OK. I know very little about surrogacy. I do know it is a completely planned pregnancy with the intention of giving the baby up from the get-go.
So what's the most common form of surrogacy? The mother uses her own egg with a sperm donor from another couple. The mother uses her own egg with the sperm donated from the 'father-to-be'. The mother gets pregnant by her husband/boyfriend with the intention of adoption for a set couple before ever conceiving. Or, the surrogate has the potential parents egg %26amp; sperm, or has a donated egg and sperm. (Does that cover all the ways it can happen?)
Surrogacy confuses me very much, it's either way over my head or it's just to messed up for my brain to comprehend. What got me really wondering about surrogacy was this website [http://www.surromomsonline.com/] someone posted to another question related to surrogacy. It also made me remember the Dr.Phil show where a surrogate mother decided to keep the babies once she found out about the 'mother's' mental health issues once she gave birth. (If I am remembering it correctly). There were other surrogate mothers %26amp; audience members ripping this woman a new one because she chose to keep the babies, which she felt was the right decision. What she did was really no different than a mother deciding not to go through with an adoption plan, right? Don't the surrogate babies have to be adopted anyway??
What I don't understand is why so many people view surrogate mothers deciding to keep the babies as disgusting. A lot of the surrogate mom's on that website refer to the baby as the 'surrogate baby' even though the baby is THEIRS in all sense of the word unless it is a gestational surrogacy. They say those who do decide to keep the surrogate baby are disgusting, awful, heartless, and are doing nothing but ripping families apart. I guess I can understand a little more on 'ripping families apart' if the baby was fully genetically related to the potential parents and the surrogate mother was just used basically as a warming blanket to keep the egg warm while 'momma' chicken was away.
'Did I ever have any doubts about giving up the baby? No. Never for one minute did I think I wanted that daughter I gave birth too! '
'NO! Under no circumstances should a surrogate be aloud to keep the baby she has given birth too! I
think that is disgusting and just outrageous. It appalls me to hear about and think that because of
hormones, or a change or heart someone can rip child from it's family. And I was genetically related to the surrogate baby. And I firmly believe that the surrogate should have no legal recourse.'
The mother should have no say so even being genetically related to the child? I guess what confuses me the most is that surrogate mother's get pregnant (no matter how they go about it) just to give the baby away. How is any of this okay, or legal for that matter? I know that as an adoptee if I saw that my mother had never wanted the 'daughter she gave birth too' would be tough. These babies are just like adoptee's, especially with the genetically related surrogacy, except they are fully planned out adoptions. I really do not understand the thought process in the WHOLE thing.|||Most common would be a toss-up between traditional (father's sperm, surrogate's egg) and gestational (mother's egg, father's sperm), with egg donation coming in behind those. I believe the most common recipients of egg donations would be the moms (not surrogates) who get pregnant and carry the baby, but can't make eggs (or healthy eggs) for one reason or another. BTW, a surrogate getting pregnant by a man involving sex is not surrogacy, even if it is tried to be played off as one.
I've been a gestational surrogate three times for two different couples. Even though I never went though anything negative, and I had no problem giving the babies to the mom/dad at the end, I can assure you that my human nature and protectiveness would have kicked in had I thought I was turning over a helpless newborn baby to a psychotic situation. (I may be exageratting here, but you get the idea). I don't expect the surrogate in your story kept the baby(ies) just to keep them, more to protect them. However, I would have done a lot more homework before working with a couple. Even still, you just never know and it's just a risk. Of course, here in Texas, I could not just keep the baby no matter what the situation because the contract I signed is binding. But if I thought the baby faced true danger going home with the parents, I would definitely take it up in court and see what I could do. It would be a horrible situation for everyone and I cannot imagine what that would be like to go through.
The fact is that if you start breaking down every single surrogacy situation, they all have very unique factors and can cover a very broad spectrum of good to bad. If you try to take all of them and use that to understand surrogacy, you never will. Only look at the bigger picture. Surrogacy, to me, is just one avenue that allows couples to become parents. Surrogacy gets a bad wrap from a lot of people, mainly people who say "but there are so many kids out there that need homes". While this is true, adoption just isn't for everyone, just like surrogacy is not for everyone. There are crazy surrogacy situations out there, but there are far more that turn out wonderful, like mine did.|||I am currently a gestational surrogate. I was hired by a couple who lives in NY. I live in TX. I had to undergo a series of tests (yes, they test you mentally, check your background, etc.) and ensure that we will not have issues as the ones decribed above. I used a reputable agency (I have interviewed some VERY shady practices, as well) and I am pleased with the result. I am carrying twins for this couple. I am very pleased to do so.
The answer above is incorrect. Traditional is when the surrogate uses her own egg and is related. Gestational is like myself, using either a donor's egg or I.M. (intended mother's) egg and father or donor's sperm. A good agency will not allow a traditional surrogacy due to legalities such as those you have described. Yes, a T.S. (traditional surrogate) who is related to the child has legal rights, and it is not ideal. Gestational carriers (surrogates) are those like myself who are NOT related. Those are most common. Gestational Carriers (G.C.) have no legal rights. For instance, if the parents of the baby (ies) are incarcerated, die, unable to take care of the baby(ies) then the contract will have a contingency plan and a back up person listed as guardian. Under no circumstances will the G.C. be named guardian. (Unless she decides to pursue it via expensive legal action, not likely)
It is all covered via contracts. Well, in my case and typically.
I have children of my own and do not want to raise more. The twins are not related to me and I do not feel as though they are mine. I feel more like a "nanny" type. Caring for them, ensuring health, comunicating with the couple on status. They attend the important (5 mth and birth) appts.
It is great. I want to do it over again!
One must be prepared to do so. I could NEVER do a traditional surrogacy whereas I'd be related.
There is no adoption. This is their child. A seasoned attorney specializing in this would cover all bases to avoid issues with this. All legalities are completed prior to the birth.
The only issue that I face is how to explain this to my employer and co-workers. I have not announced that these are not my babies. In fact, I have not even informed them that they are twins. I am struggling to figure out how I am going to answer the questions of "How is the baby?" long after I have given birth and said good bye to the twins and couple. That is not a problem for me, I will figure it out.
It is a great experience and I love it.
Hope this answers your inquiry.|||It's not ok, and it should NOT be legal - especially given how many kids are already in the world needing families to love and care for them.
ETA: My Daddy’s Name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived through Sperm Donation @ http://familyscholars.org/my-daddys-name…
See the question asked at http://community.livejournal.com/adopted… for the opinion/impact on at least one kid 'created' this way.
Confessions of a Sperm Donor: Hundreds of Kids @ http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sperm-donor…|||A couple points on this case..the intended parents were from Michigan and surrogacy is illegal here. Second, neither of the intended parents were genetically related to these twins and for that matter, neither was the surrogate. Third, there is nothing stopping the mom from keeping these babies, just like any other adoption. This stuff happens often
I think the other surro's in the audience were just mad because it is making their line of work look bad.
Check this case (see link) where the mother was impregnated with the intended fathers sperm and not only did she keep the baby but she sued him for child support. She lost her child support case but now a baby will never know his father. They ruled him a "sperm donor".
This crap happens all the time.
I think traditional surro's are the most common. For the gestational surro's I'm not sure if donor eggs or the intended mothers eggs are more common.
Children of surro's are hitting adulthood now and many have issues like adoptee's and worse. I think being from a donor egg and sperm would be horrible. You don't even have the thought of parents loving you during pregnancy and going through a tough time giving you up....you just have...an egg....and sperm. I know it is illegal in many states and I wish the rest would follow through. I don't know how things like this can happen in this age where we know so much about genetics and attachment.
No comments:
Post a Comment