Surrogate babies stranded in Ukraine

kaymin

lozenges wrote: »

A couple feeling that they are suffering doesn't give them the right to fix that by causing suffering to another.
It's their issue, if it's really causing them that degree of pain then they should go to therapy. Not ruin someone else's life for what are essentially selfish reasons.

Any real life examples to back up the bits in bold? What percentage of surrogates feel this way?

kaymin

Portmanteau wrote: »

Silly loaded questions and "so what you're saying is" achieve nothing.

Obviously all they're saying is that surely for those who can't conceive, adoption makes more sense than surrogacy.

Except it doesn't make sense because it's like winning the lottery to successfully adopt a child if you live in Ireland. I know of a couple that have moved to the UK from Ireland for a couple of years so they could adopt a child there.

Manion

mvl wrote: »

published numbers from here then, 5k children internationally adopted in Ireland from 1991 up to now https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/nearly-5-000-children-adopted-by-parents-in-ireland-since-1991-1.4134214
- if ppl don't like the state of current adoption law, I am sure there are ways to trigger a change - would be happy to sign a petition.

whatever!

And what is the number since 2010? Did you even read the link I provided? Adoption has changed drastically in Ireland since the 1990s.

Alrigghtythen

https://aai.gov.ie/en/who-we-are/inter-country/country-information.html

Country, numbers, requirements, waiting times etc


https://aai.gov.ie/images/Country_Specific_Information_2019.pdf

Summary of all eligible country requirements

Manion

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

https://aai.gov.ie/en/who-we-are/inter-country/country-information.html

Country, numbers, requirements, waiting times etc


https://aai.gov.ie/images/Country_Specific_Information_2019.pdf

Summary of all eligible country requirements

Very informative. So basically a tiny number of adoptions, single digit for most countries per year and wait times of anything up to 10 years.

jam_mac_jam

kaymin wrote: »

And how does that article answer?:
'How many surrogate mothers have you spoken to? How many interviews with surrogate mothers have you viewed? Your assumptions and presumptions are so far from the truth. Can you provide even one example of the anguish and pain of a Ukrainian surrogate mother that you speak about?'

And are you Blacklilly?

You asked for one example of pain and anguish. The article gives more then one. That's how it answers your question.

Clearly no. I am not Blacklilly. Maybe if you read it you would see how it answers the question.

SusieBlue

Manion wrote: »

Very informative. So basically a tiny number of adoptions, single digit for most countries per year and wait times of anything up to 10 years.

And just to look at this from an Irish perspective, there were just 7 infants domestically adopted in this country in 2018 (most recent statistics available).

In fact, in total, since 2012 there have been just 42 babies domestically adopted in Ireland.

So it isn’t really a viable option here either. It boils my blood when people throw around adoption as a magic solution to various issues without knowing a single thing about it.

Manion

The bit I don't understand Susie is how those 42 families all ended up working with mvl.

lozenges

kaymin wrote: »

Any real life examples to back up the bits in bold? What percentage of surrogates feel this way?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-20/ukraines-commercial-surrogacy-industry-leaves-disaster/11417388

And another article. It's framed mostly from the POV of a couple who aren't guaranteed a healthy baby but it outlines that care for the surrogates is not the priority:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-21/australian-parents-warn-about-ukraine-surrogacy-lotus/11426396

mvl

Another point, there may be more profound implications from womb-hosting someone elses baby, it is called fetal micro-chimerism

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6714269/
- haven't seen any studies stating such fetal micro-chimerism is 100% safe in case of surrogacy pregnancies; if anyone finds any studies showing this, feel free to share.

I get this is rather uncontrollable mechanism, and effects are not enough studied. With this in mind, I would not dare asking a family member to be surrogate for me and my SO, and I find it is unethical to pay someone poorer to do it, while it can be impacting their health for life.

mvl

Manion wrote: »

The bit I don't understand Susie is how those 42 families all ended up working with mvl.

This is unbelievable.
My statement that I know few families is valid, whether you like it or not.
- If 5k have been adopted from abroad from '91 up to now, it means for me no of international adoptions is higher than 0 in this country.
- I never said it is easy, but I am saying it is possible. If ppl don't like the state of the law, they should talk to their TD about it.

Third_Echelon

There's a lot of judgy people on high horses here...

SusieBlue

Third_Echelon wrote: »

There's a lot of judgy people on high horses here...

Yep, sure if we left everything up to nature the majority of us wouldn’t live to adulthood and manageable conditions such as diabetes would still carry a death sentence. Never mind the fact that we meddle with mother nature on the other side of the spectrum every single day by using condoms & taking the contraceptive pill.

It seems that modern advances in medicine is only acceptable in some circumstances, and is something to be morally judged & criticised in others.
So hypocritical & judgy IMO.

eviltwin

I've no moral objection to surrogacy. If someone wants to provide that service then they should be trusted to do it without this paternalistic notion that the woman needs to be protected from her own choice. Obviously I'm not talking about situations where large sums of money are paid to women in poverty but rather private arrangements between the couple and a woman who wants to be altruistic. Its not going to go away particularly now that adoption has dropped off a cliff, we need to legislate for it.

padd b1975

appledrop wrote: »

Yep + she openly admitted that she never even bothered to meet the surrogate before the birth. Seriously f$$led up.

That's gratitude for ya.

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

It seems that modern advances in medicine is only acceptable in some circumstances, and is something to be morally judged & criticised in others.
So hypocritical & judgy IMO.

I honestly can’t see anything hypocritical in saying that ‘just because we can, doesn’t mean we should’, though of course I accept that it’s judgemental to view anything and judge whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing for society as a whole. Treating diabetes is one thing, gestational surrogacy is something else. They’re really not comparable in any meaningful way other than they can both be described as advances in medicine and science. I love advances in medicine and science, I really do. It’s amazing the kind of ingenuity people can come up with, I remember when Louise Brown was born, and thinking it was an incredible feat of engineering/medicine/technology, etc.

Commercialised surrogacy on the other hand, and even private surrogacy arrangements, throw up all sorts of ethical questions about whether or not it’s something that society should legislate to be made lawful. Because it’s not just about people who are unable to procreate, it’s also about the people who are being expected to procreate for them, it’s about the children that are produced as a result of such an arrangement, and of course the means to make it all happen.

We went some way towards legislating for DAHR in the 2015 Children and Family Relationships Act, but the reason I suspect we didn’t go ‘all in’ as it were and legislate for surrogacy (either as a commercial or private enterprise) likely had a lot to do with a resolution passed by the European Parliament in 2014, relating to human rights, in which they wrote under the heading of ‘Rights of women and girls’ -

114. Condemns the practice of surrogacy, which undermines the human dignity of the woman since her body and its reproductive functions are used as a commodity; considers that the practice of gestational surrogacy which involves reproductive exploitation and use of the human body for financial or other gain, in particular in the case of vulnerable women in developing countries, shall be prohibited and treated as a matter of urgency in human rights instruments;


On that basis, I’d imagine it’s far more likely that we will see a legislative acknowledgment that men can give birth than we are to see surrogacy being made legally permissible, in this country anyway. One of the reasons why so many people go to Ukraine, and why Ukraine is a popular destination for surrogacy tourism (yes I went there), isn’t simply because the process is a lot cheaper than in the US, but simply because their legal system means the birth mother has no legal recognition or responsibility for the children, as according to Ukrainian law regarding surrogacy, the children belong solely to the intending parents from the moment of conception -


Surrogacy in Ukraine


In short, it’s just much easier, cheaper, and far more convenient (if you’re Irish at least) to avail of surrogacy in Ukraine than it is in many other countries, even in countries where private arrangements are made or altruistic surrogacy is available and legal.

Most people can of course sympathise with a person who would wish to become a parent, but I can’t blame anyone who is incapable of empathising with someone who chooses to use surrogacy as a means to become a parent, whether they avail of commercial surrogacy services, or altruistic means by way of private arrangements, because those circumstances aren’t just about sympathising with the individual person any more, they’re about understanding that some people are so wrapped up in their own desires that they are prepared to forego recognising others human rights in order to satisfy their own desires. In those cases, ‘judgy’? Yeah, pretty much, and I’m ok with that.

lozenges

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yep, sure if we left everything up to nature the majority of us wouldn’t live to adulthood and manageable conditions such as diabetes would still carry a death sentence. Never mind the fact that we meddle with mother nature on the other side of the spectrum every single day by using condoms & taking the contraceptive pill.

It seems that modern advances in medicine is only acceptable in some circumstances, and is something to be morally judged & criticised in others.
So hypocritical & judgy IMO.

That's not quite accurate, to be fair. The vast majority of posters on here who are criticising surrogacy I imagine would have no problem with ICSI, IVF, egg donation, even non- commercial surrogacy arrangements. So no problem with advancements in modern medicine at all.

What I and I suspect they have a problem with is commercial surrogacy, because of the potential issues with exploitation of the surrogate.

Manion

lozenges wrote: »

That's not quite accurate, to be fair. The vast majority of posters on here who are criticising surrogacy I imagine would have no problem with ICSI, IVF, egg donation, even non- commercial surrogacy arrangements. So no problem with advancements in modern medicine at all.

Plenty of people referencing natural selection in the thread. There are dimensions around which to have a reasonable discussion on surrogacy but 1) natural selection and 2) adoption as an alternative are not reasonable things to put forward and come from a place of true ignorance. Exploitation is definitely something to be concerned with but lets discuss it from a reasoned position. I referenced American army wives as commercial surrogates. These women are doing it not out of exploitation or desperation but rather as an income supplement. Shouldn't they have the right to do so? It is after all their body.

lozenges

Manion wrote: »

Plenty of people referencing natural selection in the thread. There are dimensions around which to have a reasonable discussion on surrogacy but 1) natural selection and 2) adoption as an alternative are not reasonable things to put forward and come from a place of true ignorance. Exploitation is definitely something to be concerned with but lets discuss it from a reasoned position. I referenced American army wives as commercial surrogates. These women are doing it not out of exploitation or desperation but rather as an income supplement. Shouldn't they have the right to do so? It is after all their body.

That is true, the natural selection comments are in poor taste IMO, won't disagree with you there.

As for the US - I wouldn't particularly want Ireland to emulate America in pretty much anything - it's a massively divided and consumerist society which is very focused on the individual as opposed to society. I also imagine that army wives in America do not have a huge amount of income.

However I certainly have less of a problem with it than the commercial surrogacy which occurred in Thailand/Cambodia and is still occurring in India and Ukraine, largely because at least with the army wives the surrogate and 'parents' are much more likely to have more in common re: cultural background, language and level of education, which in turn lessens the possibility of exploitation.

One eyed Jack

Manion wrote: »

I referenced American army wives as commercial surrogates. These women are doing it not out of exploitation or desperation but rather as an income supplement. Shouldn't they have the right to do so? It is after all their body.

Shouldn’t they have a right to do what exactly? It’s certainly not as simple as you appear to be making out, as there are a number of issues involved in those particular circumstances -

Military Wives Turn to Surrogacy: Labor of Love or Financial Boost?

And that’s notwithstanding that at no point are you addressing the issues of parental rights or children’s rights and welfare. So really what I think you’re asking is should people be permitted to advertise themselves as wombs for rent? No, no I don’t think so, for numerous reasons that by far and away outweigh any potential benefit to society.

Manion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Shouldn’t they have a right to do what exactly? It’s certainly not as simple as you appear to be making out, as there are a number of issues involved in those particular circumstances -

Military Wives Turn to Surrogacy: Labor of Love or Financial Boost?

And that’s notwithstanding that at no point are you addressing the issues of parental rights or children’s rights and welfare. So really what I think you’re asking is should people be permitted to advertise themselves as wombs for rent? No, no I don’t think so, for numerous reasons that by far and away outweigh any potential benefit to society.

A right to choose what happens to their bodies and their reproductive systems? I read the article and it seems mainly concerned about women "freeloading" on government health care which is it's own insight into American culture and attitudes. Given that I think everyone should have access to health care this isn't something that going to shift me into thinking surrogacy is a bad thing.

What is the issue with child wellfair? Are Surrogate children more likely to be abandoned or miss treated when compared to children conceived naturally?

Mrs OBumble

Manion wrote: »

What is the issue with child wellfair? Are Surrogate children more likely to be abandoned or miss treated when compared to children conceived naturally?

Yes. If they're defective, they're likely to mot be uplifted. That's why commercial surrogacy is now outlawed in Thailand, for example.

Also, whats to stop paedophiles having children bred to order: When a child is born to the woman who is going to raise it, nurses have a chance to screen their behaviour at antenatal visits and at birth. With a surrogacy, there is no such safeguard

Manion

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yes. If they're defective, they're likely to mot be uplifted. That's why commercial surrogacy is now outlawed in Thailand, for example.

Also, whats to stop paedophiles having children bred to order: When a child is born to the woman who is going to raise it, nurses have a chance to screen their behaviour at antenatal visits and at birth. With a surrogacy, there is no such safeguard

I struggle to believe you care about children with special needs using terms like defective. Nevertheless I'd like to see evidence that there is a higher rate of abandonment than in the rest of the population. I believe the practice was outlawed in Thailand due to women being effectively enslaved and forced into surrogacy.

You've an odd idea of the role of nurses and mid wives if you think they are screening fathers. Either way you don't legislate for exceptional cases, you don't take away everyones rights because of the actions of a tiny minority.

Alrigghtythen

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yes. If they're defective, they're likely to mot be uplifted. That's why commercial surrogacy is now outlawed in Thailand, for example.

Also, whats to stop paedophiles having children bred to order: When a child is born to the woman who is going to raise it, nurses have a chance to screen their behaviour at antenatal visits and at birth. With a surrogacy, there is no such safeguard

And if naturally conceived ones are "defective" we abort them.

What's stopping pedofiles from naturally conceiving?

Nurses screen behaviour at antenatal classes to see if you're a fit mother? What happens if your not? There's plenty of unfit parents in the country. How effective is this screening?

Sarcozies

eviltwin wrote: »

I've no moral objection to surrogacy. If someone wants to provide that service then they should be trusted to do it without this paternalistic notion that the woman needs to be protected from her own choice. Obviously I'm not talking about situations where large sums of money are paid to women in poverty but rather private arrangements between the couple and a woman who wants to be altruistic. Its not going to go away particularly now that adoption has dropped off a cliff, we need to legislate for it.

The bolder point intrigues me. Do you happen to buy clothes made by poor people who are paid small sums of money? Plastic items? Computers and phones that require the mineral coltan? where a group of young boys will crudely mine it from the ground with their hands. Not to mention the assembly required for these.

Alrigghtythen

Sarcozies wrote: »

The bolder point intrigues me. Do you happen to buy clothes made by poor people who are paid small sums of money? Plastic items? Computers and phones that require the mineral coltan? where a group of young boys will crudely mine it from the ground with their hands. Not to mention the assembly required for these.

We dont mind the children working, only the women.

Someone might start a factory and breed loads of children through surrogacy to work there /s

Tea drinker

machiavellianme wrote: »

I would do anything to give the gift of a child to my partner. Sadly, surrogacy is way beyond our means but if I could, I would. Its so easy for others on here to throw stones if they haven't endured the pain of not being able to do something so natural as parent their own child.

They throw stones because in reality they care about no one, but are intelligent enough to take the media cues as needed to "fit in" with faux concern.

Third_Echelon wrote: »

There's a lot of judgy people on high horses here...

Welcome to boards! Meh it wasn't always this bad, and to be honest it's more a societal issue than boardsie issue.. The media tell them xyz is bad and you are a trump/ supporter / racist if you diverge. There are quite well defined lines people are happy to bash others once they cross, the moral high ground is retreated to at the start of arguments rather than at the end.

Their choice to abort, but not their choice to conceive.
Surrogates bad, 18 yo prostitution perfectly legal in a lot of EU.
Paying people for their womb bad, but banging kids out for childers allowance good.

One eyed Jack

Manion wrote: »

A right to choose what happens to their bodies and their reproductive systems? I read the article and it seems mainly concerned about women "freeloading" on government health care which is it's own insight into American culture and attitudes. Given that I think everyone should have access to health care this isn't something that going to shift me into thinking surrogacy is a bad thing.

Those rights that women actually do have in any case, are limited, so it wouldn’t be true to imply that women actually have carte blanche in law to do whatever they wish with their own bodies in any case. However, the reason you appeared to have introduced the example of the military wives didn’t appear to be an argument for bodily autonomy, but rather financial autonomy, and women already have that right too, which is again obviously limited.

That’s why I wondered what rights you were suggesting women should have that they don’t already have, and the idea of having a right to commoditise their wombs for financial gain just doesn’t exist (you may have missed that part in the article where agencies can charge $100k for their services, and the women receive $30k of that). I still wouldn’t expect you to see surrogacy as a bad thing, I’m simply explaining why your example of military wives trying to provide financially for their own families by renting out their wombs, isn’t a particularly compelling argument in support of legislating for surrogacy.

Manion wrote: »

What is the issue with child wellfair? Are Surrogate children more likely to be abandoned or miss treated when compared to children conceived naturally?

Well, you’ve no doubt read the opening post, same as I did, where children are currently abandoned in Ukraine and rendered ‘Stateless’ as a consequence of their current circumstances, through no fault of their own. They aren’t the responsibility of Ukraine, they are the responsibility of their intended parents in other countries.

That’s an issue specific to those particular circumstances though. The greater issue is the recognition and responsibility of upholding Children’s Rights under International law. In Ireland children’s rights are protected by laws which do not facilitate surrogacy - not only is the birth mother recognised as automatically being the legal guardian of any children they give birth to, but there is no facility to transfer their parental rights and responsibilities to anyone else.

There are also growing concerns about children’s rights to know their biological heritage, as a result of seeing the consequences of having denied people this information in the past -

Irish Times Opinion Piece – Law must enshrine child’s right to birth information (Irish Ombudsman for Children)

SusieBlue

lozenges wrote: »

That's not quite accurate, to be fair. The vast majority of posters on here who are criticising surrogacy I imagine would have no problem with ICSI, IVF, egg donation, even non- commercial surrogacy arrangements. So no problem with advancements in modern medicine at all.

What I and I suspect they have a problem with is commercial surrogacy, because of the potential issues with exploitation of the surrogate.

I have said many times over I disagree with the exploitation of vulnerable women in any circumstances but what I can’t stand is this attitude that anyone who is having fertility issues should just get over themselves, when they would be first in the queue if they ever needed treatment for an illness. They are wouldn’t just roll over and wait to die.
There are also multiple posts bashing Rosanna Davison when there’s no evidence whatsoever that she exploited anyone.

I think some of the posts in that regard, and also in regards to ‘natural selection’ were quite nasty & insensitive in a country where 1 in 6 will have these issues.

There are also ethical concerns with IVF which is why a lot of devout Christians won’t consider it, the additional fertilised eggs that aren’t implanted simply get destroyed. But no one cares about that.

The fact that adoption was offered up more than once as a practical alternative, when again, adoption is near impossible, shows how little people really care or really know about this issue.

If we had legislation in this country to allow for agreements within Ireland that suit all parties, and protect the surrogate, the parents and the baby, we wouldn’t have desperate people going to the Ukraine to these baby factories in the first place.
And again, I’m not condoning it, but when options are so limited and scarce here is it really any surprise so many go abroad?

Alrigghtythen

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Those rights that women actually do have in any case, are limited, so it wouldn’t be true to imply that women actually have carte blanche in law to do whatever they wish with their own bodies in any case. However, the reason you appeared to have introduced the example of the military wives didn’t appear to be an argument for bodily autonomy, but rather financial autonomy, and women already have that right too, which is again obviously limited.

That’s why I wondered what rights you were suggesting women should have that they don’t already have, and the idea of having a right to commoditise their wombs for financial gain just doesn’t exist (you may have missed that part in the article where agencies can charge $100k for their services, and the women receive $30k of that). I still wouldn’t expect you to see surrogacy as a bad thing, I’m simply explaining why your example of military wives trying to provide financially for their own families by renting out their wombs, isn’t a particularly compelling argument in support of legislating for surrogacy.





Well, you’ve no doubt read the opening post, same as I did, where children are currently abandoned in Ukraine and rendered ‘Stateless’ as a consequence of their current circumstances, through no fault of their own. They aren’t the responsibility of Ukraine, they are the responsibility of their intended parents in other countries.

That’s an issue specific to those particular circumstances though. The greater issue is the recognition and responsibility of upholding Children’s Rights under International law. In Ireland children’s rights are protected by laws which do not facilitate surrogacy - not only is the birth mother recognised as automatically being the legal guardian of any children they give birth to, but there is no facility to transfer their parental rights and responsibilities to anyone else.

There are also growing concerns about children’s rights to know their biological heritage, as a result of seeing the consequences of having denied people this information in the past -

Irish Times Opinion Piece – Law must enshrine child’s right to birth information (Irish Ombudsman for Children)

If they were waiting to be picked up for adoption, they still be stranded in the Ukraine. Theres no planes flying.