Surrogate Tourism

It is just so easy to say – well this is out of my experience so I cannot comment. Most of us here are women and mothers so it is not wholly out of our experience. My daughter has five children, four of them by Caesarean section. The last one was a bit touch (including the baby's face) and go. Where's the thread about good men/women doing nothing? I am becoming terribly disturbed – and angry – about this.

I think that there is one very clear principle that all women should embrace: however much we crave a child of our own, we should never exploit our sisters, their love of their own children, their vulnerabilitly or their poverty.

Do you mean the ends justify the means?

In that case lets just take it to the extreme. Set up baby farms were women between the ages of 18 and 25 are housed and paid to incubate and give birth to other people's babies. They wouldn't be allowed to leave the farm of course because we wouldn't want the producer to pick up any germs that might contaminate the product. But they get £4500 for every successful pregnancy and that could be as many as 1 a year so by the time they leave they could have £36000. A substantial amount of money in anyone's terms.

I think Dorset has a valid point. If I were childless what lengths might I have gone to in order to have a child? I don't know. If I were a poor woman in India or anywhere else, would I see this as a good way to make money? Again I don't know. Both scenarios are so far beyond my own life I really don't feel in a position to judge the parties concerned. I just hope that appropriate laws will be passed to ensure safety for all.

It seems to me that the fact that surrogacy clinics/business are fiercely resisting regulation suggests that all is not well. £1.5 billion is a lot of money, after all. The kinds of regulations that the Indian government is talking about include surrogate mothers should be under 35 and have no more have five pregnancies including with their own children; they should have health insurance; and the clients must have a guarantee that the newborn baby can legally enter their country.

Sadly this is desperation onboth sides. The couple desperately wanting a baby but for various cannot use a surrogate in their own country, or worse aren't considered suitable by agencies in their own country. Desperation on the part of the surrogate to earn what she would feel is a huge amount of money. So who are we to decide the rights on wrongs of this situation when we are not in this situation.

I find this an immoral and abhorrent exploitative situation.
I can imagine how heartbreaking it must be to be childless but that does not give childless people the right to exploit others to get what they want.

If they couldn't import their purchase then they wouldn't make the purchase in the first place. That way they wouldn't be abusing the poor women in India.

This isn't about poor women being empowered...it's about them being used. They sell their womb in the same way as others in India have been persuaded to sell a kidney. The people who profit are the businesses. What physical and mental aftercare do the women get? They sign a contract that says if it's a choice between their survival or that of the baby then priority has to given to the baby. There are documented cases of women dying. I doubt the post natal care is particularly good and there won't be counselling for their loss. I don't believe you can carry a child and not have some feelings for it.

What good would that do, though? For anyone?

We can make it impossible for the parents to bring the child into the uk and give it uk citizenship. Technically the child is Indian and the legal child of the surrogate. If the child has become a commodity that we can ban it's import.

I think you may have a point gal !

Oh Nonu I don't know but it all seems so wrong.

Well you say that , but what the devil can we do about it ?

Nonu I'm not at all sure that this is "not really our affair". Of course it is obvious why these women agree to be surrogate mothers – and, in some instances, put their own lives at risk. This £1.5 billion per year business is designed mainly to benefit those in the West who have money (they get a baby) and those in India who run the scheme (they get a profit). The rent-a-womb mothers get a fee that is large for them but the whole process seems coercive to me.

That is so right , it"s not really our affair , also as you say time was when if children didn"t appear that was that . Sure many of us have relatives that didn"t have children not always out of choice but so be it , I know I did . Guess it comes with the territory of I want , I must have , heyho

For me this falls into the category where I say to myself that the world is changing/has changed and I'm in danger of starting my sentences with 'In my day ...' It's happening in various guises all over the world, it's a business transaction between two or more people, whether I approve or not has nothing to do with it. So much has changed around making babies and the approach to it. It's a complex minefield of moral code, science, relationships, etc and now business too. In my day ... you just hoped you got pregnant, or got pregnant 'by mistake' and muddled along if you did. Not forgetting that there was a time when if you couldn't have children, that was it. I don't know the answer to this one or even that there is one.

Why would they , as they said it is a purely business transaction .

The couple sounded remarkably cold and unfeeling. The wife said they had no wish to know anything about the surrogate mother or her life.

I am also concerned about what happens if the foetus dies or is born with some sort of disability or deformity. Implanting three embryos is a worry too. Apparently surrogate mothers get a bonus for twins. Then again, supposing the purchasing parents wanted only one child and the surrogate mother produces twins. The more I think about it the more I find big business rent-a-womb distasteful.

Agree with all of above .

Whilst I have no problems with surrogacy itself, I have to say this does make me uncomfortable. These women are being treated as "brood mares" not human beings. I wonder if they are really aware of the contents of the contract they are asked to sign. Is it explained to them fully or are they merely told they will make a lot of money.

I am torn in that who are we to stop them making money for their families this way if they choose, but I think that it is morally wrong to treat a human being like an incubator.

£4,500 is an annual income in India for some so I can understand why they do it but I think the care of the mother should be a higher priority.

Lives, not loves, but many women do this so that their children, interestingly often daughters, can go to school and university. So perhaps loves was right after all.

It's disgusting that we can abuse people like this. It must be so tempting for the women. £4500 is a fortune to those women. This is just another way of profitting of the backs of others.