Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Thread gallery
11
Madeintheshade · 17/06/2023 21:17

LoobiJee · 17/06/2023 21:13

“Given we accept a small amount of risk in other procreation scenarios - for instance when there is a danger of genetically transmitted conditions - I really can’t see why surrogacy is being singled out. If one accepts one scenario, one should logically accept both. That is, of course, unless there is a motive present for attacking surrogacy that isn’t connected with the child’s welfare, that isn’t being stated in this discussion.”

Such as:

  • the reproductive exploitation of women;
  • the moral and ethical point about the buying and selling of human infants.

Both of which have been “stated in this discussion”.

By the way, try as you might to dehumanise the reality of pregnancy and childbirth, by using language like “other procreation scenarios” to distract from what is actually involved, it doesn’t change the reality that bringing a new human being into the world always requires another human being, and always from one biological sex and not the other, to carry the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.

Why is it exploitative though? With proper procedures in place (and I’m sure there are some instances that have fallen short of this), it needed be.

Madeintheshade · 17/06/2023 21:17

Madeintheshade · 17/06/2023 21:17

Why is it exploitative though? With proper procedures in place (and I’m sure there are some instances that have fallen short of this), it needed be.

“Needn’t be”

collateral · 17/06/2023 21:18

That's because the new California law is all about gay men who are "suffering from infertility" because they are only having same sex intercourse, so no babies are going to emerge from that. This post What is a "Mother"? - by Lucy Leader (substack.com) discusses women/couples who use surrogacy.

What is a "Mother"?

A follow-on question from Matt Walsh’s question “What is a “woman”?

https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/what-is-a-mother

OP posts:
LoobiJee · 17/06/2023 21:27

Madeintheshade · 17/06/2023 20:32

Yet there’s no actual substance to your reply. You haven’t said why any of this is so.

Personally I don’t think the small amount of risk around bonding and development (according to non partisan studies) associated with surrogacy, means it is the unequivocal “bad” thing posters are suggesting it is.

Given we accept a small amount of risk in other procreation scenarios - for instance when there is a danger of genetically transmitted conditions - I really can’t see why surrogacy is being singled out. If one accepts one scenario, one should logically accept both. That is, of course, unless there is a motive present for attacking surrogacy that isn’t connected with the child’s welfare, that isn’t being stated in this discussion.

Here you go. You claim that there are reasons for being opposed to surrogacy which aren’t “being stated in this discussion”. Here are all the reasons which have been stated in this discussion, which you seem to have overlooked despite a PP bringing them to your attention.

“Exploitation. 99.9% of surrogacy around the world is rich westerners paying poor women a a relative pittance to carry a baby for them with the knowledge that if it goes wrong they’ll just walk away and try someone or somewhere else. Ukraine has traditionally been the most popular place. Covid and the war has left countless women with babies that were ordered and there are now Romanian style orphanages with hundreds of abandoned babies as a result. The BBC has covered this. You’ll never see a Kardashian offer infertile Olga from Kyiv to carry a baby for her, will you?

Women as a commodity. No one should be able to buy or hire the right to use a woman’s body for any reason.

Babies as a commodity. No one should be able to buy a baby. We have banned the buying of children who are 15 years old, 10, 5 etc. Why can people buy a newborn?

Anyone who knows anything about babies and attachment knows that babies should be kept with their mothers whenever possible. Their mother is the woman who gave birth to them. That is why even if a mother is deemed unfit, a judge usually decides a baby is to be removed, because it’s a huge decision that cannot be taken lightly.

it is not possible for any legal, moral, or ethical framework to exist that protects all three parties equally. Someone has to give up rights. Should all the rights be with the mother? Then the intended parents get nothing. Should all the rights be with the intended parents? Then you get awful scenarios, like the example of where a woman was told that should she enter a vegetative state, the intended parents would have the final say on withdrawal of life support. How do you prevent this sort of thing? Whose rights do you prioritise? What about the baby’s rights?

It is impossible, within such speculative framework to cover all the possibilities of things that can go wrong. Ergo with enough surrogacy cases there will always be legal messes to clean up.

Even if it’s “altruistic”, how do you determine free choice? How do you know that a sister isn’t doing it out of immense guilt rather than love? Or someone is being coerced? Or that there isn’t money involved somewhere? When someone donates a kidney to a loved one or relative they have to undergo extensive assessment to make sure they understand the implications of what they’re doing. No such checks exist.

I have personally seen the emotional impact of a woman who thought she could give up the baby, but was left sobbing to herself in her own room suppressing her milk with midwives checking on her while the happy couple were all smiles and giggles bottle feeding the baby a few doors down. I saw midwives swear they’d never be involved again after that.

Even if you can be sure it’s a true altruistic arrangement, and even if everything during pregnancy goes through without issue (12 week scan normal, 20 week scan normal etc) and even if the mother comes through relatively unscathed (pregnancy has a 100% complication rate) and has no qualms about giving up the baby, and the intended parents go home, it’s still not a successful surrogacy. No one has any idea if the child will grow up wondering, yearning, for their mother and it could take decades for that to manifest. Ask anyone who’s never known a parent, and they’ll all tell you they wonder. There’s a child at my DC’s school who has two dads. She knows her mum is in India and she says she’s going to go and see her “one day”. It’s heartbreaking ❤️‍🩹. “

MrsOvertonsWindow · 17/06/2023 21:32

nothingcomestonothing · 17/06/2023 21:14

I don't know either, and I'm so jaded about the state of research currently that I'm sure a study seeking the answer won't be coming any time soon Angry

On a tangent but not totally, I've often wondered about rates of family conflict as surrogate children get older. Small cute babies grow and become able to express their own personality, wants, opinions - is that more challenging in surrogate families? Is there an element that the children should be happy/grateful, that the provision of material things should make them happy, even an idea that a purchased child should be as you want or expect them to be?

I'm not explaining it well, I suppose I was thinking about whether being able to get what you want with money, and without being 'inconvenienced' in any of the ways that biological mothers and modern adopters can be as part of that process, doesn't equip purchasing parents well to understand or cope with the fact that your child is their own person, not an extension of you, and has their own wants, preferences, priorities which they think are more important than yours. If you buy it, do you expect to get your idea of a 'good' child?

You're raising a very important issue. Being a parent is very humbling as many of us know. I saw a comment recently from a man who bought a baby via surrogacy moaning that the baby really hadn't bonded with him but that as soon as his own mother arrived, the baby snuggled into her.
He was understandably being slated for his ignorance. Wish I could remember who it was as I'd link it - it was very revealing but not in the way he intended.

LoobiJee · 17/06/2023 21:38

@DemiColon

With surrogacy, there is no real argument about how it is good for the child to be birthed as a commodity that will be removed from its mother, and it often directly severs the normal ties of family that a child has a right to unless it is impossible or dangerous. The only advantage is to the purchasers and to some extent the woman who is paid, though she may well be exploited as well.”

Spot on.

Zuyi · 17/06/2023 21:41

Madeintheshade · 17/06/2023 20:32

Yet there’s no actual substance to your reply. You haven’t said why any of this is so.

Personally I don’t think the small amount of risk around bonding and development (according to non partisan studies) associated with surrogacy, means it is the unequivocal “bad” thing posters are suggesting it is.

Given we accept a small amount of risk in other procreation scenarios - for instance when there is a danger of genetically transmitted conditions - I really can’t see why surrogacy is being singled out. If one accepts one scenario, one should logically accept both. That is, of course, unless there is a motive present for attacking surrogacy that isn’t connected with the child’s welfare, that isn’t being stated in this discussion.

This is a false equivalency. If there was a way of reducing genetic risk, people would take it, even if it was inconvenient to them. Similarly, there is a way to keep a mother in a baby's life - coparenting. Sure, that's inconvenient for anyone who doesn't want to have sex with that mother, I suppose. Still, given that it's in the baby's best interests to stay with it's mother, making those arrangements is the right thing to do.

The equivalent situation is, say, refusing appropriate medical treatment because you can't be bothered travelling to the hospital each week.

Zuyi · 17/06/2023 21:52

GADDay · 17/06/2023 10:49

Curious. Is denying a baby it's father also considered evil?

Where does using a sperm donor factor into this conversation? Is that the same thing?

No, it's not the same. Do you really think motherhood and fatherhood are equivalent?

It's like when a couple split up when the woman is pregnant or when there's an infant. The baby stays with her in almost every case.

Madeintheshade · 17/06/2023 21:58

Zuyi · 17/06/2023 21:41

This is a false equivalency. If there was a way of reducing genetic risk, people would take it, even if it was inconvenient to them. Similarly, there is a way to keep a mother in a baby's life - coparenting. Sure, that's inconvenient for anyone who doesn't want to have sex with that mother, I suppose. Still, given that it's in the baby's best interests to stay with it's mother, making those arrangements is the right thing to do.

The equivalent situation is, say, refusing appropriate medical treatment because you can't be bothered travelling to the hospital each week.

They could choose not to have children, which is akin to what some posters are suggesting regarding surrogacy: that people shouldn’t do ok it.

It’s not a false equivalency at all. Plus, the evidence of the impact on a surrogate child of parental separation is far less serious than many genetic disorders.

I suspect for many posters here the perceived “exploitative” nature of surrogacy for the mother, is the real driver of opposition over concerns for the child. That’s why this thread is in the feminism section and not the parenting one.

DemiColon · 17/06/2023 22:09

It is truly bizarre to call this infertility.

But it fits right in with some of the stuff Mary Harrington has said about transhumanism and health care, where health now includes changing or even subverting normal human biological functions, and the right to socialized health care includes the right to have society pay for these kinds of body mods.

Zuyi · 17/06/2023 22:14

Madeintheshade · 17/06/2023 21:58

They could choose not to have children, which is akin to what some posters are suggesting regarding surrogacy: that people shouldn’t do ok it.

It’s not a false equivalency at all. Plus, the evidence of the impact on a surrogate child of parental separation is far less serious than many genetic disorders.

I suspect for many posters here the perceived “exploitative” nature of surrogacy for the mother, is the real driver of opposition over concerns for the child. That’s why this thread is in the feminism section and not the parenting one.

Are you arguing that people with, say, asthma should not reproduce in case their children have asthma? But it's not as if the genetic risk can be avoided. If different parents without asthma had a child, it would not be a replacement, it would be a different person. So that argument doesn't make sense. But any child can stay with its mother (unless tragically something happens to her).

Yes, the exploitative nature of surrogacy is a compelling argument against it. There's also the buying and selling babies argument. But separating babies from their mothers seems to me to be the most evil part. In history, there are many examples of people trying to do it, raise kids in institutions or with "better" families, but it's always been bad.

IncomingTraffic · 17/06/2023 22:15

Madeintheshade · 17/06/2023 21:12

I’ve put up a perfectly reasonable point that directly addresses an issue raised by other commenters, namely the notion that surrogacy is risky and therefore should be discouraged.

if you wish to answer it with an unfounded ad hominem accusation, that’s your choice, but the assumption I’ll be taking away is that your can’t think of a decent response.

That’s not what ad hominem means…

I made a comment about your style of engagement.

I kept my opinion of your character to myself.

LeavesOnTrees · 17/06/2023 22:20

I don't understand the argument about genetic disorders making surrogacy ok.

A child born to a surrogate may also have a genetic disorder, a severe or mild disability, have SEN, be less than 'perfect' (I don't want to say that children with these problems are less than perfect but they may be seen that way by the commissioning parents).

To those arguing in favour of surrogacy how are commissioning parents supposed to react if they get a baby with health problems ? Do they have the right to not take the baby ?
Do they have the right to demand an abortion ?

NotBadConsidering · 17/06/2023 22:23

NotBadConsidering · 17/06/2023 14:26

  1. Exploitation. 99.9% of surrogacy around the world is rich westerners paying poor women a a relative pittance to carry a baby for them with the knowledge that if it goes wrong they’ll just walk away and try someone or somewhere else. Ukraine has traditionally been the most popular place. Covid and the war has left countless women with babies that were ordered and there are now Romanian style orphanages with hundreds of abandoned babies as a result. The BBC has covered this. You’ll never see a Kardashian offer infertile Olga from Kyiv to carry a baby for her, will you?

  2. Women as a commodity. No one should be able to buy or hire the right to use a woman’s body for any reason.

  3. babies as a commodity. No one should be able to buy a baby. We have banned the buying of children who are 15 years old, 10, 5 etc. Why can people buy a newborn?

  4. Anyone who knows anything about babies and attachment knows that babies should be kept with their mothers whenever possible. Their mother is the woman who gave birth to them. That is why even if a mother is deemed unfit, a judge usually decides a baby is to be removed, because it’s a huge decision that cannot be taken lightly.

  5. it is not possible for any legal, moral, or ethical framework to exist that protects all three parties equally. Someone has to give up rights. Should all the rights be with the mother? Then the intended parents get nothing. Should all the rights be with the intended parents? Then you get awful scenarios, like the example of where a woman was told that should she enter a vegetative state, the intended parents would have the final say on withdrawal of life support. How do you prevent this sort of thing? Whose rights do you prioritise? What about the baby’s rights?

  6. It is impossible, within such speculative framework to cover all the possibilities of things that can go wrong. Ergo with enough surrogacy cases there will always be legal messes to clean up.

  7. Even if it’s “altruistic”, how do you determine free choice? How do you know that a sister isn’t doing it out of immense guilt rather than love? Or someone is being coerced? Or that there isn’t money involved somewhere? When someone donates a kidney to a loved one or relative they have to undergo extensive assessment to make sure they understand the implications of what they’re doing. No such checks exist.

  8. I have personally seen the emotional impact of a woman who thought she could give up the baby, but was left sobbing to herself in her own room suppressing her milk with midwives checking on her while the happy couple were all smiles and giggles bottle feeding the baby a few doors down. I saw midwives swear they’d never be involved again after that.

  9. Even if you can be sure it’s a true altruistic arrangement, and even if everything during pregnancy goes through without issue (12 week scan normal, 20 week scan normal etc) and even if the mother comes through relatively unscathed (pregnancy has a 100% complication rate) and has no qualms about giving up the baby, and the intended parents go home, it’s still not a successful surrogacy. No one has any idea if the child will grow up wondering, yearning, for their mother and it could take decades for that to manifest. Ask anyone who’s never known a parent, and they’ll all tell you they wonder. There’s a child at my DC’s school who has two dads. She knows her mum is in India and she says she’s going to go and see her “one day”. It’s heartbreaking ❤️‍🩹.

These are just some reasons. It’s banned in many countries for reasons like this. Banning surrogacy for everyone - men, women, gay or straight - should happen worldwide.

@Madeintheshade you asked for reasons as you why surrogacy is bad and I gave some to you. You haven’t addressed them.

What framework do you propose to make sure all three parties involved have their rights protected? Whose rights do you prioritise so it’s not an exploitative practice?

OldGardinia · 17/06/2023 22:52

Madeintheshade · 17/06/2023 16:22

As a thought experiment, if it was possible to grow a baby to the point where it is typically born, without use of a woman’s body, would you have an issue with this?

Oh, hey - I read a book where the babies were produced in artificial wombs outside of a woman's body just like that. The book was called "Brave New World".

Tropicaldi · 17/06/2023 23:12

Yes. And it was far more prescient than I imagined. The fact Huxley foresaw the hypersexualisation of society - where sexuality is entirely divorced from procreation. In fact procreation is seen as yukky - stuff for the savages.

LoobiJee · 17/06/2023 23:15

@NotBadConsidering

Your excellent points about why surrogacy is problematic have been drawn to madeintheshade’s attention three times during today’s thread, and MITS has steadfastly ignored those points throughout, instead deploying a variety of diversionary tactics.

I suspect that the latest angle which they are preparing to deploy in this thread will be as follows:

  • step one: “you don’t actually care about babies you only actually care about women!”;
  • step two: “you claim to care about women but you’re just saying that as a cover for homophobia / misandry!”;
  • step three: “you’re discriminatory; therefore giving men the legal right to purchase access to women’s bodies, regardless of the risk to the woman’s health and life, is therefore anti discriminatory and progressive/ On The Right Side of History”. Possibly with a side order of “You bigots! / You pearl clutchers!”
LoobiJee · 17/06/2023 23:20

LeavesOnTrees · 17/06/2023 22:20

I don't understand the argument about genetic disorders making surrogacy ok.

A child born to a surrogate may also have a genetic disorder, a severe or mild disability, have SEN, be less than 'perfect' (I don't want to say that children with these problems are less than perfect but they may be seen that way by the commissioning parents).

To those arguing in favour of surrogacy how are commissioning parents supposed to react if they get a baby with health problems ? Do they have the right to not take the baby ?
Do they have the right to demand an abortion ?

Well spotted. I’d missed that particular diversionary tactic.

I don't understand the argument about genetic disorders making surrogacy ok. A child born to a surrogate may also have a genetic disorder”

Elisheva · 17/06/2023 23:40

I suspect for many posters here the perceived “exploitative” nature of surrogacy for the mother, is the real driver of opposition over concerns for the child. That’s why this thread is in the feminism section and not the parenting one.

And? Is that not a good enough reason in and of itself?

Margotshypotheticaldog · 17/06/2023 23:47

@Madeintheshade what is your personal experience of surrogacy if you don't mind me asking? Are you just an interested bystander or do you have more of an investment? I'm genuinely curious as to how you have come to your current position on the topic.

L3ThirtySeven · 18/06/2023 05:15

“Exploitation. 99.9% of surrogacy around the world is rich westerners paying poor women….” Source please? I know for a fact it’s not 99.9% because surrogacy is extremely popular in Asia. I also know for a fact that it’s not 99.9% exploitation when so many countries either have banned commercialised surrogacy or have strictly regulated it.

“Women as a commodity. No one should be able to buy or hire the right to use a woman’s body for any reason.” No such right exists in surrogacy. The right for women to choose to be a surrogate is not the right for someone else to hire her….the way you wrote that is ignoring no one has the right to hire a woman to be a surrogate. The women choose and they consent as they do with any other job that requires physical labour and has health risks.

“babies as a commodity. No one should be able to buy a baby.” No one is buying a baby. This isn’t a baby market. This is entirely different and simply a pre-planned adoption.

“Even if it’s “altruistic”, how do you determine free choice?” No choice is a free choice so this is a red herring as it is an impossible standard that can never be met. 100% of jobs are not freely chosen because it is a necessity to survive to work and earn money to buy food, shelter and so on. Surrogacy is no different and to demand it must be a “free choice” is utterly ridiculous.

“I have personally seen the emotional impact of a woman who thought she could give up the baby, but was left sobbing to herself…” that’s one woman. You can’t hold up a sample of one and claim it’s like that for all surrogate mothers when studies show for the majority of surrogate mothers, they are happy to hand over the baby- it was in the survey that only a tiny minority regret this decision and one of the changes to the law that surrogate mothers demanded was that the adoptive parents have parental responsibility from birth instead of the current wait time we have.

“No one has any idea if the child will grow up wondering, yearning, for their mother…” Well we do know that adopted children, and babies by surrogacy are simply pre-planned adoptions are always curious about their birth mother. One of the law changes was to lift the seals on these records and give children access to information and the ability to contact their birth mother if they wanted to. In addition, parents who adopt don’t feed their children nonsense like you would about being ripped away and bought like a life accessory which devalues them and makes a mockery of adoption. But that said, longitudinal studies have shown that so called the ‘trauma of being adopted’ from birth has no effect on life chances or rates of mental illness as an adult.

Croneofakind · 18/06/2023 05:35

L3ThirtySeven · 17/06/2023 08:43

But there’s certainly an argument that could be made that “not being separated from your birth mother at birth” should be a human right.

Yeah if you hate women and think that your opinion of what a baby wants supersedes the birth mother’s wishes. We know babies are barely aware they’re even alive and don’t have the capacity to make decisions. But, yeah if you want women forced to keep babies they do not want, go ahead and argue the baby has a human right to be raised by his/her birth mama and that takes precedence over the mother’s wishes and she therefore has no right to put her baby up for adoption, planned in advance or otherwise.

Youd also see an increase in infanticide…women aren’t going to be saddled with babies they don’t want and have no legal means to adopt out.

That's a lot of words to say that you know less than nothing about mothers, babies, pregnancy, birth or caring for a baby.

L3ThirtySeven · 18/06/2023 05:42

It’s not “poor women” being paid a pittance in the U.K.:
In the U.K. survey of surrogate mothers from 2014 to 2021: 77% of surrogate mothers earned above the average national wage of £29.9k, 29% earned over £50k, and 6% earned over £100k. At the top end, 2% even earned over £160k.

It’s not “gay men” either. It’s equally for women:
55% were for heterosexual couples
40% were for same sex couples (male and female)
2% were for single women
2% were for transgender couples

https://academic.oup.com/lawfam/article/36/1/ebac030/6917125?login=false

Issue Cover

UK surrogates’ characteristics, experiences, and views on surrogacy law reform

Abstract. What are surrogates’ views on their experience with surrogacy, their understanding of the law, and views on legal reform? We conducted an online retro

https://academic.oup.com/lawfam/article/36/1/ebac030/6917125?login=false

L3ThirtySeven · 18/06/2023 05:45

Croneofakind · 18/06/2023 05:35

That's a lot of words to say that you know less than nothing about mothers, babies, pregnancy, birth or caring for a baby.

I’m a mother of four and I raised my younger siblings. So thanks for the pathetic personal attack there 👍🏿 I’d report it, but would rather let it stand because it shows how low you will stoop in what should be a reasoned discussion.

L3ThirtySeven · 18/06/2023 05:56

Zuyi · 17/06/2023 21:41

This is a false equivalency. If there was a way of reducing genetic risk, people would take it, even if it was inconvenient to them. Similarly, there is a way to keep a mother in a baby's life - coparenting. Sure, that's inconvenient for anyone who doesn't want to have sex with that mother, I suppose. Still, given that it's in the baby's best interests to stay with it's mother, making those arrangements is the right thing to do.

The equivalent situation is, say, refusing appropriate medical treatment because you can't be bothered travelling to the hospital each week.

Back again to forcing women to raise children they do not want. Ugh. Where’s the mothers rights in all this? “It’s the right thing to do” - that’s your moral opinion and it sounds very patriarchal Christian of you that every baby must be raised by his/her birth mother unless we decide she’s unfit, in which case we take the baby whether she wants us to or no. The world you want is one in which the birth mother has no right to decide to give her baby to intended parents in a preplanned adoption.

How is it best for the child to be raised by a mother who doesn’t want them and often isn’t even her own genetic descendent?

How is it best for women to take away our rights and bodily autonomy?