Disappointed that Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie is promoting her use of surrogacy as compatible with feminism

[Carla786]

I loved Purple Hibiscus and recently got through the rest of her books from my library. I really like her novels and especially her GC stance, but I was discussing her on a feminist subreddit recently and her use of surrogacy came up. It's disappointing she promotes it here as compatible with feminism,

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/naija-fashion/791804-ive-no-regrets-welcoming-my-twins-through-surrogacy-chimamanda-adichie.html

Infertility is of course extremely painful, but I don't think that justifies using another woman's womb.

I've loved Chimamanda's books but won't be buying any more if that's what she spends the money on.

Yes, Chimamanda has really gone down in my estimation. It’s a massive disappointment that someone who has written so eloquently as a feminist is able to contort their principles when they want something incompatible with those principles.

I agree with the points that PP have made about surrogacy being incompatible with feminism, and being incompatible with the needs of a new-born baby. A baby should only be taken from the woman who birthed it in extreme circumstances, such as they death of the mother or a safeguarding situation.

We do need to have hard conversations about fertility and the ‘right’ to have a biological child. Just because we have the technology available, doesn’t mean we should use it in this way.

She answered the post as if she was the one who wrote the paragraph I quoted. I'm not sure why.

I didn’t mention selfish. I was genuinely interested in whether/how you considered the risks and rewards.

We all - mothers - take these risks and some address them more directly than others.

Taking such risks for one’s own benefit is more understandable than when someone else will benefit - by that I mean you obviously found some benefit in helping a family member which offset the risks to you and your own child to a high degree.

It’s also interesting how you only mentioned “their father” and no wider circle of carers, not least your sister in law who would seem an obvious candidate to be a significant help

No she didnt. She just responded like people so in conversations.

Well he is their father and my husband, so naturally he would hsve had legal custody of them by default should anything happen to me. We do have a very loving and supportive family on both sides; they've helped us raise our children. There is no reason that would be any different if either of us died at any point. They would likely do even more.

Earlier I mentioned the reasons I did it. One of them is that I wanted me and my SIL specifically to go through parenthood together, at as similar stages as possible. Her two kids are between my two of mine. Hers, mine, hers, mine.

Ok

That risk is tripled if you are carrying another woman's baby. Tripled.

From what to what?

Bear in mind, this was back in 2012. So any research you refer to regarding risk would have to be before then for it to be relevant to my choice.

At the time I was going to do it, they were pretty sure that elevated risk was to do with having IVF. I was happy to assume those risks. I would have done it to have my own babies if i needed to. Even after having my first without assistance.

I have seen women crying because they want a baby, including single women. The urge to procreate, to pass on one's own genes and hold one's own baby in one's arms, is powerful in those who experience it.

This isn't in any way comparable to the situation of agreeing to bear a baby to hand over to someone else.

I cried over my SIL negative pregnancy tests many times. As did she and her husband and it affected my husband, too.

Infertility is a very real form of grief but that doesn’t require other women to pit themselves at risk to make it better, nor does it make it right to conceive children with the purpose of removing them from their mother.

https://theconversation.com/surrogacy-is-booming-but-new-research-suggests-these-pregnancies-could-be-higher-risk-for-women-and-babies-239574

The researchers found pregnant women in gestational surrogacy arrangements had a rate of severe maternal complications of 7.8%, more than three times the rate of those who became pregnant naturally (2.3%) and almost twice the rate among those who got pregnant through IVF (4.3%).

It's believed that the foetus having completely different DNA from the mother is a contributing factor, along with poverty-related factors.

The timing of this research doesn't matter because your offer was made with those risks existing and you not knowing about them. The definition of "informed consent" requires you to know about these risks.

You were feeling empathy. That's not what I was describing. I was describing a powerful urge to hold your own baby in your arms, an urge that goes back to the dawn of our species.

Research didnt know about them and the study has limitations. They still aren't entirely clear what is behind the elevated risk. Some evo biologists posit that it is when the surrogate is unrelated to the prospective parents. It's just theories though. It might still be the IVF.

I'd say I felt my own disappointment. I really wanted to be a parenting my own children alongside her parenting hers. I wouldnt say it was empathy as ive never encountered fertility issues.

And what if your plans to have more kids were bought to an abrupt end by your surrogate pregnancy?

But you do seem very over-invested in your SIL reproduction - wanting her to have children so you can parent together.

There is also a powerful urge to have sex to enable this, especially in men. Does that make prostitution or rape ok?

No, it's not "the IVF".

"almost twice the rate among those who got pregnant through IVF (4.3%)."

I was asked what motivated me to want to do it. Of course it is something you have to explore in great depth before you even offer so I know why I wanted to.

That was a risk I was willing to assume. I had no reason to believe the chances of that were particualrly high. As I said, the highest risk was needing a caesarean in future pregnancies.

This was one study of a small sample size. They don't have the numbers to know that and say as much. This was also retrospective. A better study would be to look at surrogates through an upcoming pregnancy and compare them to a control group of people just having IVF, rather than auditing old notes.

Read all my posts and the history of that post to understand the context in which I say that.

I am making the point that the urge of a woman to bear and birth her own child is usually not a consequence of being groomed to be kind. She can therefore consent to that, even if we argue that consent to something you've been groomed from birth to do is not truly consent.

I am very much opposed to anyone's powerful urge being used to justify commandeering someone else's body.

We all like to think of the best possible outcomes and minimise the negative bits. But if you’d had a very disabled child that your relatives decided not to adopt, your life would look rather different to what you’d hoped. I was interested in how you balanced these thoughts but it seems that your approach was not to think too hard about the potential downsides. No criticism- I find it interesting. (I had 2 home births and people asked me directly to my face why I would take such risks and tell me about my foolhardy choices. I’d like to be clear im not doing that - I was curious about how you worked through the risks for yourself especially when doing something others consider risky or unusual)

But if women have been groomed by birth to be compliant, how do we know when they are acting on their true urges and when they're just being kind?