Gay men and surrogacy - the new “be kind”?

[Tootingbec]

Just seen a LinkedIn post from a gay man who is writing a book about the surrogacy “journey” he and his husband went through. Cue gushing comments about how amazing this is…..

It has really upset me. The sheer fucking privilege of gay men to buy babies and then be lauded and praised for it like they were super heroes. And untouchable to criticism due to blinkered “be kind” beliefs about the poor gay men who just want a family like heterosexual men.

Where do people think these babies come from? Do you think people delude themselves that all these gay men just have kind, altruistic female friends who happily have a baby for them? As opposed to exploiting vulnerable and desperate women in India, Mexico and the like.

I feel so angry - women are just fucked over and abused time and time again by men and it is all dressed up as progressive when it is the exact opposite.

When I was a younger women I loved having gay men in my social circle. They seemed like “nicer” more lovely men than most straight men. Now I realise that underneath it all they just the same sexist, privileged tossers as many straight men are. They want a baby? No problem - buy one! They want to invade women’s spaces? No problem - just reinvent yourself as “the most vulnerable in society”!

It’s like the scales have fallen from my eyes.

There is a big difference between one person and 22 people, and there is also a big difference in a single quote from that one persona and a 20 year long study conducted by professionals.

@PlanetJanette has done a great job of describing the difference between forced adoption and surrogacy in terms of the immediate after birth experience of a child. Also surrogate born children are related to their intended parents, they know where they come from. They're not just whisked off and given to strangers like in forced adoption. It is completely different.

Ok you’re avoiding the issue so I’ll ask it in a different way. If you think the person who gave birth to the baby is the baby’s mother, why do you think that relationship should end as soon as the baby is born?

Also surrogate born children are related to their intended parents, they know where they come from. They're not just whisked off and given to strangers like in forced adoption. It is completely different.

Neither of these two things are necessarily true.

Babies have been born via surrogacy from donor eggs and donor sperm.

And absolutely the babies are moved into the room of the intended parents away from the birth mother, often within hours. I have seen it happen. Then there was the infamous video of the Irish male couple wheeling their baby away. Someone will have the link I’m sure.

I'm not avoiding the issue at all. You asked me who I thought was more important to a baby's welfare and I explained to you: the parents who actually raise a child day in day out are.

I've also answered your question.

The reason it should end as soon as the baby is born is because that is what the birth mother wants. And we do not, and should not, compel parental responsibility in those who want to relinquish it.

That is a matter of personal freedom for adults - compelling someone to be a parent even when they do not wish to be is unconscionable. But it is also a matter of child welfare - a child is almost never better off being raised by a parent who does not want to be a parent.

a traumatic separation at birth

You recognise this in the case of a woman forced to give up her child for adoption, but not in the case of a child taken from the woman who has given birth to them and handed over to strangers. Can you explain how these scenarios are different? Why is one traumatic and not the other? Surely they are the same thing.

Third, as a newborn the woman obviously did not experience immediate warm caregiving from a permanent caregiver. She spent ten days with her birth mother who knew she would be given up, was placed on the opposite side of the room etc. Surrogacy does not entail depriving a child of bonding moments in the minutes and hours and days after birth.

If you read some of the other testimonies from the mothers and children who were victims of this cruel practice, you'll see that their experiences weren't all identical. Some mothers had their babies taken away immediately after birth, others spent a few weeks with them, so they bonded with their natural mother. Two very different experiences described here.

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/9954/html/

And a lot more here.

The violation of Family Life: Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976

When you talk about 'bonding moments' is that with the mother who has given birth or the purchasers?

But it is quite a leap to go from that position to thinking surrogacy should be banned because of its impact on the welfare of children.

Surrogacy is a relatively new practice. It really only started on a large scale after forced adoptions were stopped and IVF became available. What were (are) the arguments for its introduction on a large scale? What are the arguments for creating children with the intent of taking them away from their mother at birth? By talking about 'banning' you're suggesting that this is a normal, conventional practice, and there should be a good reason for stopping it. I would suggest that the reverse is true, that there should be a good reason for allowing it to happen.

The actual numbers aren't the point really.

The point is that the state cannot and should not foist parenthood on someone who doesn't want it.

The reason it should end as soon as the baby is born is because that is what the birth mother wants.

I'm sure I've read of cases where the mother has changed her mind after giving birth. Shouldn't she be given a short period at least to decide if that's still what she wants after the child is born? Taking the child off her immediately deprives her of that choice.

So you think the importance of the mother to the baby’s welfare ceases to exist if she doesn’t want to consider herself important?

So on the traumatic separation, there is obviously a difference between a child being forcibly removed from a mother who does not wish her to be taken away and is incredibly distressed as a result in terms of the trauma and stress involved for both the mother and the baby; and a baby being removed from a mother who is calm and voluntarily choosing to relinquish parental responsibility, done in a managed way.

On bonding moments - I'm referring to bonding moments with the people who will be their parents on a long term basis. This was not possible for cases of forced adoption, it is with surrogacy.

I also don't agree with your framing.

Fundamentally surrogacy is an exercise in making decisions around one's own fertility. A woman gets to decide whether she wishes to be impregnated or not, a man decides if he wishes to impregnate a woman or not, and an egg donor decides if she wishes to be an egg donor or not. These are all decisions where the starting point should favour liberty over one's body. It is on those arguing to interfere with that autonomy that need to demonstrate that there is a justification for such a state interference in personal freedom over our own bodies.

So if it’s about “liberty over one’s body”
What’s the difference between selling babies and eggs and selling organs?

Both have health risks, both are non-renewable resources, even though livers regenerate you can’t sell part of yours.

All of this is a fantasy constructed to say that humans are perfectly independent except for contractural relationships. I suppose it should not be a surprise this ideology comes from the US, a country which believes the relations of the citizens to each other and the government and the law are a kind of abstract contractual arrangement.

In reality motherhood and fatherhood are fundamentally material biological relations that exist whether or not the people involved "agree". The state doesn't impose parenthood on anyway, any more than they impose gravity on anyone.

And most importantly in this context, the relation of the infant to the birth mother isn't some kind of abstract relation based on consent, it's a material reality based on flesh and chemistry; the mother infant dyad and fourth trimester are real and important things as anyone who has had a child knows.

"consent" has fuck all to do with it and trying to create a society where that is all there is to such important human relationships is morally reprehensible.

I really hope people who believe this shit are not condemning fathers who don't bother to pay for or be involved with their offspring.

Fundamentally surrogacy is an exercise in making decisions around one's own fertility. A woman gets to decide whether she wishes to be impregnated or not, a man decides if he wishes to impregnate a woman or not, and an egg donor decides if she wishes to be an egg donor or not. These are all decisions where the starting point should favour liberty over one's body. It is on those arguing to interfere with that autonomy that need to demonstrate that there is a justification for such a state interference in personal freedom over our own bodies.

I notice that there is no consideration of the child in any of this talk of liberty and freedom. So the child is just a by-product of people exercising their freedoms. Interesting.

So on the traumatic separation, there is obviously a difference between a child being forcibly removed from a mother who does not wish her to be taken away and is incredibly distressed as a result in terms of the trauma and stress involved for both the mother and the baby; and a baby being removed from a mother who is calm and voluntarily choosing to relinquish parental responsibility, done in a managed way.

If a child is born and immediately removed from the mother, there is no difference. If the mother is distressed and doesn't want the baby to be taken, the baby is not aware if this if it is immediately taken away.

It’s like some fantasy version of surrogacy, where the birth mother has full agency over decisions, has all the rights, and the impact on the baby doesn’t matter because the mother is choosing not to want the baby.

This is the exact opposite of 99.99% of surrogacy arrangements that occur.

My main concerns about surrogacy are

1. The lack of any assessment/monitoring/guidance of the commissioning parents - this is very different from what happens in adoption or fostering
2. That the child is created WITH THE INTENTION of removing it from its birth parents (particularly the mother). And I do think the term "surrogate" it being used in an unusual way - I'd expect "surrogate mother" to be used for the person who's acting in the place of the birth mother.

They're not just whisked off and given to strangers like in forced adoption. It is completely different.

Yes they are. Not from the point of view of the adults, but from the point of view of the child yes that's exactly what happens, they're whisked off and give to strangers. It's not different, for the baby, it's the same thing.

If you don't think consent is relevant, then what is your answer if a mother decides that she does not want to raise a child and wants to relinquish parental responsibility?

Is that something that should be permitted or not?

Because if it should be permitted, then like me, you agree that people should have the autonomy not to be parents.

Same question to you.

Should mothers be allowed to relinquish parental responsibility or not?

Sorry this is nonsense.

The whole point about the trauma of immediate separation is that it is a physiological thing. It is the impact of heightened cortisol in utero and immediately after birth, as well as the lack of personal/physical connections and the impact that has on neural development. It's like you're arguing for the primal wound theory without having read or understood it.

Is there a difference in 'allowing' something, and 'encouraging/ normalising' something?

In this case, a mother giving up her baby.

I would say that there is a massive difference, which is part of the problem.

Something that would have happened once in a blue moon is being encouraged and financially incentivised.

The use of the term 'surrogate' rather than 'birth mother' is a deliberate choice to depersonalization her.

What makes you so sure that the women acting as surrogates in India or Ukraine are having such stress-free pregnancies? It seems quite unlikely to me.

What do you mean by "the lack of personal/physical connections and the impact that has on neural development"?

I haven't read anything about the primal wound theory, and I'd never even heard of it before this thread. It looks interesting though, and I noticed it was mentioned by some of the mothers in their submissions to the parliamentary report about forced adoption.

What has this got to do with anything?

But you seem to think they should be able to. In that case, does it only apply to newborns, or should they also be allowed to hand them in when they become difficult toddlers or stroppy teenagers?

I find this a bit of an odd perspective.
It sort of assumes that you think everyone has the right to be parents and that any existence is better than none? I don’t think I agree with that to be honest. I don’t think there is a universal right to be a parent. I don’t know how to articulate myself very well but your perspective doesn’t sit right with me!

The child, of course, has a right to know who their mother was/is. There will surely need to be a mother's name on the birth certificate?

All of us are born of a woman and that woman will be known.

I mean my main interest here is in the legal and public policy position. Individuals can disapprove of whatever they like. The question for me is should it be banned or not.