# What do you think about surrogacy?



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I *personally* could never be a surrogate mother. Pregnancy was not my, um, thing.
I don't have an opinion on the matter, because I've never stood in those shoes. How's that for an exciting opinion?:LOL


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I think it is a wonderful gift.

At the same time, I know I could never do it. It's not a good trait of mine, and I work on it, but I am way too judgemental of other's parenting. And I know I would second guess the rest of my life the decision to "give" someone a child. What if they were bad parents? What if they taught their child to be a racist/sexist/homophobe/etc...? I would just feel sick about it. Yes, it is close minded but I can't get past it.


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

I too think it's a wonderful gift but I know I could never give away a babe. Having gone thru a difficult pregnancy and given birth, I know I could never go home with empty arms. I have nothing but admiration for those ladies who could give another Mama that sort of gift.


----------



## goodcents (Dec 19, 2002)

On this note - I just got done watching MTV Real Life I am Adopted. They had a mother on it giving up her child for adoption. It was so sad!!!! I was crying by the end of it. Happy for the adoptive parents but so sad for the mother! How difficult to do!!

I too think it is a gift - but I could never do it. Unless maybe it was a dear relative like my sister. But she already has 4 beautiful babies so I dont think that will come up anytime soon!!!!


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

I think that it is a stunning gift. I think it may possibly be one of the most selfless things you can do for another person. It is a gift that could potentially give me a baby someday, if I continue to be unable to conceive on my own. (Just to put a face on it.)


----------



## WendyLouWho (Apr 16, 2002)

One of the members here is currently a surrogate (though she's out of town and can't chime in). I have the utmost respect for her...she's giving the ultimate gift to another woman (and man). And it's no easy task...I've known two surrogates now, and those shots are not fun









I think I could do it. I loved being pregnant and I loved labor (odd, I know...it was just so powerful and I felt so strong). I miss feeling a babe swimming inside me, but we are done having children of our own. I could see carrying a baby for someone else who could not. If I went into it with that mindset, I could lovingly give the baby to the parents.


----------



## WendyLouWho (Apr 16, 2002)

Meant to say, I think the toughest part for me would be not being able to nurse. Those first few weeks or months spent in surreal moments of sleeping/waking/nursing...they are just heaven.


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

I'm totally for it and think it's wonderful....but I could never do it because I'd get too attached to the baby in utero and I don't think I could birth a child and then give it up. Even if it wasn't genetically mine.


----------



## myrrhmaid (Aug 20, 2002)

Quote:

I've known two surrogates now, and those shots are not fun
What kind of shots?
I'd LOVE to be a surrogate mother to someone. It would bother me not to nurse though-only cuz i'd want the babe to have breastmilk. It would have to be someone who would co-sleep though too. I shudder to think a babe alone in a crib-I hated it as a babe. And they couldn't circumcize either-or vax or spank. And by the time they heard all this from me they'd prolly think I was mentally unstable and not want that kind of genetic make-up for their babe!







ild














:
But I LOVE being pregnant and I LOVE giving birth. What a gift that would be!!! I could do it, i think.


----------



## melaniewb (Mar 14, 2003)

I think it is just about the most wonderful gift you can give to someone.

That said, I'm not sure if I could do it. Pregnancy doesn't really agree with me, and I had a horrid birth. Plus, I would have a VERY hard time giving up a baby. But, I would consider it if a good friend of mine was unable to conceive and wanted a surrogate mother.


----------



## jackson's mama (Apr 27, 2003)

I have offered to be a surrogate for a dear friend that is unable to carry babies. My only caveats to her were that I be done having my own children, and that it be a complete surrogacy and I not be genetically tied to the child. My offer to her was made before I had my own children, and after having had my son I am still willing to surrogate for her if she wants to pursue that route. I had a fairly easy pregnany and labor.

I believe that I would pump breastmilk for the babe for as long as I could (at least the first 2-3 months). My hope would be that she try to lactate, but I would be supportive of her if she decided not to try.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

actualy myrhhmaid, I know someone who adopted and was suprised (and relieved) the birth mom ask her not to circumsise, use eye goo, vaccinate and co-sleep. She was also totally stoked that she was gong to breastfeed and decided she wanted to feed the baby before handing him over but refused to give him formula. It was probably the most beautiful adoption I have ever heard of.

I don't know how I feel about surragate parenting. I could never ever do it. I had to leave the hospital after my first was born and leave her there. there is no way I could ever do that again.

Also I don't feel there are enough laws regaurding it. It is rare that it runs amuck but when it does it is devestating.


----------



## melaniewb (Mar 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jackson's mama_
*I have offered to be a surrogate for a dear friend that is unable to carry babies. My only caveats to her were that I be done having my own children, and that it be a complete surrogacy and I not be genetically tied to the child.*
These would definitely be my requirements as well if I were to ever be a surrogate. There is absolutely *no* way I could part with a baby that was made with my DNA.


----------



## burritomama (Aug 26, 2002)

A member of my immediate family has been a surrogate mother twice - no genetic connection to the babies.

She was a young single mother at the time, living in HUD housing, on WIC and what's left of welfare. A bit emotionally immature, if not unstable.

The families she "worked" for were fairly well off.

I am sure the families were happy with the process but I must say it's taken a real toll on her (the surrogate) -- and on her own mother, not to mention her child.

There's some very interesting issues that inform the entire experience that go beyond simply birth of the baby.

That's all for now. My 2 cents.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Think it's a beautiful, wonderful thing.
Think it should be regulated ... the trauma involved when it goes awry is just too ... well, there should be more oversight and control, IYKWIM.

Know I could never be one. Then again, in my 40s, so who's going to ask me? :LOL


----------



## WendyLouWho (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by myrhhmaid_
*What kind of shots?
*
You have to take hormone shots. IIRC, both before implantation to get the uterus ready and after so your body will accept the pregnancy. They hurt (you take them in the hip) and your hips become so sore. Add to that my local friend who was a surrogate had strong reactions to the "before" shots and became a raving meanie (though the hormones don't effect everyone that way).


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

I have a dear friend who tried to have a baby for 16 years before using a surrogate - she had twins which are genetically hers and her DH's. (my friend and her DH - not the surrogate). Anyway, I think it was amazing to witness and I learned a lot about surrogacy. One thing that the surrogate said is that she never felt that the baby was hers so she didn't have the letdown of leaving "her child" with someone else - quite the opposite in fact. She said it was one of the most rewarding moments of her life.

I do have to say, though, that I would never do it because I think that it would be very traumatic for my family, especially my DD. I know that my DH and mom would not be happy about it but I think it would be a very difficult thing for my DD to witness me giving away a child.

I could be wrong but I wouldn't be willing to take the chance. But I have UTMOST respect for those that would.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

I only have a few seconds, but my main concern is the pressure on women to constantly altruistic. Women should give for their families, their friends, their children and that is what makes women special. I agree it is a special gift, but I think it should only be done for friend. Getting paid $20,000 for round the clock work for 9 months plus painful IVF is slaves wages and women's bodies are NOT for rent.
Lauren


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by veganmamma_
*I only have a few seconds, but my main concern is the pressure on women to constantly altruistic. Women should give for their families, their friends, their children and that is what makes women special. I agree it is a special gift, but I think it should only be done for close friends and family members. Getting paid $20,000 for round the clock work for 9 months plus painful IVF is slaves' wages and women's bodies are NOT for rent.
Lauren*


----------



## Ms.Doula (Apr 3, 2003)

ITA w/ Lauren!


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

I have very mixed feelings about it. I think that people who are interested in doing it should be free to do so. I also think that women who would be a surrogate are remarkable, in a good way.

OTOH, when I had nothing but miscarriages, I never for a moment considered trying to hire a surrogate. I wouldn't even consider IVF. For me, there was something unsettling about the whole idea of all those hormone shots and medical mucking about. I also think the possibilites for a legal nightmare are still there.

I have a nephew conceived through donor egg. My SIL tried to convince me to look into it, but the thought gave me the willies. It worked out great for them. Adoption worked out great for us, and they wouldn't consider it. To each her own.


----------



## The Lucky One (Oct 31, 2002)

I don't really have much of an opinion on surrogacy, but I do know that I could never do it.

I remember reading an article about the subject in the late 90's (please don't ask what or where, I can't remember), but it was interesting. It said that surrogate mothers *usually* enter into surrogacy feeling that their own families are complete (ie. they aren't going to have any more children of their own). Of _those_ women, something like 85% of them go on to have another baby of their own after the surrogate baby.

Makes me think that giving a baby away, whether biologically yours or not, must leave a gaping hole in a woman.

Not for me.

lisa


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

I apologize for quoting myself, I was trying to edit my post. :LOL what a dork!!

There is a good book on this issue, though the stats are probably out of date by now, called Women as Wombs. I enjoyed it and agreed with many of the author's points.
L


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

I would certainly consider it, especially if I had had an easy pregnancy, labor & delivery. If I was confident that all future pregnancies would go as well as this one, I would definately do it. I think I'd feel better about it if the baby was in no way genetically related to me, and I had already "completed my family" (not really sure I'll ever get there!) but if someone approached me about it, say a close friend, I would certainly consider it regardless. Being pregnant (with Eli, not with this one) was a lot of work for me, but the pain of not being able to have a child of your own when you desperately want one... I think that would be much worse, and I'd feel a little selfish if I didn't at least consider it for a friend.

If it was for an agency or just answering an ad in a paper, that's a different story; I'd definately think about it, but probably be unwilling to consider it seriously until I'd had a few more children of my own.


----------



## kate-astrophe (Jan 26, 2004)

Being a birthmother, I feel like I have an interesting perspective on surrogacy. Giving up a baby that you give birth to, whether it is genetically yours or not, affects a woman on every level, down to her very core. You are flooded with the same hormones and feelings as a woman who keeps her baby. After giving up my first daughter, I felt like I'd been split in two- there was the pragmatist who made the decision to place her, and there was the awakened roaring mother lioness whose nurturing instincts had been thwarted. This created a PROFOUND desire for more children, and I think the statistic of 80 something percent of surrogates going on to have another baby is very telling.

That being said, I would be a surrogate for my best friend who is born to be a mother, but may not be able to carry a pregnancy. I know what emotions are involved and I could have more children of my own if that's what I wanted to do. But the effects on the surrogate cannot be underestimated. It's a difficult and ambiguous loss to heal from. I imagine that a surrogate feels even less entitled to her feelings of loss than a birthmother does because of the altruistic and saintly image of surrogates that we impose upon them. There is very little comfort in knowing how happy you might have made someone when your awakened mother lioness is screaming for her baby in the dark.

-Kate


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I would consider it. I loved being pregnant and I didn't actually bond with DC while I was pregnant or right after the birth so I wouldn't be one to worry about becoming too attached.

My worry would be about the how the child would be raised after. I think I would often think and worry for the child and it would be hard for me to be removed from her/him, kwim?

Because of this, I would only do it for someone I knew I would respect as a parent and someone who I would feel comfortable working my issues out with. However, fortunately, for my friends and family, there is no need for my services.


----------



## pammysue (Jan 24, 2004)

Like kate-astrophe I am also a birthmom and this made me cry, bc/ it is so true:

Quote:

There is very little comfort in knowing how happy you might have made someone when your awakened mother lioness is screaming for her baby in the dark.
I LOVED being pregnant. It was the most peaceful and joyous time of my life. I decided as soon as I found out I was preg. I would place the baby. I felt like I was an instrument that God was using to place my baby with the family she belongs with.

Having said all that, since I placed my baby I have been waiting, very impatiently, to be pregnant again. I have thought a lot about being a surrogate and it is something that I would really like to do. Circumstances have never been that I could do it and now I am looking forward to starting a family soon. But, if someone close to me asked me I would not hesitate to say yes.

As far as carrying and then not mothering a child making you want to mother, this makes a lot of sense. I have been dreaming for a long time about mothering. DH would probably even say I was obsessed!


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

I offered it to my sister. She's thinking about it, so this thread has been very interesting to read. She'd have to agree not to circ, though. It would be hard, but worth it. And I'd get to watch the child grow up. There's no one else in the world I'd do it for, though.


----------



## beaner&tiegs (Aug 3, 2003)

I've often thought about this as well, as a couple of close friends are having problems and may not be able to get pregnant. I agree that I would have to be done having my own kids, and I am finished nursing, etc. It would be a sacrifice, as it's always a toll on my body and on the family when I'm pregnant, I just have to decide if it would be worth it. I also think there are so many complications about what is okay when you are pregnant with someone else's child that would need to be worked out. Is the occasional glass of wine okay in the last trimester? How about a latte a day? I biked and canoed and skiied during both of my pregnancies, would those be acceptable risks?! How much would I let the other person's wishes dictate 'our' pregnancy, and how much would I insist on living my life?! And then there's the whole letting go after the birth - I think if I was going to decide to go ahead, I would have to come to terms with the fact that I have no control over how the child is raised after birth and that would be hard. I would love to pump if they wanted, but I couldn't start breastfeeding! Anyways, lots of stuff to sort out, that's for sure!


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Hi, Stonehenge,

I'm probably not going to alter your point of view, so I won't try, but I do want to give some food for thought. You said,

[QUOTE}I don't agree with surrogacy and I would never, ever even consider it. (Actually, I'm against most reproductive technologies.)[/QUOTE]

There's no doubt that technology of any kind can be harmful if misused, so I agree with you there, but given that many reproductive technologies are being developed either to help people who want to have children to become parents (as in surrogacy) or to help people who have no options or help (as in stem cell research for Parkinson's and MS), I can' t condemn technology wholesale.

Quote:

I think the essence of surrogacy is that children are products to be created and distributed according to the whims of the market. I especially cringe when people call it (or adoption) a "gift." What exactly is the gift? The rental of your womb? The child itself?
Speaking personally, the "gift" is my daughter. She has been a blessing whose worth we can't express in words, a gift we don't deserve. My dh and I asked ourselves, "Why were we so blessed? Why were we blessed and not someone else?" Everyone knows someone who has struggled with infertility, and the idea that this gift has been given so freely and so generously to us is beyond our comprehension. Having been given something so generously, we know we can never pay it back. So we decided to pay it forward. The "gift" is the sharing of our good fortune with someone else.

Quote:

Children are not gifts we bestow on others! I also think there are too many emotional issues involved and that no one can really know how they are going to feel until it's too late.
I don't agree that "no one" can really know how they are going to feel. I think if one knows herself well enough, you can at least have a reasonable supposition.

I realize I probably haven't changed your view, but I do hope that I've given you some things to consider.


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

So, CB, have you been, or are you considering being, a surrogate?

Stonehenge, if I use my egg and BIL's sperm, it wouldn't even take "technology." We could use a turkey baster! (TMI?) Are you against adoption? Because basically that's the same thing.

And Stonehenge, like I said previously, my sister is THE ONLY PERSON I could do this for. Not for a friend. Certainly not for a stranger. I've watched her struggle through a late miscarriage and the failure of IVF. I've watched how much she loves her nieces and nephews and what a good mom she would make. And no, I'm not really fond of the word "gift," either. It wouldn't be a gift. It would be a life.

This isn't about "the market." This is about my sister. I don't expect you to understand, though.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:

Has anyone been a surrogate...
I suggest that anyone considering this be informed about it.

An old, but good book is The Mother Machine , by Gena Corea which is heavily footnoted and researched.

The lawyer who pioneered surrogacy law in CA did not even think the women with the "wombs for rent" should be paid. He decided to pay them only after being persuaded that he might get more women to consider it.

If you do decide to do something like this, be informed of all of the side effects of the drugs that are given to you. Your ovaries are "souped up" with hormones to get ovalation going. This can cause your ovaries to burst and NO ONE knows what the long term effects are. You are also given hormones to get your uterine lining very receptive to implanation. There are several blood, urine, hormone tests run. Your life is taken over by these chemicals, tests, and shots and probes. One of the side-effects of these tests, including the "air up the tubes" test is infertility in a previously fertile surrogate. So becoming a surrogate can make you a candidate for one.

There is a personality test given to prospective surrogates, and this weeds out anyone who may ask too many questions and not be as compliant as desired for the infertility medical teams.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Mrs. Brown, who had the first invitro baby, Louise, in her book, Our Miracle, Louise , stated that she did not know that she would be the first woman in whom Dr. Steptoe had success. She stated that she would go to the fertility clinic and see all these happy, pregnant women walking around and she assumed that this went on all of the time.

She said that she was shocked to learnthat she was the first successful pregnancy brought to term with a live baby.

She did not know that she was being experimented on.

Where is the informed consent here?


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

*


----------



## Bladestar5 (Jan 5, 2003)

I couldn't do it. I get too darned attached. I would be so sad to see the little baby go. I don't really have an opinion on it. I am too conflicted within myself.








I think it is loving that somebody would carry a baby for somebody else. I know there is a lot of painful procedures to go through for it.


----------



## burritomama (Aug 26, 2002)

I don't think it's cynical to point out that there may be exploitation involved in this, especially as it has involved, frankly, to be an industry, a market.

Perhaps it's best to separate out the surrogates who carry babies for chidlren and friends and those who don't.

It's very complex.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

I told my best friend I would do it for her, but that she had to let me breast feed. That would be my only requirement (other than I already had my own babies). Otherwsie I would trust her to make the parenting decisions that were best for her (even cio) - though of course I would bombard her with ap books etc.

It would be incredibly hard, and maybe I wouldn't be able to put my body through it for her.

But it will be easier to let go since I know I wouldn't be letting go. The baby I carried would always be in my life as the daughter of the woman I've known since we were 14.

I, however, couldn't let someone carry my baby. Not sure why. I also couldn't go the infertility treatmenst route. It just seems stange to go to so much trouble to pass my and my dh's mediocre genes on. But I understand it is so importatnt to some people, and understand, on an emotional rather than intellectual level, why. So I'd do it for maybe one or two people.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamawanabe_
*I told my best friend I would do it for her, but that she had to let me breast feed.*
See, I don't think I'd be able to nurse. Pump, yes, and I'd certainly offer that, but for me nursing was a serious bonding experience. I felt very attatched to Eli before he was born (much much more than I do with this one







) but nursing really cemented our relationship; if I nursed any baby, I'd feel like that child was mine regardless of whether I'd given birth or not.

I can only think of a few people with whom I'd seriously have this discussion (if they asked me to be a surrogate). Most of them would never even dream of asking me unless my upcoming labor and delivery goes *much* more smoothly than did my first. My best friend and I used to talk about having a baby together (turkey baster style) but after Eli's birth (he was there for a good bit of it) he said in a shaky voice and with a very pale face that he could never do that to me. If this baby pops out like a watermelon seed (like my sister's and mother's did) my friends might be willing to consider it. At the moment, none of them are having difficulty concieving (because none of them are trying) so the whole question is hypothetical.

My mother gave serious thought to being a surrogate about 15 years ago. She had very easy pregnancies & deliveries (no labor to speak of, really) and had her tubes tied (was totally finished, in her mind, with her own baby making). I'm not sure why she never pursued it; maybe I'll ask her sometime.

I know what you mean, about feeling like your child is an incredible blessing and you wonder why it came to you so easily when others struggle so much. Paying it forward appeals strongly to me, for that reason; I can't be thankful enough for my lovely boy, or the Belly Bean, and I would love to be able to share that with someone else. Hm. Maybe I should finish school and become a fertility specialist.


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

Stonehenge, Yes, the discussion has turned personal for me, since it *IS* personal! My sister may never take me up on my offer, and then my discussion will only be hypothetical. But, then again, she might.

I do wish she'd adopt. But, if she doesn't, I'm still there for her.

I understand why you think wombs shouldn't be for rent. But when you're doing it for love, rather than money, why is it so wrong?

Applejuice, thanks for voicing your concerns. But in my case it would involve my own eggs so I wouldn't take any extra fertility drugs. Basically it would just be artificial insemination w/ BIL's sperm.

I wouldn't be able to bf the baby, either.

CB, just curious what prompted the question?


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

My first response is that I've got no problem with surrogacy as long as all parties have the same level of power in the relationship. Getting paid to carry a baby muddies this a bit for me.

I initially thought 'No way!!' at the idea of being preggers again. But after reading everyone's posts, I think maybe I could, possibly, do it for a dear, dear friend. I've been lucky to have two perfect pregnancies, it's the other stuff that makes it complicated. Couldn't have any genetic attachment to the child tho. And I couldn't breastfeed (not that I was ever any good at that anyway!!). But it's all a moot point cuz if my dh ever knew I was even thinking about it, he'd prolly divorce me!! (I get a little moody when I'm pregnant







)


----------



## mammastar (Nov 5, 2002)

A couple of years ago, Ms. had an interesting, thought-provoking article about fertility treatments, and the hormone shots involved - which I imagine would be the same type of thing you would get as a surrogate in most cases. The potential for ovarian cancer is staggeringly high.

I understand that many of you are thinking of this in terms of what you would do for a close friend or family member. It is also worth remembering that many surrogacy relationships take place in the context of huge power (and financial) differentials - and that the drive to have a child who is "genetically mine" interweaves in questionable ways for some couples with a reluctance to adopt racially different children who are waiting for homes.

Just food for thought.


----------



## burritomama (Aug 26, 2002)

aussiemum and mammastar, esp. your words about power.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Somewhat OT:

Quote:

the drive to have a child who is "genetically mine" interweaves in questionable ways for some couples with a reluctance to adopt racially different children who are waiting for homes.
I am the mother of transracially adopted children. Social workers and adoption professionals are pretty universal that if you aren't comfortable adopting racially different children, you shouldn't do it.

For dh and I, it has been a wonderful experience. We pray that it will be for our children, too, but for some kids it is not. It most certainly adds a layer of complexity to the lives of both parent and child. You become a conspicuous family every time you leave the house. Hardly a day goes by without a stupid stranger comment and a whole lot of rude staring. It can be extraordinarily wearing for both parent and child. And the children raised transracially require a whole lot of support in forming healthy self-images, and in fact families should strive to incorporate the ethnic identity of the child into the family's cultures and practices.

For us, the extra effort involved has also been tremendously enriching. We have done things, met people, and taken on new challenges that we never would have done otherwise. But it is also a whole lot of work and has required a big loss of family privacy. Please don't assume that everyone who would rather use a surrogate than be a transracial parent is also racist.


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

I do think the desire for a "genetically mine" child is strangely akin to racist ideology, but it is much more than that. The desire to see your grandmother's face in your daughter's, to define identity as heredity works tangentally with racism, but it is certainly not wholly the product of racism.

I always said that if I can't have kids, I'll just adopt. And I won't need a "healthy white baby" (crazy number of ads in my college newspaper in the deep south by wannabe adoptive parents who were looking for the above. It was so bizarre to me - both the advertising for a baby and the blatent desire for a white baby.)

But, the more I lurk on the adoption forum, the more I see how adoption is, at best, a flawed arrangement full of potential pain. Not that I wouldn't still do it, but it is not like If I didn't mind a black baby, I could build a beautiful family easily. There is a lack of healthy babies of any race and a lot of older kids who are pretty messed up physically and mentally. They still need homes and we still need children, but it is certainly complicated and difficult. And the potential for a lifetime of heartache is real.

I am all for more choices in this. I actually think surrogacy is better than the poetential "low-tech" problems with international adoptions (there is fear that there will be baby farming where women are paid to have babies, placing the babies in agencies for money, getting pregnant with this end in mind; same fears with organ farming; neither has yet to materialize though).


----------



## MamaMonica (Sep 22, 2002)

My main concern with surrogacy and egg donation is the danger of the shots/hormones to the mother. These things can cause cancer and long term problems. If it was a simple AI, then it would be different- and I don't think I'd have strong feelings about it. That said, I would not do it. I'm too tired and pregnancy was hard on my body- I need to be here for the kids I have. If I were young and really healthy I might do it- without the hormone injections for someone I was really close to as an act of love. Or maybe not- giving up a baby would tear me apart.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

I think what Merpk said is right, that this is something that should be regulated. I also agree with Lauren, that as it is presently constituted, that surrogacy is exploitative.

Surrogacy should be a wonderful thing. When I first read about it, I was kind of excited. It was like, a person who doesn't want to have children but can has a baby for people who want to have children but can't. Then when people actually started to try this arrangement, there began to be legal cases when women who had carried babies to term didn't want to give them up to the parents who "hired" them.

How is hiring someone to have a baby different from hiring someone to have sex with you? It's not, really, except that there is so much more risk involved in having a baby!

On the other hand, I could see an arrangement in which surrogacy could be so so beautiful. If the surrogate mom and the parents who were going to raise the baby knew and liked or even loved each other, if it was an open relationship so that the baby would have the surrogate mom as another relative. If the surrogate mom got a lot of compensation and care. If the surrogate mom already had a complete family. A lot of ifs. But if you wanted to, you could make it happen!


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I think the similarities between surrogacy and adoption are worth considering. In both cases, things can go wrong. Birth mothers can change their mind. I just don't think there is any avoiding these issues, and all who enter into such arrangements must be aware of the possible complications.

I also personally don't put much into whether or not the child is genetic. Being an adopted child myself, that's never been much of an issue to me. I am not genetically related to my parents and they are no less my parents to me. Similarly, I would think that carrying a child brings the same emotions, regardless of whether the child shares your own genes. Either you can handle giving up a babe you carry for nine months, or not.

As for the "fee", I think realistically some money has to change hands. Being pregnant costs money, and why should the surrogate pay that? Many adoptions include fees paid to the birth mother to cover the extra cost of food, vitamins, midwife/ob visits, not to mention the sacrifices that being pregnant entails. I find it hard to believe anybody really makes a whole lot of money from this, and I would be more concerned if the price paid to woman was *increased* as I think that would entice more women to consider this a source of income, rather than the gift it should be.

my 2 cents!


----------



## Laurel (Jan 30, 2002)

I have no moral issue with surrogacy, though I do think there are many complex issues that ought to be considered by both sides.

Since I am infertile, the thought of being a surrogate has never come up, though the thought of using one has (but only in passing).

I would never use a surrogate, though I would be greatly touched if someone offered. To me, the whole point of having a bio child would be to experience pregnancy, birth, and bf'ing. If those experiences were going to be cut anyway, I would adopt. (As I have--I have a beautiful 18-month-old son through adoption.) I do not care about having a child genetically related to me, and I don't really understand what's the big deal about "blood".

With that said, I am careful about judging people's choices. I don't think I would ever choose to undergo an IVF, but I understand why people do. People experiencing infertility are facing momentous decisions and having to make them in the midst of a huge personal emotional crisis. I remember being in an office one day and overhearing two women being extremely critical of fertility-drug-related multiple births, saying, "If you had that many babies you wouldn't even be able to enjoy them. What would be the point?" Well, to me, a childless woman *longing* for a baby, all I could think of was that having triplets or quads would certainly be better than having no baby at all, regardless of how hard it was. Now that I am a mother I have a little different view of that--I can't imagine managing triplets! But those feelings of not having any child at all are still very recent memories. We were judged often for our decision to adopt a newborn--by people who themselves had enjoyed the very experiences we were desirous of having! These people had NO concept of what we were experiencing. To them I wanted to say, "If you feel that strongly about adoption, then practice what you preach and adopt a child yourself."

I have read more and more about the risks of fertility drugs, and I know that for me personally, I probably won't use them. (I have been on clomid in the past.) But some risks (like cancer) would still be worth it to me to take in order to be a mother.

Anyway, I'm rambling and my thoughts are jumbled. But this discussion has circled other issues besides surrogacy specifically, and I wanted to touch on some of those.


----------



## 2much2luv (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

Similarly, I would think that carrying a child brings the same emotions, regardless of whether the child shares your own genes. Either you can handle giving up a babe you carry for nine months, or not.
I really disagree with this. There would be a major difference in my mind and heart if the child I was carrying was *mine* than if it was *theirs*. Major. I don't think I would surrogate because of the risks, but if I were to do it I could never ever give away a child that was genetically mine. If I was carrying a child that was genetically someone else's I think I could keep that in mind for the pregnancy and be a little less reluctant to hand the baby over. It would still be hard perhaps, but not as hard.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

I'd like to reply to a couple of issues --

I cannot disagree more that there is something "racist" about wanting a child that is yours, your DNA. Why? Why is it inherently racist?

For one thing, I am married to someone who is of my race, but if I weren't and had a child with him, then that child would not only be of my race and DNA, but also his -- and I would still *want* that child.

As it happens, my DH is adopted, and it was a closed adoption, so our DD is really his only blood relative in the world -- well, that he knows about. Some people don't see a big deal about "blood," and frankly, neither do I. If we couldn't have had a child, we would have adopted, and I have no problem about adopting an interracial child. Actually, I'd prefer to -- they need adoptive parents more than "healthy white babies."

That being said, I can understand other people wanting to have a child that looks like them or their families. I see my mother in my daughter, I see her great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother in little things -- the shape of her nose, her smile, her expressions. It's not the most important thing about her to me, but it is not without significance. Why should other people not have that same experience if that is what they want? If it matters to them, and they care about it for reasons of their own? Some of us here on this board have adopted, but what about the ones who did not -- like me? They had every right to have children of their own, and they did. Why should someone else not have that same right?

Just some food for thought -- I realize not everyone will agree.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:

Getting paid $20,000 for round the clock work for 9 months plus painful IVF is slaves' wages and women's bodies are NOT for rent.
ITA.

I think that being a surrogate for a close friend or family member is a beautiful gift. However, I do not think it should be allowed in its current state to continue, namely, where the overhwelming majority of surrgoate mothers live at or below povery level. Meaning, they are selling their bodies for money, putting their health and well being at serious risk in the process.

While the stories posted here are truly beautiful and inspirational, here's the much more common way it plays out: a wealthy, white upper-middle class couple unable to carry a baby to term pays a poor, desperate immigrant to pump her body full of cancer-causing hormones delivered via frequent, painful injections, carry a baby for 9 months with all that entails, deliver the baby, and then hand the baby over to the couple as they walk away forever. More likely that not, the surrogate is single and already has children of her own. She will be exhausted, physically and emotionally at the end of this enslavement, but hey, she'll have 20 grand (minus taxes of course).

There is another SIGNIFICANT issue with surrogacy I'm surprised no one has mentioned yet...

Do you know that legally, the baby DOES NOT belong to the biological parents? If the surrgoate mother decides to keep the baby, she can. Period. Furthermore, she has up to 90 days to decide in some states (similar to adoption clauses). Can you imagine a woman keeping "your" baby - 100% your genes??? Ugh. It has happened before, and time and time again, courts uphold this right - the woman who BEARS the child is the legal mother. End of story. Obviously, if this happens, the surrogate forefeits the payment, and it's because of this reason that many couples feel that a poorer woman makes for a better "bet" that she'll hand over the babe in the end for the cash.

Again, I think that surrogacy as an act of love, as a gift, is a beautiful thing.

But... the current system is highly, highly flawed.


----------



## burritomama (Aug 26, 2002)

TwinMommy: ITA


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by TwinMommy_
*...here's the much more common way it plays out: a wealthy, white upper-middle class couple unable to carry a baby to term pays a poor, desperate immigrant to pump her body full of cancer-causing hormones delivered via frequent, painful injections, carry a baby for 9 months with all that entails, deliver the baby, and then hand the baby over to the couple as they walk away forever. More likely that not, the surrogate is single and already has children of her own...*
That's not correct. Most surrogates are caucasian, 50% are married, they work and nearly all already have had children of their own. Go here and here to look at actual surrogates ads. From a study by Dr. Betsy P. Aigen , a psychotherapist who spealizes in infertility issues and had her own children through surrogacy. From the study,
_"The mean age of the entire group was 26. Fifty percent were married, and 26% were single. Seventy-five percent were mothers...As a group, they were predominantly white and either Catholic or Protestant... Approximately 71% were employed (at least part-time),...The "average" surrogate emerges as a white mother with a fair amount of education and income."_

Also, the $20,000 fee sounds very low. From Surrogacy Solutions, "_Artificial insemination (traditional) surrogacy cases have generally come in somewhat about $28,000.00 to $35,000.00. Gestational surrogacy cases (embryo transfer) involve more medical procedures which brings the cost somewhere about $38,000.00 to $45,000.00."_


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Can 't speak here for every surrogacy agency on the planet, but the ones I looked into, all of which were in S. California, required the following:

1. You could *not* be bankrupt or have recently declared bankruptcy, be on welfare, food stamps, or government assistance.

This was mandatory at all the agencies I looked into. Maybe it isn't a universal requirement with all agencies everywhere, but it seemed to be in most of them. The agencies were very clear that they did *not* want to have women become surrogates out of financial need. Most of them said exactly that.

2. You had to be married.

3. You had to have already had children.

It is also not a process into which one goes for "quick money." The processing time for applications can take months, as can insurance, paperwork, physical and psychological examinations, and matching with a couple. If you were "desperate" for money, then surrogacy would not be a very wise course of action to take. Moreover, although I don't think that agencies are biased against immigrants to this country, I believe most surrogates tend to be American by birth.


----------



## burritomama (Aug 26, 2002)

I am wary of anecdotal reasoning but I need to offer my family experience as eveidence here:

The family member who has been a surrogate twice had never been married, was on welfare and living in HUD housing, had previously had three children (given two up for adoption), was unemployed, needed $$, had not graduated high school, was young, -- you get the picture.

The friends she made among other surrogates appeared to share similar situations.

The agency who "employed" her twice is located in So. Cal and is considered reputable.

The "clients" she carried children for were white and wealthy.


----------



## griffin2004 (Sep 25, 2003)

I've always been a lurker, but I feel I have to respond to this thread (albeit slightly off the topic). Do those of you who equate "not be genetically tied to the child" with it being easier to relinquish the baby to the parents for whom you surrogated realize how terribly cutting and cruel that attitude is to adoptive parents and adopted children? If you need to have it explained to you, I'm happy to do so on behalf of adoptive parents everywhere: I would not love my internationally adopted (double horrors! double shudders!) daughter more if I had given birth to her.

2Much2Luv, your comment makes me so angry! I absolutely refuse to have my family unit viewed as second best by you or anyone else.

BTW, rather than "giving up" babies for adoption, birthmothers can actively make an adoption plan for their babies. It is the most incredibly selfless thing a mother can do for her baby in order to provide it with what she believes to be the best life possible.

Rant over; I gotta go hug my non-genetically-related baby. Feel free NOT to flame me. Also some of you should also feel free to expand your definitions of "mother" and "family" beyond puny biological boundaries.

--Trish


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Trish, I've also adopted internationally and transracially. I absolutely would not love my children more if they were biological. I know many families who have both bio and adopted kids who don't love their children any differently.

I agree with you that it is extremely sad that some people are so hung up on biology, but I think it's also a fact that some are. Look at the extent to which some people go to have biologically related children. I have a SIL who quit her job in order to do the heavy duty fertility meds for six years of her life. As a last ditch effort, she used a donor egg and got pregnant. I can't imagine subjecting my body to those drugs, and she and my brother easily spent $200,000 over the course of all that time.

She, OTOH, couldn't imagine how we could move so easily to adoption (gasp, international adoption at that) without going to the mat on infertility treatments. It's very important to her that she have some feeling of being biologically connected to her child, even though, as it turned out, she is not genetically connected. I don't get it, but she doesn't understand me either. We both have our families and have great kids, so to each her own.

It's also important to realize that there are a lot of people who wouldn't pass an IA homestudy for many countries, for a variety of reasons.

I also am very weary of the hand wringing types who imagine sinister plots by evil white women to force women in poor countries to bear them children. As we know, IA is not what you see portrayed on 20/20, and I just chalk it up to ignorance. I fail to see that it is better for babes to grow up in what are sometimes marginal institutions without families, and usually with dismal prospects when they age out of the system. I read all the refereed adoption research as it is published and have for years now, but I know that for some people the sensational always wins out over the actual research.


----------



## mammastar (Nov 5, 2002)

I'd like to thank everyone for the thought-provoking comments that this thread has generated!









I've noticed that some of you have responded at a gut level to what you perceived as a blanket suggestion, I think on my part, that parents who pay a surrogate mother are 'racist.' I don't think my earlier comment said that exactly - the power dynamics in surrogacy, as in so many areas, are obviously very complex. I tried to acknowledge that by using verb that would express this (I think I said that it 'interweaves' in complex ways - too many years in grad school







: ). I know it would reduce a complex problem that is experienced in different ways by different people just to say desire for child to be borne by surrogate = racist. It was just one aspect that I wanted to flag for people to think about. There's all kinds of BIG stuff going on here - race, power, gender roles, class. And yes, genuine emotions, too, but they don't form in a social vacuum.

Thanks for all the food for thought!


----------



## mammastar (Nov 5, 2002)

Yikes - I just noticed I used the word 'complex' three times in that post! Gee, do you think the issue is...oh, I don't know...complex??? :LOL


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I don't think anybody should be surprised that people first want a "biological child" and then perhaps a non-genitically related child if the first option doesn't pan out.

We are, after all, animals like any other on this planet and for all creatures the urge to reproduce and pass on one's genes is the core foundation of all behaviour. For humans, this instinct is buried under complex layers of emotions, culture, social structure, self-awareness, etc...it may not be what we go around thinking about all day, but rest assured virtually every part of what makes us "human" is based on the ability to spread your genes. Those who don't aren't around anymore. So it is no surprise to me that "genetically related" *tends* to come ahead of "adopted" in terms of choices.

Also, while I think griffin2004 makes a good point, I personally don't find it all that offensive when people of "genitically related" families feel that way. Honestly, most people I know who are not adopted (or who have adopted) genuinely cannot understand that my relationship with my family (I'm adopted) is no different than theirs.

I will admit to a curiousity regarding the features of mine that my DD shares...probably b/c I've never known anyone who shares any of my genes and it's a novelty. But if I found out tomorrow that my DD wasn't "genetically mine" I could honestly care less. I don't think my DH really understands this b/c he comes from a strong cultural background. I could care less what "culture" I'm from. All that matters is the cultural influences I was raised with.

Anyways, I'm rambling to say that while I understand griffin's point, I don't take so much offense at it, because I truly think it is very difficult for people to understand that "family" has little if anything to do with genetics, when they have never experienced the separation of those two things.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

I wanted to respond to the questions raised about my post. First of all, I wasn't voicing just my opinion. I was talking about the concerns raised by a wide variety of ethicists, economists, feminists, legislators, judges, human rights advovates, and just plain regular folks, regarding the subjucation and intentional injury of women in most gestational surrogacy relationships.

At a high level, any time you intentionally harm someone who is healthy, it is not a good thing. Remember the Hippocratic oath... "Do no harm". How exactly is causing a healthy young woman's system to be flooded with carcinogenic synthetic hormones, her ovaries to torque and explode with eggs, her body to sustain (for example) a multiple pregnancy that often results from IVF and other reproductive technologies, the emotional toll of giving up the baby she held in her womb for 9 months, and the excrutiating pain (phsyical and emotional) of her engorged breasts.. NOT harming her??? The FDA would never approve any clinical trial that treated its human subjects like surrgate mothers are treated. I think that this is a very important point, and do not consider the critical evaluation of the significant flaws in the system in general, and the major risks to the surrogate mothers specifically, to be merely pointless "hand-wringing" and "gloom and doom naysaying".

Due to the inability to reconcile the legal, medical, ethical and moral aspects of gestational surrogacy, this practice is already banned in many countries including China and I believe Canada (or at least efforts are underway to ban it in Canada), and in many states in this country, including Washington D.C. and Arizona outright, and is significantly restricted in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

I read the study cited in a previous post, where surrogate mothers are described as generally financially sound, white, educated, and motivated by altruism. Hmmm... first of all, this study was sponsored by the _American Surrogacy Center **Incorporated**_. Yes, that would be a *business*, that *makes money* from promoting surrogacy. Second of all, it was written by a woman who dedicates her life - and mighty successful career - to connecting surrogates to families, and who is herself the mother of 2 children born through surrogacy. So much for unbiased research.

Finally, here's a quote I like better from this study:

Quote:

This does not mean that there are no unhealthy motives for becoming a surrogate and that no discrimination is necessary. On the contrary, the fact that over 40% of our 200 applicants were rejected for emotionally-based reasons, having to do either with poor motives, general life situation, or general emotional makeup, suggests that great discrimination and caution are necessary in accepting individuals for this process.
That's almot HALF of all applicants!! By their own description, there would be major problems in choosing a significant proportion of women applying to be surrogates! Oh great. Let's all bank on the fact that desperate, hopeless childless couples (with money) and for-profit fertility BUSINESSES are able to exercise appropriate control, when, say, there is a couple lined up willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a baby, and they want to get the process started right away.

I think that the most important point is that even if the motives of the surrogate mother were 100% pure, it doesn't wash away the ethical dilemma of whether it is OK to knowingly harm a healthy young woman, or anyone for that matter, and jeopardize her health and emotional well-being just so that a couple can have a child who is at least partially genetically theirs. Why is their right to have a baby more important than the rights of a woman who already exists????

***
As someone who passionately believes that surrogacy, under the right circumstances and with the right controls in place, is the most selfless, loving gift a woman can give (e.g., to her close friend or family member), I would like to see it become a safe option. But I think that the evidence points overwhelmingly to serious flaws in the current system, and to the need to quickly and effectively change this system to ensure the rights of all women involved.


----------



## mammastar (Nov 5, 2002)

Wow, Twinmommy - that was an eloquent and nuanced post! I'm going to read some more about the issues.

Thanks!


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

TwinMommy,
Re

Quote:

Remember the Hippocratic oath... "Do no harm".
It seems to me that in our society, while perhaps this should be the fundamental tenet of the medical profession, there is certainly conflict in our society about whether or not it is. Let's take the cosmetic surgery industry for example. I'm talking boob jobs, tongue splitting and cheek implants here, not cleft palate or club foot repair. Is this really "do no harm"? My FIL, the anesthesiologist, always says, "There is no such thing as minor surgery," meaning of course, that death is always a possiblity, even for minor surgery. Yet society accepts that people have a right to decide for themselves if the risks involved in getting surgery for reasons of pure vanity or fashion are worth it.

I guess I don't see surrogates or egg donors as victims. No one is sneaking up on them and injecting them with hormones when they aren't looking. It is a decision they should be allowed to make for themselves. To imply that they are unable to give consent is, to me, an untenable position. And of course, for traditional surrogates, hormone injections aren't always even part of the picture.

For a very interesting discussion of the issue of exploitation of surrogates see, "The Exploitation Argument against Commercial Surrogacy," S. Wilkinson, Bioethics; 2003, 17, 2, Apr, 169-187. The author makes an interesting argument that even if you accept the premise that surrogacy is exploitative, legislative prohibition may well 'backfire' & lead to potential surrogates having to do other things that are more exploitative &/or more harmful than paid surrogacy. The author argues that those who oppose exploitation should (rather than attempting to stop particular practices like commercial surrogacy) concentrate on (A) improving the conditions under which paid surrogates 'work'; & (B) changing the background conditions (in particular, the unequal distribution of power & wealth) that generate exploitative relationships.

ITA with you about the cited study being not a particularly good source, given the biases of the author. However, I find nothing at all alarming about the fact that many applicants are unsuited as surrogates. Obviously, not everyone is cut out to be a surrogate. They are being rejected, so that to me would be an indication that screening mechanisms are in place.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

If women in SoCal have to be married they are discriminating against people who do not marry for feminist reasons, lesbians and single mothers. I take personal offense to that one in a big way. I however, would never rent my body out, especially for reproductive purposes. Also discriminating against those on welfare is also wrong, it is discrimination against the poor. Don't use these rules to make anyone feel any better about the state of surrogacy, they are divisive and discriminatory. They are probably intended to alleviate fears theat poor minority women will be used and abused for their bodies. IMO, they just create more divisiveness. I stand by my belief that paid surrogacy is wrong and that surrogacy should only be between people who know and love each other. Women's bodies are *not* for rent, not for prostitution and not for baby growing. I think friends who act as surrogates will probably have expenses paid for, but IMO it is demeaning to the experience to be paid even by a family member.


----------



## BunnysMomma (Dec 27, 2003)

I've tried to stay out of this discussion because I figured that someone else would voice my concerns, but no one has.

I have to say that I'm very surprised that not one person has mentioned the potential negative effects of surrogacy on the child created.

If the surrogate is genetically related to the child, she is basically giving her child away. That could have HUGE emotional ramifications for the child.

Even if the surrogate is "merely" a gestational surrogate, the child she carries will know no other mother during his gestation. The child will still lose the only mother he has ever known, even if he is genetically related to the people who will ultimately raise him. That can have potential negative effects on the child, too.

I think that often people feel that a newborn can't discrminate amongst the people in his life and therefore has no emotional reaction to separation and loss. As an adopted person, an adoptive mother, and a former adoption social worker, I know better. I don't think surrogacy is good for children, and I am really surprised no one else here has mentioned the child.

Wilma


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by BunnysMomma_
*I've tried to stay out of this discussion because I figured that someone else would voice my concerns, but no one has.

I have to say that I'm very surprised that not one person has mentioned the potential negative effects of surrogacy on the child created.

If the surrogate is genetically related to the child, she is basically giving her child away. That could have HUGE emotional ramifications for the child.

Even if the surrogate is "merely" a gestational surrogate, the child she carries will know no other mother during his gestation. The child will still lose the only mother he has ever known, even if he is genetically related to the people who will ultimately raise him. That can have potential negative effects on the child, too.

I think that often people feel that a newborn can't discrminate amongst the people in his life and therefore has no emotional reaction to separation and loss. As an adopted person, an adoptive mother, and a former adoption social worker, I know better. I don't think surrogacy is good for children, and I am really surprised no one else here has mentioned the child.

Wilma







*
I'm so glad you said this, I tend to view surrogacy as a feminist issue, and I view all feminist issues as children's rights issues as well, we are just connected that way. I suppose in my ferver I lost sight of the children and I truly appreciate your POV.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by TwinMommy_
*...At a high level, any time you intentionally harm someone who is healthy, it is not a good thing...*
How do you feel about living organ donors? When a person donates half their liver so that someone else might live, they are most certainly being harmed. But, overall, I still think living organ donation is a good thing. So I don't agree with your blanket statement that "any time you intentially harm someone who is healthy, it is not a good thing"

Quote:

_Originally posted by TwinMommy_
*... I read the study cited in a previous post... first of all, this study was sponsored by the American Surrogacy Center **Incorporated**. Yes, that would be a business, that makes money from promoting surrogacy. ...By their own description, there would be major problems in choosing a significant proportion of women applying to be surrogates!...*
I posted the link to not only the article, but to the authors biography for that very reason. However, I still think the study is worth looking at simply because part of it is simply the statistics of the surrogate mothers involved. Did you go to the other links I provided? The ads seem to back up the assertions made in the paper. Further, I think the fact that so many women who want to be surrogates are turned away is not a problem, but rather a good thing and proof that at least some caution is being exercised.

Quote:

_Originally posted by TwinMommy_
*... Why is their right to have a baby more important than the rights of a woman who already exists????...*
Who is saying that? Anytime a baby comes into the world, be it through a normal or surrogate pregnancy, there are risks to the woman involved. To choose to be pregnant is to subject yourself to certain risks, including death.

The question is...are the risks worth the possible end result? For surrogates, with the information they recieve now, it apparently is. Is the information they are given complete, unbiased and honest? I have concerns about that.

As an infertile woman, this is more than an academic discussion to me. I have a lot of serious issues with surrogacy-for-strangers as it is currently conducted today. But the misinformation swirling around the issue makes it difficult to discuss. I blame that, in large part, on the infertility industry, with it's unwillingness to be subjected to study.


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

Hmmm, I've read these posts and I don't this has been brought up...but:

The problem I have with surrogacy that involves a woman giving birth to a child that is genetically 1/2 of her and then giving it away is this (or egg donation for that matter): What happens if someday this child meets a child related closely (say a son, daughter or a 1st cousin)to this surrogate mum and then forms a relationship with said person leading to the production of other children? It introduces a whole other set of variables to the equation. You'd really need to be diligent with the family tree. Perhaps this is a bit far fetched, but it is a 'small world afterall'. There do need to be some regulations put in place here, I think. And I do agree that money should not really factor in to the equation in terms of financial *incentives*.


----------



## gristastic (Jan 7, 2004)

Ok, my point of view is not going to jive with most of you, and I'm going to try to put this in such a way as not to offend anyone, but seeing the emotions this post has generated, and knowing how close this subject is to my heart, I know full-well that it's wholly unlikely.

As a woman who is going through the agony of trying to conceive, I feel the pain of not baring children, fully and completely in my heart, soul, and womb. I am currently married to a man who is black, though I am as white as wonder bread. I have the utmost respect for those who can adopt those children who are older, sick, and/or racially different from themselves, if only for the pain and obstacles they will encounter. We've all read stories or know friends who have adopted special needs children, (as many of these kids seem to have ADD, learning disabilities, or a complete distrust for adults due to the way adults have treated them for most of their young lives) and it's difficult, to say the least. The love that you feel for your children (adopted or otherwise) is never-the-less stronger than any bond anywhere. But physically and mentally deciding to choose a child with special needs takes a very special person, indeed.

Now, as for those who've adopted internationally, I must ask, why did you decide to go outside of the country instead of adopting the needy children here? I'm sure you've all got good reasons, but I wonder how racially unbiased some of you truely are. Are some races more acceptable than others? Are some ages more acceptable than others? Did you decide you must have an infant as upposed to an older child? Was is less acceptable to have a black infant as upposed to an infant from China? I don't mean to incite anger, but merely to provoke thought about your own self righteousness.

I, personally could not adopt a child, NOR could I "use" a surrogate to have a child of my own; but not for the reasons you think. I have no family. I have but one friend (aside from my husband) who has been the world to me, since the first day I met her. This friend has had two children. The first child was adopted by another family, privately. I knew this woman before, during and after the adoption. I did not try to interfere with her decision. At the time, I felt that she was a stronger and more generous woman than I was for giving this "beautiful gift" to another family. My feelings on the subject have since changed dramatically.

She considered adoption because she was young and afraid (and perceived herself to be alone). The private agency and subsequent family she chose for the "open adoption" fed her fear and feelings of inadequacy and insecurity. Adoption went from something she was considering to something she "MUST DO" almost overnight.. This young girl felt she had found redemption for something that she was made to feel horrid and irresponsible for (conceiving a child when she was not rich or married) btw, the "open adoption" has become considerablly less open over the years that followed.

For these years following her decision, my friend's feelings have morphed from the dutibound, inadequate girl who gave a "gift" to a family in need of a child to a remourseful, angry woman who would all but beat some sense into her younger, more-naive self, if she could. And for those who are wondering, the birth of her next child only brought the thought home harder. My dearest friend lives a tortured existence wrought with desire and regret.

My point, and yes, I have one... is that it's arrogant for a person to say "if it were me, I'd..." or "I know how I would feel, if..." None of you could ever know what a birth mother or surrogate feels unless you've been one. I know this much: your feelings don't disappear after you've given birth or given the child you carried to another family, and they don't dissipate to any degree.

I am fully aware that there are plenty of women who don't "WANT" their children but keep in mind that in the quest for adopting a white infant, many birth mothers are talked into this decision and it's not always the wonderful world of "better life" that some of us want to think it is. Who's to say that money makes for a better family? Who's to say what a better life is for my friend's child? Certainly not an adoption agency. Certainly not the adoptive family. Certainly not me, nor you.


----------



## 2much2luv (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

2Much2Luv, your comment makes me so angry! I absolutely refuse to have my family unit viewed as second best by you or anyone else.
I'm sorry you are so angry but I don't see how what I said was an insult to your family.







I was just saying that if I were to carry a child for another family it would have to be that family's child in a genetic sense. I don't see how this is saying a family with adopted children is second best. I really don't.

Quote:

I truly think it is very difficult for people to understand that "family" has little if anything to do with genetics, when they have never experienced the separation of those two things.
I have to agree with this statement. Of course i cannot understand exactly how adoption feels, but I never said or implied that an adoptive mother loves her child any less than I love mine.

Can you put yourself, for a moment, in my shoes and think about what I said? I still stand by it. There is no way on earth I could give a child that is genetically mine to someone else to raise..that is against my religion and all my morals. Now if I were young and unmarried, unable to take care of a baby, I would most definately (I think..>I can never know for sure, of course) give a child of mine to another family to raise. But me, married with three children already and a stable life? Why would I pass on my responsibility like that? Can you understand what I am saying? I am not slamming adopted children or adoptive mothers in any way.


----------



## Justice2 (Mar 18, 2003)

My brother is gay. He and his partner have asked me to not only use my body, but to also use my egg with the partners (implanted) sperm. My brother's thoughts on this are that I am the closest he is going to come to him genetically (if that makes any sense to you guys). I don't understand why someone would fault him for trying to have a baby that was genetically connected to him prior to looking into adoption. Isn't that something that we all try first? How many 'fertile' women look into adoption BEFORE having their own (genetically connected) baby? For those that do, I greatly admire them, as there are children everywhere that need loving families.

My hubby and I discussed it. When I am through having my own babies, I am going to have a baby for my brother and his partner. I don't mind the genetic connection. My brother is going to make an incredible father. I couldn't see telling him no. He did ask me to pump atleast for the first 6 months (longer if possible) so that his child could have breastmilk. I would also stipulate that if it were a boy, he remain the way he is born!


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:

*My brother is gay. He and his partner have asked me to not only use my body,but to also use my egg with the partners (implanted) sperm. My brother's thoughts on this are that I am the closest he is going to come to him genetically
(if that makes any sense to you guys). My hubby and I discussed it. When I am through having my own babies, I am going to have a baby for my brother and his partner. I don't mind the genetic connection. My brother is going to make an incredible father. I couldn't see telling him no. He did ask me to pump atleast for the first 6 months (longer if possible) so that his child could have breastmilk. I would also stipulate that if it were a boy, he remain the way he is born!*
I don't think you're crazy! Incredibly generous, perhaps, but not crazy.







s I don't think I could do it if I were in your shoes tho. I could prob do the egg donation, but I don't think I could carry a child (genetically mine or otherwise)and not become attached to it. But again, I really don't know.

I think you would be doing this for all the *RIGHT* reasons (i.e. not for money, but out of love) and you wouldn't have to worry about the issues I discussed above, as you are already directly related to your brother (obviously







)


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

gristastic, I pm'd you so as not to take this discussion too far off surrogacy.


----------



## hhurd (Oct 7, 2002)

A belated "you go girl" to Griffin2004! My sentiments exactly. As an adoptive Mom who was adopted herself, the amount of misinformation/negativity on these boards regarding the adoption process (and/or raising children not biologically related to you) is staggering..and eye opening.

Pregnancy and birth is a teeny tiny part of parenting. There, I said it!!! Surrogacy, adoption...whatever, it's the next 50+ years after the birth that really matter.


----------



## Periwinkle (Feb 27, 2003)

Quote:

the amount of misinformation/negativity on these boards regarding the adoption process (and/or raising children not biologically related to you) is staggering..and eye opening.
I'm not sure whether this is stating the obvious







, but just in case anyone misinterpreted what I was trying to say....

I personally draw a very clear distinction between discussing the issues with surrogacy (vis a vis the potential surrogate woman's rights), and the adoption of a baby. The former is the means, the latter is the result. It is not the end result (a happy adoption) that I have concerns with, rather, it's how that baby came to be in the first place. If someone stole your baby and put that baby up for adoption, just because the baby was adopted by a loving couple who would give that baby a good life doesn't mean that baby stealing is OK. This is an admittedly flawed and extreme analogy, but I just wanted to be clear that I don't think that saying there are problems with surrogacy means that there's anything wrong or suspect about adoption.

So I sincerely hope that my post did not contribute to anyone's hurt feelings. I think adoption is a wonderful, wonderful blessing, and don't want some of the concerns I and others have raised about surrogacy to diminish that in any way.

Quote:

Pregnancy and birth is a teeny tiny part of parenting.
ITA!









[Edited for typos]


----------

