Surrogacy-help me explain to my daughter why this is exploiting women

[happydappy2]

Teen daughter thinks surrogacy is fine, as an opportunity for the woman to earn money.
I've explained that only impoverished women do it, not wealthy ones.
It's not fair on the child to be removed from it's natural Mother/protector.
It will be a high risk pregnancy for the surrogate.
Ultimately benefits mens, not women or children.
There have been cases of paedophiles commissioning surrogates
She just doesn't get it though-what else can I ask her to think about to get her to understand how exploitative this is?
I asked her, would it be ok for me to buy a 10 yr old child? No of course not, so why is it ok for wealthy people to buy babies?

She's nearly 18, I really need to help her critical thinking on this....thanks

Awaits the answer with interest. Funny how some men rock up on here and expect women to do the mental load for them.
If you support human trafficking and selling babies then give us the evidence and research that supports your opinions.
If you see the role of some women in society as having bodies that people can rent to gestate a baby, then be honest about your views. Give us your working out about why this is acceptable.

I think you mean they expect 'potential surrogates' to take on the mental load! The world is made up of men, surrogates, and potential surrogates, you know.

It's a bold move suggesting that all women should be banned from pregnancy, but you be you.

@Helleofabore@JustanotherMNSlapperTwat I'm not sure what the answer is.

For sure, it should not be a commercial transaction.

The current law is that "reasonable expenses" can be paid, and the birth mother can keep the baby if they want.

I think a comprehensive survey of outcomes for surrogate mothers, their children, and their siblings should be undertaken and the law revaluated based on that outcome.

Man on feminism forum pretends not to understand why he's being pulled up on talking about women in terms of how they can be used.

I'm very shocked by this.

Ah so this is just a very detached, hypothetical, esoteric discussion about whether or not enough women die as far as you are concerned?

Not important enough to actually commit to an opinion. How very intellectual of you.

It's a bold move suggesting that all women should be banned from pregnancy, but you be you.

ODFOD

So the comparison of general pregnancy statistics to donor organs was, what, just you providing non relevant misinformation for the sake of it?

Good to know you would do this on a feminist board.

This image often comes to mind.

But many women given birth are going so with no choice sure to keep the baby. They just did not want to terminate.

Yes that's precisely what that little exchange felt like!

Are you in the US or the UK joyful?

In the UK mothers don’t willingly give up their babies except in vanishingly rare cases. They either terminate the pregnancy, the vast majority in the first 10 weeks, or keep the baby. We don’t have a culture of giving our babies away here. We know that the best thing for both mother and baby long term is to do everything we can to support them to stay together. As the woman in the daily mail article said the mother-baby bond is sacred.

This organisation is by adoptees. I imagine that in the future similar organisations will exist for children separated from their mothers due to surrogacy.

https://adultadoptee.org.uk/about_us/

Looking back, I see that I subjugated my own health and safety to prioritise the desires of the intended parents. I also realise that my own psychological state at the time of making these decisions meant that I had a martyr complex and that I was too self-sacrificing. I completely deprioritised myself. This was due to a lack of self-esteem and assertiveness, and seeing my value lying only in how useful I was to others. I had an over-developed sense of ‘service.’

This is common in women, as female socialisation means that women and girls are encouraged and trained to put themselves second, and to prioritise other people, and to be ‘kind.’ This female socialisation and psychology needs to be investigated, researched and considered in the context of altruistic surrogates.

Oh HOW FASCINATING, to see an ACTUAL surrogate saying what I'd already speculated about women who would consider being a surrogate. Hmm. Who'd thunk?

This is incredibly sad.A side point but she obviously wasn’t aware of how IVF works - that’s a big deal for a lot of women anyway so personally I think a surrogate should have experience of that. I agree the ways she’s been treated is awful.

The child in surrogacy is the woman’s baby.

The child in surrogacy is in absolutely zero danger.

You’re arguing the opposite point. Even when the child is actually in danger, it can’t be just anyone who decides to remove the child, it has to be a judge because of the impact of that separation on the child. But when there is zero risk to the baby in surrogacy, there is no one thinking about the separation risk to the baby. Why?

But you have to bear in mind that she was, you know, one of them. I'm not saying surrogates, pre surrogates and past potential surrogates are unable to bear witness to their own lives but, you know...

And to add to my point, from the baby’s perspective the woman who carried it is its both situations. But in one, we only separate the baby if a judge deems it too dangerous for the baby but in the other, despite no danger, the baby is taken within hours to strangers. Why is that ok?

I thought you'd appreciate that. I don't normally c&p the whole thing, but I made an exception for this thread.

yep.

And don't forget there is also the instance of a woman who desperately 'needs' to be pregnant for any reason, or who wishes to hold some kind of power over the parent, taking advantage of people who wish to be parents too. That is just a couple of the issues where the power dynamic is going the other way too.

There are many different coercive pressures and issues involved in this transaction. I think that it is extremely rare for there to be negative exploitative force happening in even the most altruist transaction.

Earlier on in the thread, another mumsnetter posted a link to an article penned by an adult child of surrogacy. Did you spot the section on what the author had learned of her birth mother's motivations for being a surrogate mother?

extract

She put me in touch with my half-brother, who in turn put me in touch with my three half-sisters.

They were so loving and willing to answer my endless questions and, slowly, I learned the whole story.

Their mother was the surrogate who had given birth to me and was also my biological mother.

Most surrogates are what is called ‘gestational carriers’ — they carry the baby and deliver it but are not biologically related. Incubators, in other words.

But my birth mother had used her own eggs and was artificially inseminated with my father’s sperm.

Aged 38 when she had me, she already had five children with her husband. Her youngest child died in a tragic accident when he was two.

Shortly afterwards, she contacted the surrogacy agency. She was so obviously grieving I believe she should never have been accepted as a suitable candidate — initially, she didn’t even tell her husband about her plans.

I was born through surrogacy and I want it banned

I did read that neighbourhood.

But hey, that woman approached the agency voluntarily, so we're supposed to accept it as totally unexploitative, aren't we?

yep. Nothing to see here. It has been quite eye opening to see what some people will consider as a completely acceptable reasons for people to have for being a surrogate. I have seen red flags to certain behavioural references which others seem to be completely accepting as being not potential or outright concerns. And people wonder why all surrogacy should be banned.

Yes thank you for that. As much as it's confirmation bias to a degree, it is interesting to see I'm not totally talking out my arse either and there are altruistic surrogates who have regrets based on these exact issues with the benefit of hindsight.

Its not going to affect all surrogate mothers, but my problem is that even one is too many because of the power imbalance lending itself so much to exploitative practices (including the emotional blackmail of 'the right' to have children and 'just how nice it would be to help someone infertile') and these voices don't have the same level of amplification precisely because of the massive power imbalances between surrogate mothers and their exploiters and a certain amount of shame, need to protect yourself emotionally from that regret and sunk cost fallacies that will result from surrogacy regret. And therein lies mental health issues right there - the inability to express those feelings or feel heard for whatever reason.

I also wonder if there's ever regret on the part of The Consumers. There's a stigma to having a baby and regretting that decision as it is - I can't help but feel that could be worse for a consumer... And that has consequences.

'Being nice' lacks the emotional and critical thinking of thinking about unintended consequences.

I do think there's some comfort in the realty that most people think the best of others and lack the life skills to comprehend how it could be exploitative.

The trouble is, those who are most vulnerable are the ones who do have those more negative life experiences and that's precisely why they are targeted to be surrogates in the first place.

Thank you for posting the Nordic Model Now article, NeighborhoodWatchPotholeDivision.

It raises these questions:

Are potential "surrogates" fully informed of the possible complications and health risks?

Is it clearly outlined before they agree to be the mother of the child that will be taken from them at birth?

Are medical and psychological examinations performed on the "surrogate"?

The woman in the article was clearly coerced many times during the procedure. Are there any safe guards in place to prevent this from happening?