Super Surrogates

Ez - posted on 04/04/2010 ( 12 moms have responded )

6,569

25

237

I watched saw a story last night on 60 Minutes about two English women who have been labelled Super Surrogates, having given birth to 19 babies between them. The most prolific (12 surrogate babies) has two children of her own. The other has none and intends to keep it that way, expressing an explicit desire to be pregnant and give birth, but has no interest in raising a child of her own.

A couple of issues raised questions for me. They both were using their own eggs. One admits to having been a surrogate solely for the money on one occasion - she needed a new roof and could not afford it. The other made the mistake of having (protected) sex around the time of insemination and the 'surrogate' baby turned out to be her partner's. She still allowed the surrogate family to keep the baby, saying it was still the same baby she'd known she'd be giving up all along. Both women acknowledged that they liked the attention of being known as Britain's Super Surrogates.

All these things made me cringe, but then as I thought about it, I wondered if it really matters? If a couple desperately wants a baby, and a woman is happy to provide it, are her motives for doing it important? Is the amount of money that changes hands important, when a couple is getting the ultimate gift?

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/Blog....

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Rose - posted on 04/05/2010

323

48

20

I don't think the motive is important but i do however wonder why people don't just adopt kids that are already born and need families instead of having someone have a baby for you?

This conversation has been closed to further comments

12 Comments

View replies by

Jess - posted on 04/06/2010

1,806

3

97

Im just wondering, are these women governed by the same law as sperm donars? In terms of how many children can be created using their DNA. If we limit the guys why not the girls ? Personally I could never carry a baby for 9 months and then give it away, especially if its my own child.

Kylie - posted on 04/05/2010

2,391

81

190

The part of the 60 minuets interview that I thought it was really freaky was when one of the women said the only prerequisite she had for being a surrogate was that she had to find the couple physically attractive and she needed to be attracted to the husband ..because "it gets the juiced flowing". Also the self insemination thing freaked me out..what about diseases!? On one level its very kind of them to volunteer their bodies as vessels for couples desperate for a child but i think serial surrogates are doing it more for the cash, attention and to feel like super women. They thrive on the idea they can give people something they desperately want more than anything.

Caitlin - posted on 04/05/2010

1,915

5

172

I have no problem with surrogates, I could never carry a baby 9 month the give it away though! Surrogacy is illegal here, any agreements are void in the eyes of the law. Adoption is an option, but the history is sketchy and sometimes it can take a very long time. From my best guess, these people want the brand new baby, they want the whole experience from day 1, they dont want to wait sometimes over a year until they can have that child.

Esther - posted on 04/05/2010

3,513

32

144

Well, my only thought was that if they are using the surrogate's eggs, then part of the child's DNA is this woman's. And these women do have questionable motives. Hopefully that is something that falls more on the nurture than nature side of things, but I think I'd still rather have another surrogate. Except that I would never consider using one anyway (let alone be one).

Tah - posted on 04/05/2010

7,412

22

400

i think its the end result, no matter the reasoning behind it, a couple is getting their dream to have a family, my neighbor does it..plenty for the money.

Dana - posted on 04/05/2010

11,264

35

495

I don't think motive is important. Although what Rose says kind of makes me think. When adopting, you never know what you're going to get, most of the time. You could get a child who's mom was on all kinds of drugs during pregnancy. There could be a history of mental issues in the family. At the same time these women seem to have a whole set of issues themselves. I personally would rather know for sure who I was adopting a child from. It's rather kind of odd the whole, "take what you can get" when talking about adopting. It's like accepting the most important job in the world without an interview for your own sake.

Sharon - posted on 04/05/2010

11,585

12

1315

Generally motives are not important as long as there are laws protecting the receiving parents. Being paid to carry a baby is fair to me. Being pregnant is chock full of danger and possible disasters.

Lisamarie - posted on 04/05/2010

715

26

112

I don't think it's important either, I have always thought the same things, Erin andit always confused me and I admit I did wonder how any woman in her right mind to give up her own baby (unless in adoption cases) Especially that many, but then there are many women and men out there desperate to be parents and for some reason can't carry their own and surrogacy is a god send.

I applaud any woman who can give up their child solely to make another womans dreams come true, gives you a little faith in our fellow humans, don't you think? :)

LaCi - posted on 04/05/2010

3,361

3

171

I don't think the motives are important. I think when its done for a large amount of money and the surrogate is essentially the employee instead of the good samaritan the family has more rights to set down rules, making sure they live the lifestyle the family wants their fetus to be incubated in, for instance.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms