Surrogacy

Jequ0n

wench wrote: »

Have they spoken to the surrogate? Or only to those who have benefited from the arrangement?

You can argue it’s not her first rodeo so she knows what she signed up to and can handle it

wench

Jequ0n wrote: »

You can argue it’s not her first rodeo so she knows what she signed up to and can handle it

Or you could argue she is still desperate for money, and has no other skill that pays as well

Lmkrnr

Kids as commodities. Seen that before!!

I am totally against it. Joe and Jane doe are out looking for a blonde haired, blue eyed kid like an online shop.

Its wrong.

First Up

wench wrote:

Have they spoken to the surrogate? Or only to those who have benefited from the arrangement?

They don't know who the surrogate will be yet. One visit to Ukraine so far. More to come.

They have joined some groups sharing information on surrogacy (and miscarriages) so plenty of experiences and advice to work with.

volchitsa

Jequ0n wrote: »

You can argue it’s not her first rodeo so she knows what she signed up to and can handle it

Don't know where you get this from - that was just one random example, but by definition there's always a first time for everybody. What happens to the ones who can't handle it?

First Up

volchitsa wrote:

I don't know, you seem very keen to assess their motivations all the same. It's just that you're determined to put a positive spin on it all.

Well I'm looking at it with a more open mind than you, that's for sure.

bilbot79

In surprised about the amount of negative angles towards surrogacy on this thread and I'd wonder does this originate in the same types of people who think children out of wedlock are abominations and gays should be allowed to marry because you can't have a 'daddy and a daddy'

There are many many different lens to look through when thinking about surrogacy and the bells and whistles that go with it.

For me, I look at the 9 month pregnant women outside the Rotunda smoking their brains out, possibly on permanent welfare and compare them to an infertile couple who work hard and pay a veritable fortune simply to create a good citizen for Ireland. There are much worse ways to bring a child into this world.

wench

First Up wrote: »

They don't know who the surrogate will be yet. One visit to Ukraine so far. More to come.

They have joined some groups sharing information on surrogacy (and miscarriages) so plenty of experiences and advice to work with.

So they have had no contact with actual surrogates, but you say they have considered every point of view, including that of the surrogate.

If they only have contact with those using or selling the service, that is hardly going to give a full picture of what happens to the surrogate before and after they pick up their freshly produced baby.

Lmkrnr

volchitsa wrote: »

Right, cos they wouldn't either choose to hear, or choose to tell others, the "rosy" version of events? Of course not.

Why would Ukrainian women be any different from Irish women? IOW what would your reaction be if your sister announced she was doing this for an unknown Ukrainian family? She'd have children herself (surrogates mostly do) so how would you expect your nieces and nephews to take the news that they were having a little sister or brother but it was going to be sold?

And why does it bother you to respond to that if you believe that Ukrainian women get more out of it than money? It's only hypothetical if your source is unreliable, or else if Irish women are very different about pregnancy and birth to Ukrainian women.

Spot on, 100% agree.

Lmkrnr

bilbot79 wrote: »

In surprised about the amount of negative angles towards surrogacy on this thread and I'd wonder does this originate in the same types of people who think children out of wedlock are abominations and gays should be allowed to marry because you can't have a 'daddy and a daddy'

There are many many different lens to look through when thinking about surrogacy and the bells and whistles that go with it.

For me, I look at the 9 month pregnant women outside the Rotunda smoking their brains out, possibly on permanent welfare and compare them to an infertile couple who work hard and pay a veritable fortune simply to create a good citizen for Ireland. There are much worse ways to bring a child into this world.

Will you stop. What's working hard got to do with being able to have child.

Money doesn't give someone a right to buy a child.

Jequ0n

volchitsa wrote: »

Don't know where you get this from - that was just one random example, but by definition there's always a first time for everybody. What happens to the ones who can't handle it?

That’s the surrogate’s problem to deal with and not your or my problem

First Up

wench wrote:

So they have had no contact with actual surrogates, but you say they have considered every point of view, including that of the surrogate.

I said they looked at it from every angle, including the welfare of the surrogate.

wench

First Up wrote: »

I said they looked at it from every angle, including the welfare of the surrogate.

My bad. So by welfare, did you just mean physical welfare?
Is their concern just that she be a healthy incubator, or do they care about her well being before, during and after the process?

volchitsa

bilbot79 wrote: »

In surprised about the amount of negative angles towards surrogacy on this thread and I'd wonder does this originate in the same types of people who think children out of wedlock are abominations and gays should be allowed to marry because you can't have a 'daddy and a daddy'

There are many many different lens to look through when thinking about surrogacy and the bells and whistles that go with it.

For me, I look at the 9 month pregnant women outside the Rotunda smoking their brains out, possibly on permanent welfare and compare them to an infertile couple who work hard and pay a veritable fortune simply to create a good citizen for Ireland. There are much worse ways to bring a child into this world.

In my case it's the money aspect that I'm uncomfortable with. Wealthy people (relatively) basically buying the use of a poor woman's body for the better part of a year, and with very little certainty for her if things go wrong.

First Up

wench wrote:

My bad. So by welfare, did you just mean physical welfare? Is their concern just that she be a healthy incubator, or do they care about her well being before, during and after the process?

They were reassured to their satisfaction that the surrogate's well-being would be looked after up to and including post natal care.

Lmkrnr

First Up wrote: »

They were reassured to their satisfaction that the surrogate's well-being would be looked after up to and including post natal care.

Reassured by a company set up to make profit from this arrangement. Of course they are going to say the host will be fine. Otherwise the sale wouldn't go through

First Up

First Up wrote: »

They were reassured to their satisfaction that the surrogate's well-being would be looked after up to and including post natal care.

My second hand car sales person said my car is a fantastic buy. Has always been brilliantly looked after, apparently. Never even one single bump of a kerb! Previously owned by one extremely careful nun in an enclosed order.

First Up

Lmkrnr wrote:

Reassured by a company set up to make profit from this arrangement. Of course they are going to say the host will be fine. Otherwise the sale wouldn't go through

isha wrote:

My second hand car sales person said my car is a fantastic buy. Has always been brilliantly looked after, apparently. Never even one single bump of a kerb! Previously owned by one extremely careful nun in an enclosed order.

They were reassured to their satisfaction. If that isn't enough for you then so be it.

wench

First Up wrote: »

They were reassured to their satisfaction. If that isn't enough for you then so be it.

So they were told what they wanted to hear. Got ya.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

They were reassured to their satisfaction. If that isn't enough for you then so be it.

They were reassured by the people working in an agency which profits very handsomely from the rental of various wombs and sales of various newborns that the specific woman whose womb will be rented for their benefit and who will give her newborn infant to them is happy, cared for and in good health.
What on earth else would you expect them to say?

Jequ0n

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They were reassured by the people working in an agency which profits very handsomely from the rental of various wombs and sales of various newborns that the specific woman whose womb will be rented for their benefit and who will give her newborn infant to them is happy, cared for and in good health.
What on earth else would you expect them to say?

And this is the same with every service provider/ company who you chose to believe. It’s a business that responds to demand.
Like it or not but you can’t stop the practice by shaming people as you’ll just drive it under ground and turn it into a bigger taboo

bilbot79

volchitsa wrote: »

In my case it's the money aspect that I'm uncomfortable with. Wealthy people (relatively) basically buying the use of a poor woman's body for the better part of a year, and with very little certainty for her if things go wrong.

When I was in college some of my housemates helped fund their tuition by volunteering as guinea pigs in medical trials. This involves medical risk and is no different. It sometimes goes wrong and most of the time goes right, just like surrogacy. At 3 years wages, its hardly exploitation either.

I think peoples ears are pricked here because it involves motherhood and women's bodies but some of the principles being railed against exist equally in other areas such as the example given.

Antares35

bilbot79 wrote: »

In surprised about the amount of negative angles towards surrogacy on this thread and I'd wonder does this originate in the same types of people who think children out of wedlock are abominations and gays should be allowed to marry because you can't have a 'daddy and a daddy'

There are many many different lens to look through when thinking about surrogacy and the bells and whistles that go with it.

For me, I look at the 9 month pregnant women outside the Rotunda smoking their brains out, possibly on permanent welfare and compare them to an infertile couple who work hard and pay a veritable fortune simply to create a good citizen for Ireland. There are much worse ways to bring a child into this world.

Well of course if you deduce your argument down to polar opposites then you'll come off looking like the more reasonable one

Just because people do "worse things" doesn't necessarily make something else right. They aren't mutually exclusive.

For the record I voted yes to marriage equality, have a child "out of wedlock" and I don't support surrogacy.

Jequ0n

Jequ0n wrote: »

And this is the same with every service provider/ company who you chose to believe. It’s a business that responds to demand.
Like it or not but you can’t stop the practice by shaming people as you’ll just drive it under ground and turn it into a bigger taboo

Not all services are justifiable. Lots of people want or feel entitled to demand lots of different things and services that are not justifiable.

Your argument is not good because it is wholly based on laissez faire moral relativism. You can test that by applying your argument to other services and see if the argùment holds up. If we operated as a civilisation by the principles of such hands off relativism re all services or goods demanded, we would live in hell.

bilbot79

Antares35 wrote: »

Well of course if you deduce your argument down to polar opposites then you'll come off looking like the more reasonable one

Just because people do "worse things" doesn't necessarily make something else right. They aren't mutually exclusive.

For the record I voted yes to marriage equality, have a child "out of wedlock" and I don't support surrogacy.

Great

Antares35

volchitsa wrote: »

In my case it's the money aspect that I'm uncomfortable with. Wealthy people (relatively) basically buying the use of a poor woman's body for the better part of a year, and with very little certainty for her if things go wrong.

Agree. I wonder if it was wealthy people buying kidneys from poor people would there be more against it.

bilbot79

Antares35 wrote: »

Agree. I wonder if it was wealthy people buying kidneys from poor people would there be more against it.

Yes there would because the victim would be less a kidney. The surrogate returns to status normal.

jam_mac_jam

bilbot79 wrote: »

Yes there would because the victim would be less a kidney. The surrogate returns to status normal.

I've had a child. If you gave me a choice I would rather a kidney removed then go through it again and give the child up.

You don't just go back to normal.

Antares35

bilbot79 wrote: »

Yes there would because the victim would be less a kidney. The surrogate returns to status normal.

Really? Do you know anything about the physical and emotional impact of childbearing on a woman? And that's before you even consider it in the context of being separated permanently from the child you've birthed.

bilbot79

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I've had a child. If you gave me a choice I would rather a kidney removed then go through it again and give the child up.

You don't just go back to normal.

Yes you've had a child but you haven't had a kidney removed.

jimmycrackcorm

volchitsa wrote: »

In my case it's the money aspect that I'm uncomfortable with. Wealthy people (relatively) basically buying the use of a poor woman's body for the better part of a year, and with very little certainty for her if things go wrong.

The question is if money is not involved, then is surrogacy ok?
After all, plenty of women have babies and give them up for adoption, for which the resulting child is no different than a surrogate acquired child.

If someone adopts a child, who didn't have a prior arrangement, or knowledge of the mother, and then chooses to give the birth mother a gift of money, is that acceptable?

What if the mother wasn't from a poor country, was well-off in her own right and decided she wanted to help a couple wanting a child. Is that acceptable if she enters a financial arrangement?

It just strikes me, that after our SSM and abortion referendums, that there are still people who want to control what other people do with their lives and their bodies, solely based on their own morals.

bilbot79

bilbot79 wrote: »

Yes there would because the victim would be less a kidney. The surrogate returns to status normal.

No they don't. Ask any woman who has had a baby if they are the same afterwards. Physically. Emotionally. Mentally. Add in giving away the child afterwards and there is a whole other layer of emotional and mental complexity. Plus you must have missed the bits where there is added risk caused by added hormones.

This line of reason reminds me of a couple of smart arse oul fellas I used to know years ago who described giving birth to be like shelling peas. It really reveals willful ignorance of a complex experience.

jimmycrackcorm

Antares35 wrote: »

Agree. I wonder if it was wealthy people buying kidneys from poor people would there be more against it.

The comparison of a child to a kidney is absurd.

Jequ0n

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not all services are justifiable. Lots of people want or feel entitled to demand lots of different things and services that are not justifiable.

Your argument is not good because it is wholly based on laissez faire moral relativism. You can test that by applying your argument to other services and see if the argùment holds up. If we operated as a civilisation by the principles of such hands off relativism re all services or goods demanded, we would live in hell.

I don’t have to test anything because I genuinely don’t care about most causes, though there are exceptions of course.
The problem here is that you do not seem to be able to keep emotions out of it.

You cannot dictate what other people do or don’t do, just because you think it’s wrong to do so.

That’s as if someone told you couldn’t eat rasher sandwiches any more because the animal welfare and promise on the packaging were likely unrealistic. Would that change your mind or behaviour? Because everything discussed in this thread is theoretical and based on assumptions.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The question is if money is not involved, then is surrogacy ok?
After all, plenty of women have babies and give them up for adoption, for which the resulting child is no different than a surrogate acquired child.

If someone adopts a child, who didn't have a prior arrangement, or knowledge of the mother, and then chooses to give the birth mother a gift of money, is that acceptable?

What if the mother wasn't from a poor country, was well-off in her own right and decided she wanted to help a couple wanting a child. Is that acceptable if she enters a financial arrangement?

It just strikes me, that after our SSM and abortion referendums, that there are still people who want to control what other people do with their lives and their bodies, solely based on their own morals.

Remove the money element first. Completely.

Then wonder later about all the rest when you see what you are left with.

Jequ0n

Jequ0n wrote: »

I don’t have to test anything because I genuinely don’t care about most causes, though there are exceptions of course.


You cannot dictate what other people do or don’t do, just because you think it’s wrong to do so.

Fair enough. If you don't care about almost anything, then I don't care much about your opinions. Quid pro quo. No worries.

Society "dictates" all the time what we can and can't do. Try walking naked down your street.

Jequ0n

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fair enough. If you don't care about almost anything, then I don't care much about your opinions. Quid pro quo. No worries.

Society "dictates" all the time what we can and can't do. Try walking naked down your street.

Because so far you have been really accepting of others’ opinions and feedback?

Every rule/ law can and is being bent all the time. That’s the point: just because you ban something doesn’t mean it will stop

One eyed Jack

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It just strikes me, that after our SSM and abortion referendums, that there are still people who want to control what other people do with their lives and their bodies, solely based on their own morals.

I don’t think it’s that anyone wants to control what other people do with their lives or their bodies at an individual level like you’re suggesting based upon their own moral values. It’s rather a question of examining the ethics of surrogacy itself and as it pertains to a society, all aspects of surrogacy whether it be commercial or altruistic surrogacy.

I don’t have an issue with the idea of surrogacy itself in principle, I don’t think many people actually do have issues with surrogacy in principle. That’s why there’s not much heard of it from any particular perspective, there’s as many negative narratives as there are positive, from exploitation of Ukrainian women to the military wives in the US who’s medical treatment is covered by their spouses insurance provider. Most states in the US have legislation which is very favourable towards surrogacy, the complete opposite of most European countries, and then there is Ireland where surrogacy isn’t legislated for at all.

It’s an incredibly complex and difficult issue for people who have to avail of surrogacy and I don’t think it’s nearly as simple as is being made out to be in this thread tbh. There are undoubtedly negative aspects to it for people, and by that same token there are many positive aspects to it for people. Legislating for it in Irish law would bring some degree of certainty for a lot of people who wish to avail of surrogacy services, and for those people who wish to provide surrogacy services, but it’s difficult to legislate for that in such a way that would completely remove all aspects of the potential for exploitation of other human beings, especially when there are no standards in International law between different countries and jurisdictions.

volchitsa

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The comparison of a child to a kidney is absurd.

Yes the kidney can't go on to suffer from being abused or neglected.

Creating a child away in order to give away to strangers is a far more serious thing to do.

By giving birth to it, you have some responsibility for its future happiness, and no control over that.

volchitsa

bilbot79 wrote: »

Yes there would because the victim would be less a kidney. The surrogate returns to status normal.

Well this is not true. Even assuming the pregnancy goes perfectly, which not all do.

bilbot79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No they don't. Ask any woman who has had a baby if they are the same afterwards. Physically. Emotionally. Mentally. Add in giving away the child afterwards and there is a whole other layer of emotional and mental complexity. Plus you must have missed the bits where there is added risk caused by added hormones.

This line of reason reminds me of a couple of smart arse oul fellas I used to know years ago who described giving birth to be like shelling peas. It really reveals willful ignorance of a complex experience.

For the purposes of comparison to losing a kidney it is indeed a return to status normal. Of course there are impacts to being pregnant but it happens to lots of people all the time and is entirely normal in the grand scheme of life, without taking anything anyway from the titan efforts and experiences of all mother's that have been pregnant. Being down one kidney however is entirely different and is a very poor comparison.

volchitsa

bilbot79 wrote: »

For the purposes of comparison to losing a kidney it is indeed a return to status normal. Of course there are impacts to being pregnant but it happens to lots of people all the time and is entirely normal in the grand scheme of life, without taking anything anyway from the titan efforts and experiences of all mother's that have been pregnant. Being down one kidney however is entirely different and is a very poor comparison.

Most people are absolutely fine with only one kidney.
On the other hand my back has never got back to normal after pregnancy, and I have pretty much constant back pain now. The solution seems to be to put up with it, sh1t happens.

Antares35

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The comparison of a child to a kidney is absurd.

It's the comparison of two situations where one party buys rights to another party's body.

Lmkrnr

How do children who have went through this react when they are older. I presume the people paying for this service will tell the Child when they are older that we paid a company in X to find a women and make you, then hand you over to us for an agreed price.

machiavellianme

Lmkrnr wrote: »

How do children who have went through this react when they are older. I presume the people paying for this service will tell the Child when they are older that we paid a company in X to find a women and make you, then hand you over to us for an agreed price.

Why? Biologically, it's their child. Would you expect your parents to tell you about the night they did the deed to create you in great detail?

machiavellianme

machiavellianme wrote: »

Why? Biologically, it's their child. Would you expect your parents to tell you about the night they did the deed to create you in great detail?

Not always.

bilbot79

Lmkrnr wrote: »

How do children who have went through this react when they are older. I presume the people paying for this service will tell the Child when they are older that we paid a company in X to find a women and make you, then hand you over to us for an agreed price.

This is much ado about nothing. Like their parents before them they will likely be modern and open-minded and once they're told early and honestly will find no issue with their origin story. This is how the world works now and will be incredibly commonplace by the time today's children are old enough to know how babies are made.

Jequ0n

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not always.

So many nuances.
The example I mentioned saw a couple buy sperm and egg fitting their specifics because the woman in question wanted to give birth. They have several children now, their optics picked from a catalogue, and the whole world incl the kids thinks that they are their own even though they are not.

Personally I find this far more problematic than a standard surrogate business situation.

And in case someone wonders: everything, although illegal, was actioned via Western European countries.

So ban away things

bilbot79

bilbot79 wrote: »

This is much ado about nothing. Like their parents before them they will likely be modern and open-minded and once they're told early and honestly will find no issue with their origin story. This is how the world works now and will be incredibly commonplace by the time today's children are old enough to know how babies are made.

Heh. Maybe not. Maybe the kids will be strict vegan anti globalist climate warriors who dedicate their lives to protesting against the exploitation of poor enslaved banana and coffee farmers, and they might very well feel wtf if they find out their birth mother was in distressed financial straits owing rent for example and made the decision to rent their womb to provide a baby via an agency who was facilitating people from richer countries to buy surrogacy services in poorer countries. Whatcha gonna say to them then, much ado about nothing, be modern, open minded and freewheeling like me kiddo?

It will not be commonplace for economically better off people to rent poorer women's wombs or purchase babies in the future - I think on the contrary it will be widely understood to not be a value neutral activity.
In fact in spite of your seemingly bohemian attitude that all is groovy, and people who object are throwback cracpots, the truth is it is already completely illegal to do so in many places in the world. For good reason.

angel eyes 2012

volchitsa wrote: »

Most people are absolutely fine with only one kidney.
On the other hand my back has never got back to normal after pregnancy, and I have pretty much constant back pain now. The solution seems to be to put up with it, sh1t happens.

I find it interesting that some women who are extremely fortunate to give birth think they hold the upper hand on medical issues and can judge other women who suffer with fertility issues.

I had a kidney removed 20 years ago and I suffer with the consequences even now but as you say, sh1t happens.