Surrogacy is not a gay rights issue – it is a women’s rights issue

submitted by alttrawl from standard.co.uk

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Doe_aFemaleDeer 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

“And people want their own children. Not someone else’s”. But in a gay male couple situation - one of the partners will still end up with “someone else’s” kid. And even the other partner will end up with a kid that has 50% genes from “someone else” (i.e. the kid’s mother & grandparents, who in such cases are often intentionally excluded from having any relationship with the kid).

And just like some parents might be obsessed with having only biological kids - some kids may want a chance at having a relationship with both her biological parents or e.g. her biological sisters on her mother’s side. Biological interests are not a one-way street, they can go both ways.

It’s unethical to “intentionally” create kids with e.g. no access to their mother & potential siblings. Kids are not puppies that one can “commission like property, sell or give away as gifts”.

If biological parents give up their kids due to extreme or unfortunate events - that’s an unforeseen event and it’s a tragedy that we have no choice but to remedy via adoption. But to intentionally approach women with a “contract” to create kids JUST to give them away as a “sale transaction” or as a “charitable gift” - is very problematic & unethical.

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your point about how biological interests go both ways are so true. Men (and men & women) who advocate for surrogacy say grownups have the "right" to have, raise and know their own biological children, even if it means using/exploiting/temporarily enslaving a woman (or two women if they use a separate egg donor). But at the same time, these adults so often don't believe the children created through surrogacy and/or gamete donation should have the right to know and have a relationship with their mothers (or mothers if one woman provided the egg and another the womb) or all their grandparents, half-siblings, cousins etc.

Coz advocates/users of surrogacy don't see the children of surrogacy as separate persons with inherent human rights; they see them as property, trophies and show ponies who "belong to" the "commissioning parent(s)." The kids are viewed as custom-made accessories to enhance the commissioning parent's or parents' own lifestyles and to show off to others.

It’s unethical to “intentionally” create kids with e.g. no access to their mother & potential siblings. Kids are not puppies that one can “commission like property, sell or give away as gifts”.

It's also unethical to purposely create babies just so they can be removed from the women who carried, grew and brought them into the world as soon as the babies are born and the umbilical cord is cut. The mother-baby bond in the months after birth is crucially important for the baby's lifelong wellbeing; hence, it's called "the fourth trimester."

In puppy mills, newborn puppies aren't removed from their mothers until after at least 8 weeks; to rupture the bond earlier is physically and emotionally damaging to the pups. But rich men and rich couples who use surrogates have no compunction about sweeping in immediately after the baby is born and spiriting "their" poor child away from the woman whose heartbeat and voice the baby has been listening to for 40 weeks. It's so very fucked up.

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

And just like some parents might be obsessed with having only biological kids -

That's pretty much the standard for all humans. You're making it sound like a weird fetish.

It’s unethical to “intentionally” create kids with e.g. no access to their mother & potential siblings.

Well that's true of a lot of fertility interventions. So I guess no more sperm donors or egg donors?

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Another poster said

And just like some parents might be obsessed with having only biological kids -

And you said

That's pretty much the standard for all humans. You're making it sound like a weird fetish.

I think there's many miles - many millions of miles - between having a desire/urge for biological children and being obsessed with it to the point of feeling justified to go the surrogacy route - which usually involves exploiting and endangering the health of two different women: the one who provides the eggs, and the one who carries and grows the fetus and gives birth to the child.

So I guess no more sperm donors or egg donors?

I don't think anyone here said that. But the fact is, many ethical, legal and psychological issues for all parties involved - including, perhaps most importantly, the children - can arise, and have arisen, from creating babies with either eggs from selected/chosen donors (as shown in the documentary "Eggsploitation") both known and never personally met, or with donor sperm from never-met strangers via sperm banks and fertility practices.

I've followed this area closely in real time since the case of the first "test tube baby" Louis Brown in 1978 and the case of Baby M and Mary Beth Whitehead in the mid-80s. I also know at least half a dozen women - both lesbian and straight - who conceived using donor sperm from sperm banks/medical practices and who over the long run have found they and their children have been faced with all sorts of thorny, unforeseen issues and complications as a result.

Finally "fertility interventions" that involve only the bodies and genetic material of the two people in a couple hoping and planning to become parents are one thing. Fertility interventions that involve using the bodies and genetic material of other people - ranging from male strangers who merely wank into a cup to women hired to risk their own health and fertility to provide eggs and women hired to put their very lives at risk to gestate and give birth to a child - are a whole different kettle of fish.

[–]WrongToy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not unless the kids get access to their true IDs at age 18 so they can look them up if they want.

It's not about you. It's about them and their conditions they might be at risk for, for one, that only the bio parent can provide.

[–]Doe_aFemaleDeer 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That's pretty much the standard for all humans. You're making it sound like a weird fetish.

The standard for humans is also the common widespread interest in knowing and interacting with one’s mother, grandmother, biological siblings/sisters, etc. This is important not just to avoid accidental incest, but also as a basic common human condition. But gay male surrogacy advocates make it sound like THAT human standard is a “weird fetish”. As I said, biological interests go both ways. It’s not a one-way street.

The irony is that many gay men are often very close to their own mothers - but at the same time seem to think that their “commissioned” daughters should not be afforded the same rights of interaction with one’s mother as they had.

So I guess no more sperm donors or egg donors?

That’s an ethical minefield as well. “Purchasing” human sperm and human eggs, like from a restaurant menu, as part of a commercial business scheme or “gift” scheme, where the child is “pre-designed” on the controversial condition of not getting automatic rights to information & access to the other side of her biological family is unethical.

The world is still in the process of developing recognition for human child rights, especially since the world actually only comparatively recently entered the controversial stage of intentionally creating human children (& human-making material) to be automatically sold or gifted “as an industry”. The current low level of recognition for human child rights is illustrated by the fact that the U.S. won’t even ratify The Convention on the Rights of the Child (a failure which Obama called the most disappointing & embarrassing failure that he has seen during his time in office).

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So basically FU if you have fertility problems.

This argument (about genetic relationships being critical) rather suggests to the argument the woman that carries the baby is not relevant as a parent.