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

Of course there aren't.

But you can feel warm and fuzzy for being nice to your friends before they drop you from a great height, at the cost of your emotional and physical health and get a nice token for a theme park at the same time (if you live in the UK). Yay ain't surrogacy an amazing gift!

If you live elsewhere in the world you can be farmed for a nice big fat check for your efforts - and no means to get access to the health care you might need due to pregnancy complications. The contract ends the second the baby comes out and you are no longer needed after all.

It was to add information for the OP’s conversation with her daughter, to compare the risks of voluntary procedures which are legal, while noting that one is life saving and one isn’t. Both are risky. I think it’s relevant, as did other posters.

Personally, I would never use a surrogate and I’d attempt to persuade anyone close to me that being a surrogate was a bad idea with high health risks. But I don’t know if voluntary surrogacy should be illegal.

Asking multiple women about there experience of surrogacy as well as anecdotal evidence helps.

What is your view?

Me me me! Attention give me attention.

The youngest kardashian who had a baby by surrogacy and has been quite honest about how difficult it was and even though it's her biological child she doesn't have the bond she does with the kids she carried, in the article I read (was in drs waiting room so not sure how old) she really seems to regret it

With a side helping of let me say lots of words whilst really saying very little at all

I answered a question I was asked. If I hadn’t, you’d be accusing me of avoiding it.

Would @RedToothBrush have accused you of that? Even though RedToothBrush wasn't even the one to ask the question in the first place?

I wish I had such strong psychic powers to know what questions people would ask me when I don't even know the person! It would make job interviews so much easier for a start...

my view is that your information is largely misinformation and misleading and not relevant.

As to my view about surrogacy, I suggest you read the thread. I have not been obscure in my opinions about surrogacy at all.

I'm starting to wonder if a certain cat food brand 125 has changed his name. That 'I absolutely have to derail the conversation with my random, but not on point, postings and the determination if I am replied to I must absolutely reply so I always have the last word' has a feeling of familiarity to it.

Time for me to disengage I think

I always wonder about posters who put 'what do you think?' and pretend to know shit loads when you've already posted a massive in depth multiple post explanation including source which they can't be arsed to read.

It's all about demonstrating social status over others and requiring personal attention whilst trying to appear intellectually above their own actual ability or knowledge.

I'm sure there's a word for it, if there's a male doing it...

Mmmm… yes!

What background investigations are done on the buyers of the baby? Financial, of course, yet is there any checking on criminal activity/accusations/arrest record which might indicate danger to the baby? Financial irregularities? Health? Age? Psychological?

Those of us arguing that carefully regulated surrogacy is OK will in no way be convinced by this dreadful story. It was blatently commercial, not altruistic. The girl/young woman was lied to and the surrogacy covered up. The gestational mother was also the genetic mother (!) which is highly unusual these days and not recommended. The parents sound like cold fishes. There was no attempt to ensure connection between the child and her genetic/biological roots. The gestational mother sounded like she was someone in a desperate situation, and a sixth child would make her a grand multipara, which is the point where the risks of subsequent births starts to go up. At 49, I think the adoptive mother was too old (I think a hard cutoff age of 45 for both genetic/adoptive parents would be reasonable).

Altruistic surrogacy is not immune from the same problems. Why would it be? There’s nothing inherent with so-called altruistic surrogacy that means a child will be told of the circumstances of their birth, a connection will be maintained, or the parents won’t be “cold fish”.

And people who talk about “carefully regulated” can’t ever explain how they will carefully regulate, legislate or defend all the conflicting rights successfully. Because it can’t be done.

why do you think it can’t be done? It can be done for adoption. It needs to happen because surrogacy isn’t going anywhere.

And although I understand the points, that daily mail article of one woman isn’t really research. She clearly had awful parents regardless!

Well explain how it can be done? Someone’s rights have to be sacrificed at every decision point.

If you give all the decision making power to the pregnant mother then the intended parents have no rights.

If you give all the decision making power to the intended parents the pregnant mother has no rights.

If you give the baby all the rights then it can never happen at all.

If you believe the intended parents should have some rights and the pregnant mother not on some decisions, and vice versa, explain how you decide who gets what?

As an example, the 12 week scan finds a severe abnormality. Who decides how to proceed?

And surrogacy has been successfully banned in many countries. It could quite easily go somewhere to the far side of fuck, for example.

Do you think the child should be centred in this transaction? A child has been created and delivered as a product to adults who have decided they need a child so they had one created to suit their needs.

This is the same regardless of the basis of any surrogacy - commercial or altrusist. How do you centre a child when it is the adults needs who have been catered for? The child is the product here, there is no way to centre their needs when you created them specifically to have them removed from their mother who was only effectively an incubator for the product.

Adoption is not the same as surrogacy. Saying that we can regulate for surrogacy because we can regulate for adoption is like saying countries that allow euthanasia could also legislate for forced dying.

Surrogacy has been banned in multiple countries

There really seems to be a lack of understanding that a human is being transacted in any surrogacy agreement. People like to hide this fact with emotive language and pleas for understanding. Which is also human to do.

However, cut through the emotional reasoning, cut through the soft language and the bare facts are people are transacting another human. One they have had especially created for their needs.

But apparently, that is fine because that human is supposedly loved and desperately wanted. Still a living being that has been created deliberately and separated from their mother deliberately to make another human feel better.

There is nothing child centred in this transaction and it therefore exploits the child.

Plus it exploits, even willingly, at least one women’s body.

I did post above about how all those things needs to be discussed and more regulated. Yep there will still be cases where tragedies happen. There will. That’s the reality of life.

And do you really think surrogacy doesn’t happen in countries where it’s outlawed?

Yep there will still be cases where tragedies happen. There will. That’s the reality of life.

There doesn't need to be a single tragedy when something is a want and not a need. That's the reality

That’s the usual answer, you’ve continued the trend.

“Someone else will sort all that [waves hand] messy stuff out. It’s not for me to say.”

Problem is, no one can say.

Why can’t you just have a go at trying to answer the one example I asked? I’m not asking to solve all of the conflicts. Try just one. What happens if a severe abnormality is found on a 12 week scan? Who decides how to proceed?

In countries where surrogacy is banned if it happens people are prosecuted. All sorts of laws are broken, do you think we should do away with all laws given stuff happens anyway? Burglary? Rape? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

Tragedies in surrogacy are completely avoidable. Many countries have recognised this and enacted laws to prevent tragedies. Your belief that “tragedies will happen so what’s the point of trying?” is ethically and morally bankrupt. You’re prepared to have women and children suffer so some adults get what they want.

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

So because in some countries it happens illegally, no country should bother to ban it? Is that what you are trying to say?

And that women and children who are the tragedies of the transaction should just suck it up because tragedies happen? Yes tight regulations will attempt to minimise the potential damage. However, how about we start by using clear language about what surrogacy actually is and that it can never centre the child that is then created?

All the false comparisons between adoption and donor organs continue to fail to address that a human has been created deliberately to be separated from its mother at birth. A human had been transacted.