Article about surrogacy in The Guardian

[IcakethereforeIam]

It's quite long and mostly skewed but there is some input from a woman against it.

The gay male couple got my back up, they seem to think the only problem with women being trafficked for sex is that the women don't get the money! I hope that was an editing cockup.

I mean… in a very real sense, they are exported. Actual human beings, made to order and exported. There’s money to be made in doing so.

There’s no point in euphemising any of it.

It’s the acceptable face of human trafficking. In fact, not just acceptable, presented as the progressive way of doing things.

This!

I like the way the article got criticisms in by quoting some social media comments.

Agreed that being able to reproduce is not a right for anybody, never mind your sexual orientation or if you are partnered or not. This is because we have no parthenogenesis, so if someone has the right to reproduce, then another person must somehow be made to participate in this.

I see a global breeder class developing here, with poor women, often in third world countries, being paid to rent out their bodies at some risk for themselves.

And this is also part and parcel of the commercialisation of access to the female body, together with prostitution.

I can’t cope with that article. Makes me so angry

The part about Father's Day seemed like an important part. It was almost like they feel left out of having the ultimate gay status/wealth symbol: kids.

"While they wait for a decision, Maggipinto and Briskin must endure the heartache of watching the children of their wealthy gay friends grow up. We meet the day after Father’s Day. “We just took care of my nephew when my sister needed help,” Maggipinto tells me. “It’s so awkward for me to wish my brother-in-law Happy Father’s Day.”
“Not everybody wants to have children, and I get that; it’s not a necessary part of one’s existence on this Earth,” Briskin says. “But if you are among those who do have the desire to procreate, no one wants to be told there is no way to achieve that.”
Maggipinto nods. “Especially if there is.”"

I think the journalist knew what they were doing...

i thought that the obvious answer was Co parenting with someone of the opposite sex. Totally avoids the need for surrogacy but of course they would then have to co parent

Interesting article and I think well structured in fact.

I would have liked more followup on the babies who weren't able to be exported to their buyers due to Covid as well as war. Those babies are toddlers now. I wonder where they are.

Can you imagine having to coparent with those two? And to be honest I don't think coparenting would be good enough for them....they want their new toy all to themselves.

I suspect, until the novelty wears off and it’s just exhausting and no glamour. Then I suspect their coparent(s) would be doing all the heavy lifting while they have the odd bit that looks nice on instagram.

Quite noticeable that the article referred to the views of "gender critical feminists" in a neutral and factual way. Big change.

Yes. It’s palpable. Tide is turning.

I have a feeling that the main couple in the story have been positively raging since the piece was published!

It’s not like there are no alternatives for gay couples. Glenn Greenwald and his partner David Miranda (who is currently very sick, unfortunately) fulfilled their wish of becoming parents by adopting two street-kids, and they all (kids included) come across as very happy with this choice.

Comparing surrogacy with sex work (one of the gay men) was a massive yuck for me. They sounded very entitled. Women (gay or straight) who can’t have children should be helped but men can’t bear children. It’s just a fact. They can adopt or foster but babies require women. I hate the idea of women being a comodity. It doesn’t seem in the babies or women’s interest.

It's so wrong. You can't take kittens aware from their mother before 8 weeks, but removing babies immediately is just fine? Wicked.

Wow, yes.

The problem with adoption I would think, is that it's child centred.

It comes with in-depth interviews on individual psychology and suitability for parenting, including being able to place the child's needs first
It comes with hours of training and expectations of showing up and preparing
During which prospective parents need to face that this is not anyone's first choice, not the parents and not the child's and that the child is not a blank slate on which to enact personal parenting desires. It also teaches that trying to act with your child as if the person who gave birth to them never existed does not go well for the child's happiness as they grow, and is likely to come back to bite you.
It comes with knowledge and information from adult adoptees sharing the uncomfortable feelings of anger, confusion, loss, grief, the difference between a parent celebrating their 'gotcha' day and the child who experiences that day as a loss they're not allowed to talk about. And that parents who adopt need to accept and help their children with this, including when the child's feelings are uncomfortable to the parents and their wish for the past/biological history to not matter in the new happy family.
It comes with vetting and gatekeeping and not all pass
It comes with monitoring and scrutiny

The welfare and needs of the child are at the top of everyone's agenda throughout, in order to protect the child and place the highest likelihood possible on the adoption succeeding.

One of the most worrying things regarding surrogacy to me is the total lack of any of the above.

Terrible comment about adoption.
It sounds as if his sister isn't rushing to offer surrogacy services. Possibly her husband is alert to their entitlement as they begrudgingly mumble Happy Father's Day.

I found this woman's story interesting:

"I was a little taken back – not taken aback, but surprised – when the guys left. We had got so used to seeing each other every day – they were here for about four weeks around delivery – so making that transition … ” she shrugs. “I didn’t expect to feel that sadness.” But it was easier the second time around, when she gave birth to their son. “I knew what to expect, and how we had fallen into the rhythm of our relationship. I could prepare for the sadness of their leaving, but I knew it wasn’t the end.”

Somehow she has repurposed her feelings at giving up a baby as sadness at losing close contact with the people she has handed over the baby to. And she used part of her surrogacy fee to take the family on a trip to France to visit her commissioning parents and then babies she carried!

Does anyone else wonder about the styling of the cover photo? Is it a blatant reference to slavery or am I the only one to think that?

I mean, the fact that they refer to women (mothers) as gestational carriers tells you all you need to know. 'This is the age of dehumanisation.' That's from an Arch Enemy song I first heard when I was 16. I'm 34 now and it seems more apt than ever.

I came across this article in the DM and was looking for somewhere to park it. It's a nasty little coda, although (as though things aren't hard enough for women struggling to conceive their children) surrogacy isn't mentioned, i assume it may be of concern to those women too.

I'd forgotten I'd started this thread.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12462201/ivf-women-stroke-risk-pregnancy-rutgers-study.html

It's a huge study of over 31 million women.

"They reviewed the records of more than 31 million women who delivered babies between 2010 and 2018.
Of the pregnant women in the study, 287,000 — less than one percent — had undergone fertility treatment in order to conceive.
Data showed there was a hospitalization rate of 37 readmissions per 100,000 women within 12 months for those who underwent fertility treatments.

Among women who underwent treatment, 52 — 18 per 100,000 — were hospitalized for a hemorrhagic stroke."

Women undertaking gestational surrogacy are at increased risk of things like preeclampsia same as women having IVF and using a donor egg. It's possible/likely some of the women in the study were surrogate mothers as they reviewed all women who delivered babies and probably and looked at fertility treatment but probably didn't pick out the fact of surrogacy in those cases .

I know egg donation is also a risk for stroke, especially if OHSS occurs. At least one woman who had a stroke was featured in Jennifer Lahl's film "Eggsploitation".

But for those who got pregnant naturally, this rate dropped to 29 per 100,000.

an awful lot to really dislike in that article, even though there are elements of balance there.

in particular, I detest the idea that surrogates shouldn't be financially well compensated/that 'it shouldn't be about the money'. surrogates are being asked to give an extraordinary amount.

In order to find a place for yesterday's DM article I realise I resurrected a thread well on the way to being a zombie. But, I reread the original article and, as one of the guys mentioned hhad a rather unique name, I googled him. I got a lot of LinkedIn type stuff and a bunch of similar articles from around the same date as the original Guardian piece. So, i read some of them. Perhaps it was the luck of the drawer, but the ones i saw didn't mention the women at all.

I don't know how the case is proceeding.

I wonder if, knowing how IVF or IUI increases the inherent dangers of pregnancy, these entitled guys would think twice. I'm betting 100% that they won't.

Yes, I had forgotten about the article but rereading it is rage inducing. They come across so entitled and angry, all that finger tapping on the table as they make their point.

Slight derail but Dustin Lance Black is another one who gets angry when denied what he wants. When I first listened to his BBC series on surrogacy (a looong time ago, 2018, it popped up on the radio as I was driving home from work and that is what alerted me to plans afoot to change the law in the U.K.) I noted that although he mostly presents very well, coming across as urbane and likeable much of the time, when someone expresses a point of view he doesn't like there was noticeable suppressed rage. I'd have to listen to the whole series again to find the specific examples but I remember noting it. A propo of nothing he is currently embroiled in a court case where he is alleged to have assaulted a woman in a bar. The case has been deferred until November I believe.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06ttwct?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

So do we not know if they won their case OP?