Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Appalling Ukrainian surrogacy case

79 replies

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2024 07:45

https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/couple-face-spending-months-in-kyiv-to-claim-their-baby-h2fnqtn62
‘We’ll be trapped in a war zone’: couple face months in Kyiv to claim their baby
Fliss and Memet Demir are travelling to the Ukrainian capital, where a surrogate mother is due to deliver the child

Particularly appalling article on a surrogacy in Ukraine without any comment on the mother or the fact it's commercial surrogacy which is illegal here.

Couple can't have children because woman had cancer five years ago. She's still on hormone medication.

They sent embryos to Ukraine in 2021 but they were implanted only in Autumn last year.

They are whinging because the British government withdrew the emergency passport scheme for surrogate babies born in Ukraine to discourage the continued trade. So they now have to go to Ukraine and apply for a passport in person which might take 16 weeks and this is so awful because they might die. They have been told they won't be fast tracked and they should not travel to Ukraine by the government.

This emergency scheme was withdrawn in August. You'll note this is prior to the surrogate being implanted.

They didn't want to do surrogacy in the UK because
The couple were concerned about surrogacy in the UK, which has been long criticised for its poor legal framework. Demand also far outstrips supply because surrogates can not be paid except for expenses, so they turned to Ukraine, where surrogacy costs about £40,000 and their parental rights would be immediately acknowledged.

Natalie Gamble, a solicitor at NGA Law, a specialist reproduction firm, said Ukraine had been a popular choice for British parents before the Russian invasion because of its clear surrogacy laws and established agencies. In contrast, the “murky and fudged” UK law initially treats the surrogate and her spouse as parents, making everyone nervous, she said.

Two attempts to implant the couple’s embryos failed and, devastated, Demir and her husband explored surrogacy in the UK. They attended charity events to meet potential philanthropic surrogates, but said the process felt like speed dating.
^^
Mr Demir says: “They tell you to try and arrange social events, barbecues, to meet surrogates. The charity organising it, they say, ‘Fliss, you need to work on your social media profile, just put up pictures with nice people’. It just felt like a popularity contest.”

Demir was still going through treatment, and her body had started rejecting one of the breast implants. She was having weekly injections to remove a litre of fluid from the breast, and was rushed to A&E because of infections.

“I was so unwell, we were just broken,” she says. “And there’s all these fresh-faced lovely couples who also want a baby. The surrogate is going to pick them, not the woman who might die of cancer.”

They did not get a surrogate offer, and began to come to terms they would never have a child. War had broken out in Ukraine, and they feared their remaining two embryos were lost.

But in the autumn, after the situation stabilised, the surrogate agency got in touch with the option of trying again. Demir recalls: “We thought, it’s our final chance, what have we got to lose? Desperate people do desperate things.”

So no thought to the surrogate and just how exploitative this is. Or the risk to their unborn child.

Just a tantrum that THEY will now have to travel to Ukraine and won't get special treatment and how it's dreadfully unfair to their British daughter that they have to wait up to 16 weeks for a passport

Plenty of time to reflect on conditions when they've been told

Doctors have asked that they bring everything for their baby, including bed sheets, because supplies are scarce. The couple, who have never been to Ukraine, chose a hotel because it had a generator and a bomb shelter.

Of course 16 weeks in Ukraine is not acceptable for them because the wife can only get 3 months of hormone therapy from the NHS. And this is putting her health as risk.

Nothing about the conditions their daughter will be born in and how risky / awful that might be for the mother. It was perfectly fine for their daughter to be at risk from the war during the pregnancy, but it's somehow dreadful that they have to go there themselves and wait around.

If Ukraine is good enough for them to have a surrogacy pregnancy in, then it's good enough for them to travel to as well. Who deliberately creates a baby in these circumstances and then has the brass neck to complain that they will also have to experience the war zone first hand.

The staggering selfishness is off the scale. The article doesn't reflect on it at all - just that our surrogacy laws aren't lax enough so it's driving couples abroad.

If we tightened our laws here to recognise this as people trafficking then maybe that would give pause for thought because these 'respectable' couples go abroad because our lax laws allow us to do so. We should and could criminalise this. 'Respectable couples' are precisely the ones who should be clamped down on precisely because they are less likely to try and damage their status by acting in a criminal manner.

On the plus side I'm glad the government has said no fuck off to special treatment - they withdrew the emergency scheme to stop twats like this for good reason. These dickheads made a choice to go ahead in the middle of a war after the scheme was withdrawn so I'm all out of fucks to give to them.

At least the article may act as a deterrent for others. That's the only positive.

Monsters.

‘We’ll be trapped in a war zone’: couple face months in Kyiv to claim their baby

Fliss and Memet Demir are travelling to the Ukrainian capital, where a surrogate mother is due to deliver the child

https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/couple-face-spending-months-in-kyiv-to-claim-their-baby-h2fnqtn62

OP posts:
viques · 10/06/2024 20:43

The whole surrogacy thing stinks. It is trading in human lives, just like slavery.

TWETMIRF · 11/06/2024 08:47

Except with surrogacy you get celebrated for your people trafficking

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 11/06/2024 08:57

And it promotes centring the 'parents' rather than the child.

The child is just an accessory, a commodity that they want and that they must be allowed to have, under any circumstances.

How can that be a positive thing?

TWETMIRF · 11/06/2024 09:09

An accessory that can be refused if damaged in any way just like returning mail order goods. Healthy baby? Great, we'll have it. Disabled? Hmm, that could be a ball ache so we'll just try again with someone else as the surrogate is obviously faulty

SoupChicken · 11/06/2024 09:37

DysonSphere · 10/06/2024 19:18

There's a documentary available on YouTube about the Ukrainian surrogacy process. It is hair raising stuff. Among another surrogacy couple who were British and shocked at the reality of what they were facilitating, they focus on a child born with some special needs but then literally abandoned by her American parents who refused to take her back with them.

The child was put in an orphanage, and another woman - maybe a journalist or social worker - started visiting her when she could and playing with her and even with the very limited therapies available to her, the child made some cognitive progression. It would have been a lot more had she been taken by her American parents and given all the medical help available in their far better equipped health system.

At some point an investigative journalist talks to the American father on the phone, and he doesn't really give a toss because his wife wants nothing to do with the less than perfect child.

At the end the child's future looks bleak as the time to remain in that orphanage soon comes to an end and the lady who visits her is in floods of tears saying she fears she will cognitively decline

The hospital facilities featured were bare bones and I think this was filmed just before the war. So I can't imagine now.

It shows how transactional the entire process is.

I just can not comprehend the cruelty of some people, I couldn’t live with myself knowing my child was somewhere out in the world and I wasn’t caring for them. Anything could be happening to them and I wasn’t there to protect them. It’s why I find egg and sperm donation so abhorrent.

We live in a society where people can literally buy anything they want if they have enough money, I do think it would be in the best interest of society as a whole if the option to purchase a baby was removed.

MotherEarthisaTerf · 11/06/2024 09:43

Absolutely revolting people

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 11/06/2024 11:24

SoupChicken · 11/06/2024 09:37

I just can not comprehend the cruelty of some people, I couldn’t live with myself knowing my child was somewhere out in the world and I wasn’t caring for them. Anything could be happening to them and I wasn’t there to protect them. It’s why I find egg and sperm donation so abhorrent.

We live in a society where people can literally buy anything they want if they have enough money, I do think it would be in the best interest of society as a whole if the option to purchase a baby was removed.

I find it unconscionable how people can assert that they are the parents, the surrogate is just an incubator when it suits them, ie the child is healthy, then turn around and abandon 'their' baby if it's not perfect.

It's either their baby or its not, it can't be both!

MagnetCarHair · 11/06/2024 11:29

It can if you buy a baby within the terms and language of the marketplace. When ownership is determined by contract and damaged goods are rejected.

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 11/06/2024 11:37

MagnetCarHair · 11/06/2024 11:29

It can if you buy a baby within the terms and language of the marketplace. When ownership is determined by contract and damaged goods are rejected.

Edited

Yes I suppose so - which just highlights the commodification of both surrogate and baby.

I don't see how that argument holds morally though.

Imagine explaining to people that 'yes, we were going to have a baby but it turned out suboptimal so we abandoned it' . The cognitive dissonance is astonishing.

MagnetCarHair · 11/06/2024 11:45

Yes, it's morally repugnant in every way.

Dumbo12 · 11/06/2024 11:56

I was thinking about the role a father, in a traditional, western family. The baby already knows his voice, pre- birth, there is already a link. The child will have "heard" grandparents and other family members, it will also have heard the language of the people around it. A surrogate born child, in another country, will have absolutely nothing familiar to it when handed over to the purchaser.

IdgieThreadgoodeIsMyHeroine · 11/06/2024 12:45

Dumbo12 · 11/06/2024 11:56

I was thinking about the role a father, in a traditional, western family. The baby already knows his voice, pre- birth, there is already a link. The child will have "heard" grandparents and other family members, it will also have heard the language of the people around it. A surrogate born child, in another country, will have absolutely nothing familiar to it when handed over to the purchaser.

I don't think this only applies to Western families...

ResisterRex · 11/06/2024 21:07

As if it were possible, I've now read a new horror. In the US:

"on On June 12, the Massachusetts House is expected to vote on a bill that would allow mothers to exchange their children for money—that is, engage in baby-selling—under the name of “parentage equality.”
The “Parentage Equality” billl_ seeks to redefine parenthood. Parenthood is recognized on its natural biological basis, or in cases of adoption, justice for a child who has suffered loss by providing them with a safe, loving home. This bill redefines it on the basis of a “person’s intent to be a parent of a child.” In doing so, it strips all mention of mothers and fathers from parentage law, replacing these vital familial roles with gender-erased language.

Finally, and most concerning, under H.4672, Massachusetts would allow for commercial surrogacy both in cases wherein the woman carrying the child is genetically unrelated to the child and in cases where she is exchanging her biological child for money."
Continues here: thefederalist.com/2024/06/11/ma-bill-would-allow-women-to-sell-their-unborn-children/

And this seems to be the Bill: malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H4672

Lifeinlists · 11/06/2024 22:12

ResisterRex · 08/06/2024 07:53

The Times seems to have a track record with these kinds of articles on this topic. It's concerning. They never seem to look at it from any other angle. Why?

They've followed one of their occasional journalists through two surrogate bought babies from the US. All very tear- jerking and one-sided. I think I was meant to think 'Aww'. I didn't.
I can't remember if she or her DH are American, though they do live in the UK. I guess they think their readers are interested.
Surprising when Janice Turner is also on the payroll, though I don't think this is a subject that she's commented on. I'd be interested in her views.

Aldertrees · 11/06/2024 22:38

A senior editor at The Times bought a baby off of a woman he'd hired to gestate it. I wonder whether he is the person pushing these stories.

Huge potential market if you can normalise commidification of human babies and women as incubators.

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 12/06/2024 07:32

ResisterRex · 11/06/2024 21:07

As if it were possible, I've now read a new horror. In the US:

"on On June 12, the Massachusetts House is expected to vote on a bill that would allow mothers to exchange their children for money—that is, engage in baby-selling—under the name of “parentage equality.”
The “Parentage Equality” billl_ seeks to redefine parenthood. Parenthood is recognized on its natural biological basis, or in cases of adoption, justice for a child who has suffered loss by providing them with a safe, loving home. This bill redefines it on the basis of a “person’s intent to be a parent of a child.” In doing so, it strips all mention of mothers and fathers from parentage law, replacing these vital familial roles with gender-erased language.

Finally, and most concerning, under H.4672, Massachusetts would allow for commercial surrogacy both in cases wherein the woman carrying the child is genetically unrelated to the child and in cases where she is exchanging her biological child for money."
Continues here: thefederalist.com/2024/06/11/ma-bill-would-allow-women-to-sell-their-unborn-children/

And this seems to be the Bill: malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H4672

Bloody hell!

FrancescaContini · 12/06/2024 08:55

Aldertrees · 11/06/2024 22:38

A senior editor at The Times bought a baby off of a woman he'd hired to gestate it. I wonder whether he is the person pushing these stories.

Huge potential market if you can normalise commidification of human babies and women as incubators.

If that’s the case, it explains the very biased, “oh poor us” angle of the article. The writer uses the cancer backstory to garner our sympathy for the couple but it doesn’t work. There are plenty of other ways of becoming parents that don’t involve buying a baby from a woman in a war zone. That is the height of exploitation.

Beowulfa · 12/06/2024 09:05

I found the UK version mentioned in the artivle with the "work on your social media profile in order to make an impression at the garden party/livestock auction" just as grim.

SoupChicken · 12/06/2024 18:11

Beowulfa · 12/06/2024 09:05

I found the UK version mentioned in the artivle with the "work on your social media profile in order to make an impression at the garden party/livestock auction" just as grim.

Yes, you might not be allowed to pay cash in the UK but there are other things to be gained in exchange for a baby, friends for life and hero status seems to be one of the biggies.

ResisterRex · 12/06/2024 18:26

The cancer backstory is of course sad. Experiencing your own personal hard times and tragedies don't give you a free pass to blight others' lives. Surrogacy should be pared back and outlawed, and not expanded. I think of this and "assisted dying" as two really concerning areas that are likely to be pushed in the coming years.

RedToothBrush · 12/06/2024 19:00

ResisterRex · 12/06/2024 18:26

The cancer backstory is of course sad. Experiencing your own personal hard times and tragedies don't give you a free pass to blight others' lives. Surrogacy should be pared back and outlawed, and not expanded. I think of this and "assisted dying" as two really concerning areas that are likely to be pushed in the coming years.

Glad it's not just me.

Both I think are not compatible with human rights.

OP posts:
bakewellbride · 12/06/2024 19:26

I had a friend who purchased a baby from a Ukrainian surrogate. Note the 'had', I can't be friends with someone who thjnks it's ok.

To make matters worse she took drugs including anti sickness medication (wtf?) to encourage her body to make 'breastmilk' which she then forced the baby to drink 🤢

And they haven't vaccinated the baby.

Appalling.

FrothyCothy · 12/06/2024 19:45

MintTwirl · 08/06/2024 12:38

Horrid selfish people.

What happens to these babies if they are born with something like Down’s syndrome for example and the buyers decide they no longer want them?

There was kind of a case about this in Australia/thailand -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Thai_surrogacy_controversy

Not sure what the end of the story was - I think an inquiry found they hadn’t refused to care for the child with Down’s syndrome. However the real horror in the story is that the father was a convicted paedophile.

2014 Thai surrogacy controversy - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Thai_surrogacy_controversy

DysonSphere · 12/06/2024 19:55

bakewellbride · 12/06/2024 19:26

I had a friend who purchased a baby from a Ukrainian surrogate. Note the 'had', I can't be friends with someone who thjnks it's ok.

To make matters worse she took drugs including anti sickness medication (wtf?) to encourage her body to make 'breastmilk' which she then forced the baby to drink 🤢

And they haven't vaccinated the baby.

Appalling.

Assuming you start the hormonal process, albeit synthetically, would it not still be real breast milk as long as you're a (biological) woman?

My cousin had a hormonal condition where she simply couldn't stop producing milk even a year after ceasing to breastfeed. They gave her drugs to trick her body into stopping which I think is the reverse of trying to false start it.

TheClogLady · 13/06/2024 13:24

bakewellbride · 12/06/2024 19:26

I had a friend who purchased a baby from a Ukrainian surrogate. Note the 'had', I can't be friends with someone who thjnks it's ok.

To make matters worse she took drugs including anti sickness medication (wtf?) to encourage her body to make 'breastmilk' which she then forced the baby to drink 🤢

And they haven't vaccinated the baby.

Appalling.

the Drug used for that, domperidone, has to be used in large doses (much bigger than the dose for gastric problems) and is associated with serious heart problems.

https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/domperidone-risks-of-cardiac-side-effects

it’s still useful for some really limited breastfeeding applications but only in the very short term (eg to get supply going when trying to pump for an extremely premature baby or in conjunction with a tongue tie release procedure to get feeding established a couple of weeks outside of the normal immediate post-birth time frame) but the doses required for the duration required to adequately feed an infant long term without a pregnancy at all is unnecessarily risky for the woman.

Why go to the effort of human trafficking a baby if you are then going to risk sudden death due to huge quantities of off label drugs? Baby could lose both bio mum
and the woman raising them, double head fuck for the kid.

Same goes for the woman in the article - I say this as the daughter of a BRCA2 mum who died in her early 50s. My mum had already had two kids in her 20s long before diagnosis in her 40s, so we were both young adults when we lost her. Still fucked both my sister and I up to deal with motherloss so young.

Buying a baby at 40 when you know you don’t have an average life expectancy is especially selfish.

I have massive sympathy for any woman grappling with cancer and/or family history cancer risk, I had that cloud over my own head too (I did not inherit the gene fault but didn’t know this until 15 years after my mother’s death) but buying a baby from
a war zone isn’t an appropriate way to deal with this particular stroke of shitty luck.

Of course prospective surrogate mothers with a choice in who to gestate for will quickly rule out anyone who is unlikely to be around to raise a baby to full adulthood!

Domperidone: risks of cardiac side effects

Indication restricted to nausea and vomiting, new contraindications, and reduced dose and duration of use.

https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/domperidone-risks-of-cardiac-side-effects

Swipe left for the next trending thread