Robbie Williams and surrogacy

With regard to adoption, our son’s child, adopted at two years old, has been successful, so far anyway, and always I hope. He has a dislike of change, but otherwise is well settled. We talk to him about when he was a baby, and why he was adopted, but only here and there, as and when it arises. He’s a lovely child, and very much ‘ours.’ But we acknowledge his beginnings.

Of course adoption is traumatic. It’s a loss for a small child.
It’s frequently acknowledged and discussed on the adoption board of Mumsnet. Burying your head in the sand doesn’t change that.

But it’s a necessity. Because a child can’t stay in an unsuitable home and it’s cruel to stay in the foster system.

Can someone who thinks surrogacy is exploiting poor women explain why it is any more or less exploitative than having to acrub floors or clean toilets? And in the USA it is much more lucrative.

Bibbity I am sorry to hear you suffered trauma by being adopted, I am assuming you are speaking from personal experience. I cannot say I suffered, my adoptive father was a wonderful man.
Can you show me a link to this survey please?

Not for me Bibbity, you are generalising again or speaking from personal experience.

Trisher, the examples you give are not the same as surrogacy. We (as a species) have evolved over millenia to be mammals who nurture their young. The surrogates have carried new life, every atom is geared up to nurture. Then baby disappears.

trisher I’m a bit ? at the argument you put forward. There are many ways poor women are exploited, including being sex workers, none of them excuse any of the others iyswim. Poor people in some countries sell a kidney and that might be better than begging on the street but it doesn’t make it right to have a market in human organs.

Greymar many women would disagree with you. The point is it is their body and how they choose to use it or earn their money is entirely up to them. And the present day situation for mothers and babies hasn't always applied. In the middle ages it was common for babies of aristocracy to have their own household from a very early age. In Denmark the royal family handed the heir to the throne to his oldest relative when he was born as it was felt they were best able to fight off death. Babies have often been handed to a family member by mothers unable to care for them for some reason. Only the financial aspect is new.

If non familial surrogacy was such a "choice" then rich women would be lining up to do it too.
But they dont do they?

suziewoozie any pressure or forcible exploitation is wrong but there are women who choose to be sex workers and women who choose to be surrogates. You may choose to morally disapprove of them, you may think they are emotionally damaging them selves but you have no right to stop them doing it. And yes there is a trade in organs, but it is illegal just as slavery and sex trafficking is. (although some rich people are certainly involved in it). Surrogacy isn't. You may think the women are being exploited but if they do it of their own free will for financial gain it is their decision.

It’s a fundamental fallacy generated by the patriarchy that ‘it’s a woman’s body so it’s up to her what she chooses to do with it’. Funny how often that ‘choice’ meets the needs of men and/or the powerful in any society. When women really really have real choices, they don’t sell their wombs or their bodies for sex.

notanan2 no they don't, any more than they clean their own toilets or build their own houses.

I don’t morally disapprove of the women but of societal norms and structures that enable and facilitate the exploitation of women and deny them real choices.

suziewoozie there was a programme about a Yorkshire brothel on the TV recently. The women working there were there because they chose to be. Now you can argue that it is a capitalist society that makes sex a commodity to be sold or that patriachy is responsible for brothels. They would disagree with you. They would argue that you are projecting your morality onto them and want them to do something like scrubbing floors or cleaning toilets because you think that's less exploitative, but it's not what they choose to do. Yes their choices are limited but restricting them more doesn't help.

Would people feel the same about surrogacy if it wasn’t a super rich pop star, but an ordinary family?

If it was a super rich popstar being a surrogate for an ordinary family that wouldnt be quite as bad. Less imbalance of power. So I might coneed that they truely "chose" to do it.

conceed

Yet Trisher dig deeper and most women who "chose" sex work have a long history of trauma.

Nobody disaproves of sex workers but of the situation that puts them there. It's amazing how all these choosy choices benefit predominantly men.
Surrogacy is illegal in many countries, I wish in this instance we followed the lead of some European countries.
Choice is an interesting concept, all sorts of things impact the choices that you can make, we can pretend that's not the case if we want but I am not sure its helpful.

It is illegal to pay a surrogate, reasonable expenses are allowed.

Expenses include money for recovery. To be spent on therapy or a holiday for the existing children to re-bond with their mother That counts as "expenses".
Its not a lot on paper but its a lot of youre struggling. If youre on a very low income it offers a breather for a few months

And payments are bigger abroad too

trisher, you have made my grey matter move around a little and for that I think you.

Has anyone mentioned the recent case of the surrogate who died in the process leaving behind her own children whilst carrying for a richer family?

I think this thread has evolved in a really interesting way - perfect given the lashing storm outside my window. I hope others are enjoying the varied discussion as well

Surrogacy benfits women

X posts with Grey same sentiment I think? Yes trisher your posts are a welcome challenge

Surrogacy benfits women

Much of the discussion around surrogacy ethics and its effect on infant attatchment is shut down completely when the recieving patents are two men.
E.g. Tom Daly. Anyone who even mentioned the mother in that instance on SM were attacked as homophobes.

The fact that ethics is even discussed in this case is because one of the recipients is a woman.

There is almost always a man involved. Gay men. Hetro couples. Its very rare for lesbian couples to considee surrogacy....