is hard to know where to draw the line isn't it. Particularly hard with DH who was a rank who could have been happily sat at his desk but decided to be out there with his unit.

You need kidneys to live so it is a bit different.

You only need one kidney to live, so why not the freedom to sell the other one, if its 'your body, your choice'?

You get paid for donating blood in America, and there are a lot of concerns that poor people who need the money are donating too often and it's impacting their health.

If the child is going to it's father is it selling the baby or just compensation for what the mother has done?

If being a surrogate is such a great gift and it's all about 'choice', then how come it's not wealthy women gifting their babies to other people?

Yes you do only need one but it is nice to have back up isn't it. I know someone who had a kidney donated by their father, it was very upsetting as it was rejected so father was left with one kidney and son still desperately ill.

Ugh, that's awful. I might disagree with their seeming "perfectly nice".