Does surrogacy pose a moral and ethical quandary?

What the fuck would I care? Is this MumsNet?

I’m sorry R1. I just assumed by looking at your gaping cunt you had popped out a child at some point.

Bump

No one but no one gives a fuck about any of this shit, OP.

When educated women who make 100;000 a year start being surrogates, then we can say there isn’t any moral or ethical issues. Until then; yes; women renting their bodies out to make ends meet is exploitative.

STOP TRYING TO GET DATALOUNGE TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND/OR DO THE RESEARCH FOR YOUR PAPERS

GO TO THE FUCKING LIBRARY

No, it does not.

Gay people are beneficiaries of surrogacy so it is absolutely a gay issue.

Yes, of course it poses a moral and ethical quandary.

No, I have no idea what the solution is.

We don’t care.

Does putting a biological child up for adoption pose the same quandary?

Surrogates are not usually biologically related to the resulting child. They literally are a carrier of an embryo/fetus created from another woman’s egg.

No dog in this fight but renting wombs seems creepy.

Who cares what straight people do OP. We're LGBT and 95% of us don't have children and have no interest.

It’s a contract between people. Govt doesn’t not need to tell me what I can do with my body. And no, women are not too stupid to know the risks.

R13 But many times they are too poor to have a choice.

[quote]When educated women who make 100;000 a year start being surrogates

A strange standard, but nonetheless, it's one already somewhat true in America. I have friends going the surrogacy route. She doesn't work, but she is a married mother of three whose husband makes high six figures. No one is pressuring her to do this. And I doubt desperation is a feeling she even would recognize. Another family were very comfortable, not wealthy, but she had done it a few times just because she enjoyed being pregnant (and probably had some kind of do gooder complex).

In other parts of the world it is admittedly a lot sketchier.

R15, that story is a little hard to believe. I could buy it if the husband made low six figures in a somewhat high cost of living area, but high six figures? It’s not worth everyone knowing. It’s not easy to hide a pregnancy.

Egg donation for some extra cash is believable. Actually going through a pregnancy much less so.

It there more to it? If they are doing it for a reason other than for the money, it makes more sense. Also, guessing someone has a pregnancy fetish. Or maybe she cheated and he is willing to forgive, but not keep the child. So they came up with the surrogacy story. That is more believable than a family making $800k a year having a baby for pay.

It's bad for the kids psyche and so is adoption.

OTOH, gay and infertile couples need a source of infants. So, IDK.

My friend and his husband hired a woman who went to grad school in her 30s as their gestational surrogate, using an embryo from a donor egg. Doing so allowed her to get her degree while not having to work. When they were ready for their second kid, she did it again to pay off her remaining student loan and have a down payment for a house. She did it for the money for sure but she wasn’t an economically disadvantaged person.

Back in the mid 90s I worked with a girl from Ireland who sold her eggs several times at $5000 a pop. She also did it for the money but again it wasn’t like she was desperate. She thought it was a lot easier than working retail or bar tending on the weekends for extra cash.

TAKE THIS FILTHY HETERO STINK SHIT SOMEWHERE ELSE

In America, "poor" women are usually weeded out of the Surrogacy system.

[quote]Ethical surrogacy agencies and lawyers don’t accept two specific categories of potential surrogates. First, they reject women below the poverty level who may be at greater risk for health concerns and coercion, and who probably do not have medical insurance. Second, they reject women who don’t have children. Women who are already mothers have proven they are fertile, and have a more comprehensive grasp of what it will mean to surrender a baby to its legal parents.

If course it does. That's why it needs to be legal and regulated.

Nobody wants some malnourished poor person growing their baby. Fetuses “steal” calcium the woman gestating them, along with other nutrients that the placenta provides. If a surrogate is not optimally nourished in her own childhood and youth, she will not have sufficient calcium stores. Even if the surrogate is consuming sufficient calcium during the gestation, it may not be optimal and bioavailable to the fetus.

Also, and this is actually true, cells from the fetus can be found in a mother’s (gestating woman’s) bloodstream for two decades after she has given birth. Mothers are walking around with bits of their children inside of them for year and years. Literally. On a cellular level, they are linked and “cohabiting” for a very long time, even after birth.

And by proxy, bits of the father’s DNA inhabit them as well.

Yes. I think it’s even more exploitative when I hear the surrogate is having twins. I don’t care if the surrogate has had a singleton before— twin pregnancies are totally different and I have a hard time believing they are going to understand what it’s going to do to their body.

R8 for the win.

[quote] But many times they are too poor to have a choice.

Like many who join the military.

And your point?

[quote] Gay people are beneficiaries of surrogacy so it is absolutely a gay issue. Yes, of course it poses a moral and ethical quandary. No, I have no idea what the solution is.

The solution is to get out of their business. The apparent "quandary" will be dealt by the people signing the contract--particularly the surrogate.

Whenever someone brings up morals, it's push what you want as a policy affecting everyone. It's always nicely wrapped in the term "morals"

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to a gay person. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like surrogacy, don't hire a surrogate.

[quote] But many times they are too poor to have a choice.

We are ALL too poor to have a choice with regards to working to getting an income.

We use what we have--our brains, our brawn, and/or our bodies. Yes, there are many born in abject poverty who have very little hope to get money to lead a better life. If they get an opportunity to have a child for someone else, why not give them that opportunity? Otherwise you condemn them to continue living in utter poverty. I don't see you donating thousands of dollars to help them.

See the thread about poor, brown kids being pushed into ROTC through mandatory school classes.

Why don't we ask if that poses a moral and ethical quandary?

The West continues to move towards liberalizing surrogacy. It was just made legal in New York, where it was illegal for decades even when other states made it legal. In Israel, gay men are allowed to have kids through surrogacy now.

Liberals are for it because it allows gays to have kids. Conservatives are for it because it a libertarian ideal--people making choices for themselves without govt intrusion.

Since far more straight people use surrogates than gays, it'll be hard to demonize and will continue

Most western countries are so skittish about surrogacy that one has to travel to the third world to rent a womb. That says it all, doesn’t it?

A job's a job.

Great whataboutist response, r30

R32, really? Do you have evidence that backs up people going to third world countries to engage surrogates? I know five babies who were born to gestational surrogates in the past five years. All were carried by middle class American white women.

[quote] Most western countries are so skittish about surrogacy that one has to travel to the third world to rent a womb. That says it all, doesn’t it?

Actually, it's amazingly expensive to do surrogacy in the US. Cost about $150-$200K. I know because several friends have done it. Couples (or singles) turn to foreign surrogacy because it's much cheaper ($50k).

It has nothing to do with western countries being skittish about it.

[quote] Great whataboutist response, [R30]

Not a whataboutism at all. If surrogacy is supposedly immoral because these women are too poor to have a choice then military recruitment of poor inner city kids is just as immoral, right? In fact, armies should be immoral because they are made up of people mainly too poor to do anything else.

They are both bad, dipshit

So where's the discussion about banning the military?

Well I'd start with banning predatory recruitment practices, but yeah

If I don't work 40 hours a week, I'll starve. Should my work be banned?

Yeah, I think so.

Giving birth can be fatal.

It is highly unethical and a moral gray if not black, and I say this as someone whose mother almost died in childbirth once and then had two unhealthy kids.

Most DLers aren't going to want to face harsh facts and own up to the inherent and as yet unsolvable issues, though, so you might as well leave it alone, OP, even if you had good intentions. That being said, these practises will go on regardless of what any of us say for or against it, so it's clear that legalisation is something to support, at least to provide basic safeguards for those going through the process.

Yes, OP. It makes me sad. Babies need a mother, period.

I think middle class gays buying babies is ethically troubling. With so many babies looking to be adopted it is just kind of gross to me.

It’s not true that there are “so many babies” looking to be adopted

There are babies and older children that are in foster care because their parents can’t take care of them right now

There are babies being farmed out of young Christian girls who weren’t given the option of abortion

But a glut of adoptable babies, no.

I meant there are many children already here looking for loving families.

Yes, I understand the greater Instagrammable opportunities with a newborn...

Surrogacy is sort of a gay issue, but not really much of one. Only a small minority of gays ever use surrogates, the majority of surrogacy users are heterosexuals - either infertile couples or those who are rich and vain enough to spare themselves the rigors or pregnancy.

So let's not frame surrogacy and all its moral quandaries and repellence as a "gay issue", because it's really much more of a straight issue.

[quote] Giving birth can be fatal.

So can eating a steak

[quote] Yes, OP. It makes me sad. Babies need a mother, period.

Gays are often more nurturing than mothers, you know, like the mothers who gave away their kids, leaving the state to deal with their orphans

According to Sociobiologist E.O. Wilson, the reason nature created gays was to have a mother's helper in the family to raise kids. In fact, families with gay children have lower incidence of infant mortality.

[quote] It’s not true that there are “so many babies” looking to be adopted. There are babies and older children that are in foster care because their parents can’t take care of them right now There are babies being farmed out of young Christian girls who weren’t given the option of abortion. But a glut of adoptable babies, no.

Kids in foster care ARE babies looking to be adopted.

There are about half-a-million orphans in the US.

Black babies have the worst time getting adopted, which is why white Americans go rushing to Russia, China, and Ukraine to adopt babies.

One of the drivers of surrogacy is people don't want to adopt black babies.

r44, so you are saying the babies who already exist and are available for adoptions don't need a mother? Or are you just against gay men being parents?

At adoption and social services agencies, there are usually no babies in stock, not of any color. Babies are like 1997 tickle-me-elmo; they only stay on the shelf for a few seconds before they're snapped up.

There are lots of kids in the foster care system, but they're not all available for adoption. The system's goal is unification between these kids and their birth families. Only if something sad or horrible happens is the kid available for adoption, and then that child is likely to have some trauma.

There are lots of people who were adopted by good families at birth who have unexplained trauma. Some believe it stems from being born and suddenly no longer hearing the familiar voice of the woman who carried them for several months. In those cases, the baby is already here, and adoption is better than being raised by a bio parent who can't meed the child's needs.

But it seems weird to take extra steps to CREATE a new person to intentionally deprive them of half of their bio parentage and deny them the familiarity of the third-party who carried them in her body for several months. I saw a documentary of a young woman whose mom had conceived her with donor sperm. Shortly after turning 18, she contacted her sperm donor and flew to his state to meet him. She got off the plane and was running through the airport in tears at the thought of finally meeting this man who had provided half her DNA.

To me, it makes more sense for a gay man and a gay woman to create a kid together, and then share custody. That way the kid knows where they came from, and they benefit from having a bigger support system: potentially two moms and two dads. But, I guess people don't like to share.

Families with gay parents seem to do very well, sometimes even better, than those with straight parents.

Gay parents think a long time about parenthood before doing it. Straights have a one night stand and boom.

People want their own genetic children, not leftovers whose backgrounds you know little about.

[quote] At adoption and social services agencies, there are usually no babies in stock, not of any color.

Yes, babies go quickly. It's when the kids get even a little older that they become hard to place

[quote] I saw a documentary of a young woman whose mom had conceived her with donor sperm. Shortly after turning 18, she contacted her sperm donor and flew to his state to meet him. She got off the plane and was running through the airport in tears at the thought of finally meeting this man who had provided half her DNA.

She sounds overly dramatic and absolutely exhausting

[quote] But it seems weird to take extra steps to CREATE a new person to intentionally deprive them of half of their bio parentage and deny them the familiarity of the third-party who carried them in her body for several months.

And yet, children birth by surrogacy aren't all going nuts.

Gays especially often include their surrogates among those who know and interact with their children. It's straights who keep it hidden because the wives don't want to deal with another women giving birth to their children

Few people are equipped to handle the complex emotional and behavioral needs of children in the foster system, that's why so few adopt them. Countries where the population is mostly white also have the same problem.

R59, gay surrogacy consumers know their egg donor?

R61, yes, often they include the egg donor and the surrogate (if they are different women) in their circle so the kids grow up knowing exactly who they are

[quote] Few people are equipped to handle the complex emotional and behavioral needs of children in the foster system, that's why so few adopt them.

Yes, so when someone says, a child needs a mother; gay men are not a good substitute, does that mean these children are better off without any parents than gay parents?

No, no dilemma at all. It's, how you say in English, perfect!

The world needs lots and lots more bambinos!

Here’s a story: a very kind and hard-working single mom I know, I’ll call her Isabel, from Mexico, aged 39, was persuaded by a rich single 49 year old woman (lives in a 10 million house) for whom she cleans house, to carry a baby for her. She agreed to do it for $70,000 plus all medical expenses. She had to go to many, many medical appointments, shoot herself up with hormones, had a miscarriage, tried again and got pregnant, contracted gestational diabetes, all while continuing to clean this woman’s house practically until she gave birth. Her doctor advised she take 6 weeks off after giving birth to a beautiful girl.

The woman had paid her about $40,000 by this point. After she took the baby immediately after the birth, she refused to pay her anything else and threatened to have her deported. Isabel ended up suicidal and in therapy for many months afterwards.

The rich woman lied to medical practitioners that Isabel was a “friend” doing her a favor. Should have been obvious to the doctors this was not the case. There are currently no rules in place to prevent this type of thing from happening.

R54, I agree with you. There is a real moral dilemma a play in surrogacy.

People are throwing out nonsense to deny there is an issue for THE CHILD. Typically, we are hearing justifications based on what the adults want. But this should be about the child being created. Specifically created to start life and possibly live life at less than the optimal health for the child.

Just because we can't pinpoint the psychological and physical deficiencies of losing a biological parent on some "happiness" or "success" scale doesn't mean that these children do not experience a real loss - a loss that was deliberately planned by adults who thought their needs and wants were more important than that of a child's. That lack of awareness and selfishness is not a quality one wants in a parent.

Very disappointed that DLers seem to be missing the point why this is a real moral and ethical quandary. We're usually better at detecting bullshit in propaganda for and against some issues.

r12 I'm not sure the percentage is quite that high!!

Check your bias, r66, whether it is conscious or unconscious. Babies born via surrogates are legally adopted by the non-biological parent. Same as if a couple adopted a newborn that was surrendered at birth. What's the difference? In both cases the babies are wanted by parents, not necessarily biological ones. Single women get pregnant intentionally or unintentionally all the time and have babies without any intention of having the biological father (sperm donor) in their kid's life.

I am going to assume you are not adopted R68.

Bias, conscious or unconscious, cuts many ways and raised-by-biological-parent-splaining is particularly egregious, wide-spread and rarely challenged.

[quote] There are currently no rules in place to prevent this type of thing from happening.

This is why surrogacy requires contracts and full understanding what the consequences are.

Government can never fix individual decisions between two people. A contract gives the legal weight of such a decision.

[quote] People are throwing out nonsense to deny there is an issue for THE CHILD. Typically, we are hearing justifications based on what the adults want. But this should be about the child being created. Specifically created to start life and possibly live life at less than the optimal health for the child.

There is absolutely no science pointing to problems for the child. In fact, science shows that the optimal parentage for children is to have two parents. That's it. It doesn't show that straight is better than gay or that naturally born is better than adopted. For the child, having two parents, any two parents, will lead to the most optimal childhood.

[quote] People are throwing out nonsense to deny there is an issue for THE CHILD

Perhaps we should abort all pregnancies of single mothers or maybe take children away the second parents get divorce. The outcomes in those two scenarios are far far worse than two gay men raising a baby after a surrogacy,.

[quote] Just because we can't pinpoint the psychological and physical deficiencies of losing a biological parent on some "happiness" or "success" scale doesn't mean that these children do not experience a real loss - a loss that was deliberately planned by adults who thought their needs and wants were more important than that of a child's. That lack of awareness and selfishness is not a quality one wants in a parent.

So have to do protect a child from even imagined psychological calamity you can come up with?

Not all mothers have a maternal instinct.

Or this:

Or this

Babies are born on the Earth in a variety of different scenarios--single moms, partnered moms, surrogacy.

Biology just wants us to procreate and get those babies out any way we can.

[quote] Just because we can't pinpoint the psychological and physical deficiencies of losing a biological parent on some "happiness" or "success" scale doesn't mean that these children do not experience a real loss - a loss that was deliberately planned by adults who thought their needs and wants were more important than that of a child's. That lack of awareness and selfishness is not a quality one wants in a parent.

If you can't measure it, then you're just making that up in your head--just an imagined devastation that the child apparently feels. Kids feel devastated it you don't buy them an ice cream. They get over it.

Things aren't wrong just because they aren't ideal.

People can't buy body parts to save lives because everyone knows that it's immoral, unethical and only the most desperate would sell their body parts. You can however rent women's body parts.

I have yet to see a child raised in an ideal world. Even if you try to everything right, the world around encroaches. You can't shield your child from violence and the effects of poverty if you want to show that child the world

[quote] People can't buy body parts to save lives because everyone knows that it's immoral, unethical and only the most desperate would sell their body parts. You can however rent women's body parts.

I think people should be able to do what they want with their bodies, even sell their body parts.

That said, one involves a life threatening operation and the other involves a natural function (not totally harmless but manageable when monitored closely).

The two aren't comparable

Society doesn't let people sell their body parts because it embarrasses the society that its decisions and policies led to that poverty.

Society does however allow you to donate your body parts, even while alive, to save another person.

It does the same with surrogacy. The Surrogate can't be compensated directly but all necessities are paid for.

I can’t speak to surrogacy but in hindsight, I would have opted for adoption.

[Quote]Who cares what straight people do OP. We're LGBT and 95% of us don't have children and have no interest.

By that "logic," 95 percent of people are straight and therefore have no interest in gay rights, right?

[quote] Perhaps we should abort all pregnancies of single mothers or maybe take children away the second parents get divorce.

How did you conjure up that inapt comparison. it's not the same.

We are not talking about having to deal with fate or the life you are handed after birth. Events or situations that were unplanned. We are discussing DELIBERATELY creating a child that you plan to DELIBERATELY deprive of known benefits from having its birth mother present in its life. Especially in its early life.

And, yes, there are scientific studies that show the benefits.

We’ll then link them r87 if you want anyone to take your claims seriously. I for one find it offensive. You are saying gay men are not capable of being adequately nurturing to raise a baby together.

[Quote] How did you conjure up that inapt comparison. it's not the same.

The comparison is apt. If you’re trying to shield a child from all things that might cause harm, among the worst is being raised by a single parent, not by surrogate-using gay parents

[Quote] We are discussing DELIBERATELY creating a child that you plan to DELIBERATELY deprive of known benefits from having its birth mother present in its life. Especially in its early life.

Wouldn’t a child feel special that parents jumped through so many hoops just to have him//her?

[Quote] And, yes, there are scientific studies that show the benefits.

In fact, no study saying having your natural mother shows a major benefit that cannot be achieved any other way.. There are many studies, however, that show having two parents of any type gives major benefits for the child

There’s a lot of bullshit psychology being thrown around on this thread . All these kids will do just fine.

Gay men who use surrogates are bad people.

R93, but they’re great parents

[Quote] Gay men are bad people.

Fixed it for what you really meant to say

The idealization of adoption is a very American thing.

r96 How is it idealized?

Also to the child. This is what social experimenters never ponder. A child should be bonded with his/her mom for normal well being and human experience.

No, Rose, it does not. Next question.

[Quote] This is what social experimenters never ponder. A child should be bonded with his/her mom for normal well being and human experience.

Says who?

Evolution is not so stupid as to demand that you bind with your only your biological mother or else you will be ruined for life. A child should bond with a parent, and when you have a parent, generally you do.

R96, for one thing, the foster system to adoption pipeline does not exist outside the US. The goal is seen as being to keep families together.

[quote] Yes, OP. It makes me sad. Babies need a mother, period

Fuck you.

R96. You are right. Even with Western Europe. It's because since the 80s unwarranted pregnancies in 1st world countries have become rare except for in America. Other rich western nations, abortion and birth control are viewed so culturally different.

The American love of adoption is largely driven by the evangelical movement. They want that domestic supply of infants

Hugh Jackman and his beard are trying to get Australian adoption laws changed. Adoption outside the birth family is very rare here. But they purchased their kids in the US where it’s much easier.

R100 you don’t think there’s some kind of biological bond created by 9 months in the womb? Only now are we starting to be honest about the trauma that adopted kids carry. Breaking the maternal bond is a powerful thing. We still don’t know how bonding and attachment affects things like the development of personality disorders. We can’t just handwave it all away because gays make excellent parents.

r102 They're...right, though. Early infant separation from mothers, cross-species, is known to be detrimental to the healthy development of offspring.

That's why you're not supposed to start adopting kittens and puppies out until a specific time. The same rules that apply to the animal kingdom apply to humans, perhaps even more so since humans have the capacity to grow up to be sociopaths if they get fucked up during early childhood development.

A gestational surrogate is an incubator, not a mother. She is carrying an implanted embryo for its parents.

R107 you are actually disgusting comparing human babies to puppies and kittens who can obviously survive with human care after birth.

FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT FRAU SHIT

I'm so sick of people being frau police to deflect from the conversation at hand. For one it may not even be true, the frau accusations, but they have valid points of view as well. This actually does pertain to them.

Children bond. That’s what they do, whether it’s a gestational surrogate, a foster parent, an adoptive parent or a biological parent. Severing bonds in early life causes trauma.

I’m not opposed to surrogacy at all. Every family has its trade-offs and generally speaking two parent families (gay or straight) who intentionally seek to be parents are the closest to “ideal” that exists. That said, there are things people who use surrogates can do to lessen the trauma, but to do that they have to move past the idea that it doesn’t exist.

Uh, mental case at r109, gay men who want biological children use surrogates. It is a frau issue in that fraus feel their superiority is threatened.

[quote] When educated women who make 100;000 a year start being surrogates

This already happens in America so what are on about ethics? Do you also worry about the ethics of heterosexuals having children when the world population is at 8 billion. What about the clothing you are wearing? Or the electronic device you used to post your garbage post? How many children were exploited do that you could have your gadget?

[quote] you don’t think there’s some kind of biological bond created by 9 months in the womb? Only now are we starting to be honest about the trauma that adopted kids carry. Breaking the maternal bond is a powerful thing. We still don’t know how bonding and attachment affects things like the development of personality disorders. We can’t just handwave it all away because gays make excellent parents.

The world isn't perfect. Every scenario isn't going to be perfect. If we cared so deeply about this apparent bond that occurs in the womb, why does society even allow mothers to give their babies up for adoption?

Much of the "trauma" that adopted kids carry is more like a product of why they were given up for adoption in the first place--product of unstable environment, poor mother, drug-addicted mother, etc.

[quote] That said, there are things people who use surrogates can do to lessen the trauma, but to do that they have to move past the idea that it doesn’t exist.

Of this "trauma" is psychological mumbo-jumbo that you (or some pseudo-scientists) made up. How can one possibly pinpoint and measure this apparent trauma? It's just conjecture because someone thought, "Well, there just MUST be some trauma, right?"

There are literally thousands of kids all over the world who are products of surrogacy and are thriving.

So, it's a tough sell to convince everyone that they're all suffering from trauma because they don't seem to be

People deal with trauma at every stage of their lives--emotional trauma, physical trauma. It's part of the human condition.

The main thing to try to give each child a loving home so the kid can reach his potential with the most minimal pain.

[quote] for one thing, the foster system to adoption pipeline does not exist outside the US. The goal is seen as being to keep families together.

I also imagine that, with so many social and financial supports in Europe, fewer women feel they have to give their children up for adoption.

[quote] Early infant separation from mothers, cross-species, is known to be detrimental to the healthy development of offspring.

Yes, BUT those animal studies are done with taking the babies away from their mothers AFTER they have bonded and they are moved from their mother, not to another mother, but to an austere environment.

So those studies have absolutely no bearing on the current conversation.

[quote] Children bond. That’s what they do, whether it’s a gestational surrogate, a foster parent, an adoptive parent or a biological parent. Severing bonds in early life causes trauma.

Yes, children bond but that's after they're born. There may certainly be some sort of bond that occurs in utero, but nothing that we've defined yet.

Infants born of surrogates don't bond with their birth mothers after birth. Again evolution has assured that infants have as much emotional flexibility as possible to thrive no matter what environment they end up in. There's never any guarantee that a mother will be around forever. In fact, for most of human history, mothers had an extraordinary chance of dying in child birth. The child will bond with whomever takes care of him.

I just really wish the exploitation of women's bodies would stop. Can't they develop an artificial womb to do this stuff?

R121, every job is exploitative at some level. Why worry solely about surrogacy?

It's interesting how this conversation has evolved on this thread.

First it was: You're exploiting women!! Poor women have no choice!! When it was pointed out the the military is also exploitative of the poor and no one is talking about abolishing the military, then the argument pivoted to "You're breaking the natural bonds between the birth mother and the baby!!!"

Maybe it would help people get over their emotional bias if they didn’t refer to a surrogate as a “birth mother” but as a legally contracted gestational surrogate. Would that work?

[quote][R107] you are actually disgusting comparing human babies to puppies and kittens who can obviously survive with human care after birth.

Oh please, r108. Animal behavior is routinely used in scientific research to better understand human behavior, namely in the discipline of evolutionary biology. Not sure if you're aware, but dogs age differently than humans. So, by the time they are of appropriate age to be cared for by humans and separated from their mother, it is equivalent to a human being starting school and being cared for by another adult for the bulk of their day.

Also, you calling me out for bringing this up instead of the individual saying "fuck you" to the idea that children need their mother is very telling. Frankly, you can miss me with that BS.

Moreover, a pregnancy does not have to involve a genetic link for a baby to bond with the 'mother.' There is an actual blood bond via the placenta and hormones that are exchanged during gestation that directly affects both the woman and the baby. Oxytocin, for example, is still released during labor and birth and there is bonding involved. It's the pregnancy itself that bonds the baby to the mother, whether that mother is both gestational and biological or not.

R54 that’s what they did

^ but not every gay is going to have a gay friend willing to have a baby with them so…

[quote] There is an actual blood bond via the placenta and hormones that are exchanged during gestation that directly affects both the woman and the baby.

"Blood bond" is something you made up.

Of course there are exchanged fluids during the gestation process. There is no evidence whatsoever that if the baby is raised by someone other that the person the baby exchanged fluid with, that child will be traumatized for life. In fact, interestingly, the bond with the mother is not automatic after birth--it has to be established after birth to get the baby to drink from the breast, for example. Many women actually have a hard time establishing that bond. Fathers, of course, also develop a bond.

So, no, this "blood bond" isnt really a thing.

OMG!! The world isn't perfect!! We do what we can to have a good life and raise children to the best of our abilities!! What a concept

[quote]"Blood bond" is something you made up.

Look up fetal microchimerism and get back to us, r128

R129, yes, that's exactly right when the child is brought into the world by a mother who can't or doesn't want to raise it. In that scenario, adoption is better than growing up with a resentful or unfit parent. Still, the adopted baby will wonder what happened to the woman whose voice he heard from inside her belly.

But why go as far as to intentionally create a child under those conditions. Place him in a woman's belly, where he becomes familiar with her voice, and then take him away from that familiar voice as soon as he's born. The baby's wondering, where did that voice go?

I hope you're joking, r131. You can't be serious. The baby's only concern right after birth is its physical comfort - fed, warm, dry.

You're an idiot, R132. Take some advanced biology and evolutionary biology classes. You will amaze yourself at what you clearly have no realization of about human biology.

We are still uncovering phenomenon that plays a part in the development of the human being - physically and mentally. I am particularly interested in the maternal-fetal conflict which has only recently been studied.

So many posters who seem pragmatic to a fault. A real regressive throwback to the days of just give the kid a pat on the head and a roof over their heads and they'll be fine. All in the name of so-called progress.

r133 Well I guess if the majority of the kids who are a result of surrogacy who are studied and followed up turn out to be healthy happy and fine-and we should know that for sure within 20 years -probably less as surrogacy has increased as a trend for a while, then your concerns will be allayed?

[quote]we should know that for sure within 20 years

r134 It's no use. All of those kids are growing up on TikTok and constant dopamine hits via fake internet points. They're doomed in general. The data is tainted.

r135 Tainted?

r136 I'm jokingly suggesting that their excessive screentime, TikTok will already screw them up, so it will be impossible to tell if they're screwed up because they're surrogates or because they're Gen Z and already doomed to fail.

[Quote] Look up fetal microchimerism and get back to us, [R128]

Just looked it up and am getting back to you. It’s about a micro amount of fetal cells left over in the mother after birth.

So?

[Quote] Take some advanced biology and evolutionary biology classes. You will amaze yourself at what you clearly have no realization of about human biology. We are still uncovering phenomenon that plays a part in the development of the human being - physically and mentally. I am particularly interested in the maternal-fetal conflict which has only recently been studied.

You obviously haven’t taken any advanced biology classes. Of course there are biological connections between the mother and child. Whether this translates into bonding that cannot be recovered if the child is not raised by the mother is something we likely never will know. We cannot just assume that there is some irretrievable bonding that occurs.

And pretending there is one just to block surrogacy isn’t scientific

If babies are somehow destroyed if separated from their birth mothers, millions of children around the world would be somehow emotionally and mentally damaged.

We see no evidence of this so why are you trying to make evidence up to push your viewpoint.

[Quote] Well I guess if the majority of the kids who are a result of surrogacy who are studied and followed up turn out to be healthy happy and fine-and we should know that for sure within 20 years -probably less as surrogacy has increased as a trend for a while, then your concerns will be allayed?

Surrogacy has been around longer than 20 years. We already know that both the kids and the birth mothers turn out to be just fine.

R5, R13, There’s no evidence that the majority of surrogacy is exploited from poor women. This is a typical radfem dog whistle that is only trotted out when they want to attack gay male parents. Otherwise, never mentioned again.

R11, There it is, the appeal to “it’s not natural” fallacy.

I don’t find it creepy at all, anymore than people using their brains, hands, muscles labor or any other part of their body for profit.

What’s creepy is how homophobes and bigots believe they should have a say in how other people get to conceive or raise children.

[Quote] You're an idiot, [R132]. Take some advanced biology and evolutionary biology classes. You will amaze yourself at what you clearly have no realization of about human biology.

Actually, R132 is exactly right. For an infant., paramount is being fed, warm, safe, dry. EVERYTHING ELSE, even imaginary, unbreakable, golden bonds between baby and birth mother, because negligible in comparison. And this continues for the rest of our lives.

[Quote] There’s no evidence that the majority of surrogacy is exploited from poor women.

Exactly. In fact it’s just a dog whistle that women are apparently unable to make their own decisions and should be controlled

[Quote] I am particularly interested in the maternal-fetal conflict which has only recently been studied.

Um, maternal-fetal conflict refers to the mother doing things that may be harmful for the fetus, like doing drugs, and has been studied for a long while. I wonder what happens to that supposed solid bond between mother and child of the mother is actively trying to harm the baby.

It seems that, in your pathetic attempt to appear as some maternal-child biology expert, you are just throwing out terms that you know anything about.

We bond with lots of things—our pets, our friends, our homes, our jobs.

When we lose them, we mourn for a bit and move on. Humans are pretty resilient.

If you’re worried about human suffering, focus on ending war, famine, global warming, not surrogacy.

I think it is mostly fraus who find a moral quandary with surrogacy and have the audacity to say “A child needs a mother. Period” and harps on the unbreakable bond that starts in utero. The realization that they are replaceable threatens their very existence.

r148 I mean, if you really want to go there, most men, regardless of sexual orientation, aren't good at being fathers and nurturing their kids. They'll provide for them and clothe them, but men typically don't have the capacity to offer the nurturing aspect that mothers do. They offer other crucial aspects that mothers tend to fail their children at, such as structure, discipline, and mental clarity. That's why both mothers and fathers are needed.

Ideally, in a gay situation, gay men and lesbians would have a co-parenting arrangement with each other where children are properly planned for when all parents are financially stable and able to support them and, bonus, the kids get two sets of mommies and daddies, which sounds infinitely better. I'm not sure why people like you are so intent on boxing out either the mother or the father when it's clear that children need both involved in their lives somehow. Children deserve to have both involved in their lives somehow.

^ Note that this applies to actually going out of ones way to create a baby. Not adoption situations.

And when fraus use surrogates themselves, they are embarrassed and humiliated so pretend they never used a surrogate at all

[Quote] mean, if you really want to go there, most men, regardless of sexual orientation, aren't good at being fathers and nurturing their kids.

Gay men are actually extraordinarily nurturing to children which makes them the perfect parents actually. I’m fact, gay men have mulled over parenthood for a long while before making the decision. To use a surrogate one has to be relatively wealthy too. All those together make a great environment for children

[quote]To use a surrogate one has to be relatively wealthy too.

Rich people, regardless of gender, tend to raise assholes. Just saying.

[quote]R10 Does putting a biological child up for adoption pose the same quandary?

Pretty much. The Reich Wing is always insisting unwanted pregnancies should simply be farmed out to adoption agencies rather than aborted. Meanwhile, I’ve never known an adoptee who wasn’t fucked up.

How can one shake the fact that your OWN MOTHER didn’t want you?? God.

you know who was a surrogate? Diane Downs.

[quote]r18 My friend and his husband hired a woman who went to grad school in her 30s as their gestational surrogate, using an embryo from a donor egg. Doing so allowed her to get her degree while not having to work. When they were ready for their second kid, she did it again to pay off her remaining student loan and have a down payment for a house.

[italic]Womb whore.

r154 I know a number of adoptees who are not fucked up.

Your lies are noxious and noisome.

Adoptees are damaged goods.

Of course surrogacy poses an ethical question, but nothing to do with the one OP posts. It systematically takes advantage of women that are living in poverty. Whether or not you agree with surrogacy (I don’t, and for straights as much as gays), you have to acknowledge that there is an ethical question in relation to paying a woman to lease a woman’s womb (and life) for a certain amount of time.

As to the other things brought up, I don’t believe a child necessarily needs a mother and a father, I think two mothers, or two fathers, or one mother or one father is fine. And whether any of them are biologically related to the child is immaterial. I know adopted kids that are doing just fine with their adopted parents.

The reason many single parent families struggle isn’t because of an inherent absence in the family, rather than society discriminates against single parent families through lack of social support.

Blessed be the fruit.

Yes, there are moral and ethical issues surrounding all sides of the triad. No, I don't know what the answer to them is, other than - I suppose - to do away with surrogacy and adoption altogether. That presents its own issues but they are different issues.

People who cannot have children will have to accept the fact that they can't have children and stop engineering elaborate schemes to erase that reality. Taking other people's children away from their parents is not the answer

R161 why would you do away with adoption? That’s such a bizarre thing to say lol.

Because, R162, I was talking about the fiction that gets created around surrogacy and adoption and the moral/ethical issues inherent in these fictional living circumstances.

FYI we don't use "lol" on this website, please use words.

Yes, R7, it does. You haven't the faintest idea of what it's like to grow a baby for nine months while coping with the back pain, acid reflux and nausea, etc., or going through excruciating life-risking childbirth and then having to cope with the postnatal depression, vaginal stitches and mastitis, etc., with no baby to show for it. Surrogacy is a cruel and dehumanising practice and most women regret surrogacy. Women aren't broodmares. You guys don't even support the mothers in childbirth. You only show up at the hospital once the blood has been washed off so you can pose in hospital beds when you didn't grow or birth the baby. It's like something out of the Handmaid's Tale..

R161 is sick in the head.

There's no evidence that any substantial number of surrogates regret their decision, R164. And pregnancy hasn't been life threatening in the developed world since the 19th century.

R163 where were you talking about this “fiction”? And what does that even mean in the context of your comment? I think you’re leaning into being vague in the hopes that that will make it seem like you had a point where you are equating ethical concerns related to surrogacy and adoption, which is fairly embarrassing (and so poorly done in your attempt). And who are “we” lol? I think you’re about half as clever as you think, based on that pair of comments. Attempting to be arch (fail), using around in place of about (telling).

[quote]Breaking the maternal bond is a powerful thing.

R106, R131, you sound like a fucking creep. Is this a fetish? Coercing a bond that doesn’t exist so you can feel powerful? That reeks of entitlement.

[quote] FYI we don't use "lol" on this website, please use words.

LOL

[quote]It's like something out of the Handmaid's Tale..

That is exactly what this crazy mess reminds me of, r164. And a bunch of men not only defending it but getting an attitude because they're getting pushback about using women's bodies to grow their spawn is just weird. And then want to gaslight and say women are "threatened" because we feel that surrogacy makes us replaceable. Who is growing the damn baby for you, idiots? You're contradicting yourselves. You are defending your need for a woman (or rather a woman's body) with this shit. Adopt like other normal, sane gays with a conscience.

R170 now you’re veering into homophobic territory here. While I agree with you that surrogacy is ethically wrong, framing it as a gay practice or gay men v women is bullshit and fairly offensive.

While you’re mulling this over you go have fun googling adoption discrimination against gay couples x.

Such an original thread, OP. Because it’s not like this dead horse “philosophy” of yours hasn’t been resurrected for the millionth time here on datalounge.

r171 It's mostly gay men on here and commenting on the issue. Obviously, that's who I am going to address in this thread on this site.

R54, Why are you trying to coerce gay men into relationships with lesbians?? No gay man wants to be stuck with a dyke for the rest of his life.

R173 well since you mention that it is mostly gay men on this site, remember that this site is (generally) for gay men, and to come on here specifically to berate them as a group isn’t the vibe, or the serve you think it is.

And why are you radfem/lesbians such creeps, R164? Can you not grasp the basic concept of bodily autonomy? Gay men and women are not your possession.

Oh please spare us with your trauma droppings and moral grandstanding about birth. You’re not a sacred cow.

^there seems to be an inverted incel mentality among lesbian radfems, particularly the sect that is obsessed with gay men. It truly is unsettling.

r175 Are you not aware of the thread title? Are you also aware of the gay men on here venturing into misogynist territory with a sense of entitlement to women's bodies to incubate their offspring? It's gross. This isn't just a gay issue, of that you are correct. And I'm not framing it as one. I'm addressing those specific individuals in this thread who are crossing that line. And it's a gay website in general. Lesbians can, and do, comment. Especially on an issue that affects and involves women and women's bodies which surrogacy most certainly does.

R170, You feel threatened by the women who CHOOSE to be surrogacy providers. You don’t like the fact that you have no say in the matter, so you try to gaslight us with your moral posturing and this “birth is traumatising/birth mother bonding” nonsense you’re peddling. Women and gay men are not your pets or possessions. We are capable of making our own life choices.

^ And there is no “pushback” here. It’s just some homophobe radfem/lesbian troll.

R178 you did kinda frame it as one before. Surrogacy is often framed as a gay men couple thing, when as with all of these things, heterosexual couples make up the (vast) majority of those taking part. I don’t think it’s appropriate to comment without acknowledging this, it’s a careless (slightly on purpose) fallback. And doing it on a website that’s predominantly for gay men feels very “I’m gonna go on there and tell them what’s WHAT” which is lame and dogwhistle-ish in a really familiar way to probably every gay man reading your comments. Just letting you know how you come across x.

R44, R87, R98, No child should ever be forced to have you for a mother. That’s one thing for sure.

[quote] there seems to be an inverted incel mentality among lesbian radfems

Aaaand right on cue the reactionary capping and reaching and witchburning begins. Mostly likely catching neutral lesbians and Fraus who aren’t even that pressed about the topic in the crossfire of stupid pointless Point/Counterpoint bits (have you noticed these debates on this platform never get us anywhere?).

Can’t wait to see what spicy takes the deranged N. Batesy elders append to this. Am sure it won’t be blanket wholesale hysteria-diagnosis bullshit not germane to the topic though!!

[quote]the witchburning begins.

R183, Oh, please. Get off your bonfire Mary. This isn’t a “spicy take”. Radfems/lesbians have been complaining about “the evil gay man” for decades now, they even have some right wing homophobes joining in on their crusade. So yes, it’s fair to say they have some bizarro fixation and hatred towards gay men.

r181 I have only ever heard surrogacy framed as a gay issue in gay spaces such as this with a bunch of us arguing over this topic. Outside of that, it's mostly focused on the infertile rich heteros who use the services the most. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about, honestly.

Gay or not, they're still men. And this is an issue that outright exploits women and women's bodies for their own personal benefit. They're no different from straight men who use sex worker services but have little to no respect for the women servicing their needs. They're just "whores" to them, not people. It's the same concept. Instead of sex, it's pregnancy and childbirth. It is, indeed, some Handmaid's Tale shit that yes heteros use the most. It's all foul, regardless.

Do you know what the saddest part is? Gay men and women feuding and scrapping and trying to hurt one another...over something that straight men in power will end up carelessly and callously legislating according to their own needs anyway, which they’ll be able to do easily because the underclasses of gays & women set upon each other like dogs at merest provocation.

Are we really gonna fall for this tired divide-and-conquer gambit again?

r186 They started it, mom.

[quote] Do you know what the saddest part is? Gay men and women feuding and scrapping and trying to hurt one another...over something that straight men in power will end up carelessly and callously legislating according to their own needs anyway, which they’ll be able to do easily because the underclasses of gays & women set upon each other like dogs at merest provocation. Are we really gonna fall for this tired divide-and-conquer gambit again?

It's not a divide-and-conquer thing. Rich white gay men have always been on the same team with wealthy straight men more than lesbians or gay men of color. Are you going to pretend otherwise?

OMG now this is a rich white man issue? FFS enough.

R167, I don't agree with the way women and children are used and abused in surrogacy and in adoption. I don't agree with the way adoptive parents are used either, although they tend to hold more actual power than the other sides so they set it up the way that most benefits themselves. They have more money and with that money comes control and power so that's the way it goes.

As an adoptee I've never agreed with adoption or surrogacy or with any of this from the time I was old enough to understand what being adopted meant. I thought it was inhumane and very, very weird, the way everyone went around make-believing. There was so much pretending, constructing this elaborate fantasy that I was expected to go along with because other people wanted it that way and insisted that it be that way.

I've wondered if perhaps it should be done away with altogether and we should go back something more like a "fostering" scenario, as the ancient Romans did it. The "fosters" never had to put on a different name and family identity or pretend that their adoptive parents were actually their natural parents. Their natural families were honored, and their foster families were honored too. No one had to pretend anything. I'd like to see us able to do away with the "as if born to" fantasy when we aren't and weren't born to these adoptive parents. I realize that there were a lot of religious and social stigmas put on us, on our natural parents and on adoptive parents who were unable to conceive. That's the way it has been at times in the past but it doesn't have to be the way that it is now.

I still wonder about doing away with adoption and surrogacy, as I originally mentioned and that you chose to respond to in such an ugly, belittling way. If you're in favor of keeping adoption and surrogacy as they are, that's your opinion, we simply disagree. I'm allowed to have my own opinions on the subject regardless of how you see it and how critical you are of the way that I express myself.

(cont from R190) I'm not a TERF, I'm not a surrogate, I'm not the natural mother of an adoptee, I'm not an adoptive parent. I don't have any of their agendas. I'm just a rather ancient adoptee who has lived this bizarre reality for decades. I've worked extensively with other adoptees individually and in groups. Later, I dealt with natural mothers and some surrogates both individually and in groups. I've done this for decades. I had my own adoptive parents, obviously, but I haven't had nearly as much experience working with other adoptive parents. I found that they tended to be less open to ideas and to the other sides of the Triad. They especially fear and loathe the natural mothers and somewhat less so the surrogate mothers. I suppose if there is no blood relationship, the surrogates are easier to just dismiss.

I'm sorry that my post was upsetting to you, R167. It's almost always the other sides of the Triad having these conversations and they generally devolve into rancor and petty bickering with each other. I suppose that people must get used to talking about it that way. Adoptees don't often speak up about it at all because it bothers the others involved and none of them really listen to us anyway. Whatever we say or think, it's misunderstood or "wrong" to the other parts of the Triad. They're so fragile and defensive that it's better for us to stay silent with less chance that our adoptive parents or our natural parents end up in tears. Sometimes the worst people are the ones who have no part in the Triad and run their damn mouths with their ill-formed opinions anyway.

As adoptees we're not supposed to have our own experiences about any of this. We're supposed to be grateful that we were allowed to live at all and shut up about it before we hurt someone's feelings. They play this game, as if the adoptees are the most important thing in all of this. It's a lie. It ends up that we're actually a distant second or third, more often used as a weapon against each other or extensions of "parental" egos than regarded as actual human beings in our own right.

I don't want to be part of these endless bitchfight arguments people have over who rightfully "owns" us more than somebody else "owns" us. Who are the "real" parents and what that means or doesn't mean and what everyone else is "entitled" to from us. It's exhausting and demeaning. Regardless of how you see things, adoptees deserve better than that. We're real people.

My participation in this conversation is at an end, R167. Pick it apart, make fun of it and be as much of a cunt as you please. I said what I had to say, I've explained to you what I believe about this matter as much as I'm going to and I'm done. Have a nice night.

[quote] I suppose if there is no blood relationship, the surrogates are easier to just dismiss.

That's why they now have an egg donor (mother) being separate from the surrogate. There's that separation, so you're not as aware you're giving up your child. Giving a natural child up for adoption is much harder.

Yes it is a moral issue. I offered myself to be a surrogate before to a gay friend (he didn't take the offer) but I didn't want money or anything. The fact that there are women who need to do it for the money and can be bought for the "service" just doesn't sit right with me. It's of course exploitation.

R191 while I disagree with you on conclusions and I use different language in regards to biological parents I respect and honor your experience and your voice.

As a half adoptee daughter of a baby in an orphanage full adoptee and the big sister to a number of foster care to adoptee siblings I also am annoyed by the way our lived experience is erased by the dominant narratives. To borrow and modify a phrase from the patient advocacy community, no talking about us without us.

Anyway if my wife and I in our advanced ages suddenly wanted a baby and decided to use a surrogate I’d be sure to spend a significant amount of time close talking to the surrogate’s tummy in the third trimester and I’d have audiotape of the surrogate voice playing for the baby daily in the first year of life.

[quote] As an adoptee I've never agreed with adoption or surrogacy or with any of this from the time I was old enough to understand what being adopted meant. I thought it was inhumane and very, very weird, the way everyone went around make-believing. There was so much pretending, constructing this elaborate fantasy that I was expected to go along with because other people wanted it that way and insisted that it be that way.

Truth and Reality are two very different beasts.

Sorry to hear about your awful experiences R191. It’s not right that people be dismissed and talked over and sidelined in the way you’ve been.

[Quote] Of course surrogacy poses an ethical question, but nothing to do with the one OP posts. It systematically takes advantage of women that are living in poverty. Whether or not you agree with surrogacy (I don’t, and for straights as much as gays), you have to acknowledge that there is an ethical question in relation to paying a woman to lease a woman’s womb (and life) for a certain amount of time.

I would be dirt poor if I didn’t have my job too. I lease out my brain (and the rest of my body) for 50 hours a week for my job. Aren’t we all being exploited?

Why is it whenever poor people are offered a way to make money, the social do-gooders immediately call it exploitation?

Since society isn’t offering them any money and they have no other skills, should we give them no opportunities at all and let them starve?

Ironically, one of the biggest groups of surrogates in the US are the wives of military men.

Ideal surrogates have to fit very specific criteria—including being young (below 30) BUT already have their own kids and are done with having kids (so they aren’t tempted to keep the surrogacy kids). Military wives fit these and could use the extra money.

If it’s exploitation, perhaps we should increase the incomes of military families….

The basic message of the anti surrogacy crew: Women are too stupid to make decisions for themselves so there must be laws controlling them..

Surrogacy takes so many forms, it’s silly to pretend it just gay men going to foreign lands to pay impoverished women to carry their kids.

Family and friends become surrogates to one another. There’s a major surrogacy industry in the US itself—it’s just expensive.

[Quote] That is exactly what this crazy mess reminds me of, [R164]. And a bunch of men not only defending it but getting an attitude because they're getting pushback about using women's bodies to grow their spawn is just weird.

Why don’t you just let the women who decide whether to be a surrogate or not make the decision?

Let me do what I want with my body.

The second the government steps in because someone has moral objections, I question why someone else’s view of morals should affect me.

This is why gays have had to fight for equality for so long. People would bring up “Is it moral and ethical to give gays marriage rights??”

Men shouldn’t be lawmaking or leading discourse about this, end of.

r199 Whatever happened to my body my choice, a womans right to choose matters etc

Republicans r199

R191 you’re rambling, and I wasn’t upset! I thought your earlier comment was kinda dumb, and wow did you back that up with this one.