Could/Would you be a surrogate?

Nevyn

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4370804.stm

Sisters make baby with three mums
Image of baby Charlie and the three sisters
Alex holds baby Charlie alongside her two sisters
A woman left infertile after cancer treatment has had a baby thanks to her two sisters.

Alex's twin sister Charlotte agreed to donate an egg, while her other sister, Helen, offered to carry it in her womb.

Charlie, made from Charlotte's egg and Alex's husband's sperm, was born 16 weeks ago weighing 8lb 7oz, after a short labour.

Alex, from London, said: "He is an angel. I am forever indebted to my sisters."

Ultimate gift

Alex was 28 when she and her husband Shaun decided to start a family. But when Alex was diagnosed with cervical cancer she opted for chemotherapy treatment which left her infertile.

Alex recalls: "It was more upsetting than the cancer itself.


This is the closest we could get to it being her child
Alex's twin sister Charlotte

"Shaun and I wanted to start a family and that had been taken away."

When her sisters saw her anguish they stepped in.

Alex said: "When my sisters found out they said 'Is there anything we can do?'

"Shaun and I said we wanted children as closely related to us as possible. Charlotte said 'No problem, you can have my egg.' It was almost like a joke."

But Charlotte was not joking and 35-year-old sister Helen volunteered to act as a surrogate mother.

The IVF treatment had a one in four chance of working but, thankfully, Helen became pregnant after the first attempt.

Although Helen carried Charlie for nine months, she said she had no qualms about handing him over to her sister when he was born.

"I'm just a tummy mummy. I just carried the baby for Alex and I didn't see it as giving him away."

She did say she was surprised at how much she missed him afterwards, but added that she would do it again if Alex wanted another baby.

Charlotte said she was overjoyed for her twin.

"The fact that we are twins means such a lot - this is the closest we could get to it being her child. I don't need my eggs any more. I've had my children."

I watched the documentary on this last night and I thought to myself what a hell of a wonderful thing to be able to do.

So ladies, could you? would you?

Personally I would but only for family, I couldn't do it for strangers and certainly not when I would not see the child again.

Piste

I would only do it if I really really needed the money. And only if it were a helluva lot of money.

Misticles

Nope I dont think I could for anyone.
That might come across selfish but I dont think I could give the baby up after carrying him or her inside me for 9 months.

Nevyn

Piste wrote: »

I would only do it if I really really needed the money. And only if it were a helluva lot of money.

Where as I could never do it for money, having had two kids there would
not be enough money in the world but I could do it out of love for a family member, but that's just me.

PhysiologyRocks

I would.

I have a perfectly good uterus. In the end of the day, I'd just be the oven.

Xiney

I'd be more comfortable with egg donation than surrogacy, but I think depending on the circumstances I'd do either.

Frankly the idea of being a fetal oven for 9 months for a wad of cash is pretty appealing given my lack of cash.

SeekUp

I might be willing to be a surrogate for a family member . . . or maybe an absolute best friend.

I don't think I could be a surrogate, however, unless I'd already had a child. I wouldn't want my first pregnancy to be -- I mean to say, I wouldn't want my first experience of having a child to be half of the experience; carrying the baby but not raising the child.

But an egg donor? Sure. Take all the eggs you want, I'm not gonna use them all.

I'd do anything for family.

Although if I were the infertile one. I would rather adopt.
Biology doesn't dominate my definition of family.

Piste

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

I would.

I have a perfectly good uterus. In the end of the day, I'd just be the oven.

Whoah...totally OT, but you're a girl??? (I hate when people say this too me, but I'm really surprised!)

PhysiologyRocks

Piste wrote: »

Whoah...totally OT, but you're a girl??? (I hate when people say this too me, but I'm really surprised!)

Everyone is! I have no idea why...

Out of interest, why did you think I was a dude? Promise I won't take offence.:)

Nevyn

Moonbaby wrote: »

I'd do anything for family.

Although if I were the infertile one. I would rather adopt.
Biology doesn't dominate my definition of family.

It doesn't dominate mine but adoption is very difficult esp as things stand in this country.

Cupcake_Crisis

Id do it, but only for someone i knew, loved, and who would always be in my life. If i carried it for 9 months id like to be around to watch it grow up

miaowsky

I'd only do for my best friend or my sister....altho that said I do have a massive credit card bill :rolleyes:

shellyboo

I'm genuinely not sure that I could. I think it would be both easier and harder to do it for family - having the reminder there all the time would be difficult for me, I think, but giving the child up to begin with would be easier when you were making a family member happy.

I guess it's hard to know how pregnancy will make you feel and what sense of "ownership" you'll have until you've gone through it.

The_Conductor

The BBC story is the sort of story that really makes you smile and feel warm inside. In our case surrogacy was briefly discussed between us- we didn't come down yay or nay one way or the other. As someone who is adopted- if I had a child by a surrogate mother- I'd definitely want the child to know this- and to have a relationship with their surrogate mother- as well as with its parents- perhaps akin to the 'open adoption' scenario. I think this would be most fair on the child (though obviously it would be difficult on the surrogate mum to see and interact with the child on an ongoing basis). We really need to seriously reform adoption/fostering/surrogacy laws in Ireland- at present its both a minefield, but also geared firmly at the historical notion of what a family entails- rather than reflecting a more normal modern society.

iguana

I could be a surrogate for a family member, but like Seek-Up said, only after I've had my own baby. I couldn't give my eggs though, I'd see the baby as biologically mine. The only way I could donate my eggs is if I had an identical twin sister who needed them.

Morgase

I couldn't, no way. Too much ick factor. I'd much rather donate a kidney

The Big Red Button

Aw I think that's an absolutely lovely story, it made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And that baby will grow up so spoilt, lucky thing!!!

Personally, I wouldn't like to think that I'd do it for money - that wouldn't be enough, for me. If I were a suitable surrogate mother, I'd probably do it for a close friend or family member. Or if I was at a time in my life where it suited my lifestyle, I would even consider doing it for a stranger. (And yes if there was money involved I'd probably accept it alright, but I wouldn't be doing it for the money!) Chances are it's very unlikely I'll ever end up doing it for anyone, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out altogether.

I must say, if I was in a position in the future where I couldn't have kids, I can't see myself going down the surrogacy route myself. I'd be much more likely to adopt, if it was possible. Even though I'd possibly be willing to act as a surrogate mother myself, it's a big ask off anyone else.

enda1

Maybe slightly off topic, but why didn't she freeze her eggs before she got them blasted with Chemo!?

Would see like the logical thing to do but I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason she didn't...

As a guy however I couldn't have this dilemma. But hypothetically I wouldn't cause it would be such a pain in the arse! All the pain non of the gain!

metrovelvet

No way.

CathyMoran

enda1 wrote: »

Maybe slightly off topic, but why didn't she freeze her eggs before she got them blasted with Chemo!?

Would see like the logical thing to do but I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason she didn't...

As a guy however I couldn't have this dilemma. But hypothetically I wouldn't cause it would be such a pain in the arse! All the pain non of the gain!

Because it takes 6+ weeks to do it, I looked into it myself and as my cancer was very fast growing 6 weeks could have been too late, I imagine she could have been in the same position.

I was lucky that a cousin volunteered but I am not sure that I could have put her through that.

enda1

CathyMoran wrote: »

Because it takes 6+ weeks to do it, I looked into it myself and as my cancer was very fast growing 6 weeks could have been too late, I imagine she could have been in the same position.

I was lucky that a cousin volunteered but I am not sure that I could put her through that.

6 weeks!? For what?

I don't want to sound too crude but is it not a case of a syringe going into the ovary(ies) and syringing the eggs out?

Fair play to the sisters though. I wonder which sister becomes the God mother? :P

metrovelvet

If you are at risk of cancer or of dying, then is it really a good idea to hire a surrogate to birth a child that could be at risk of being left motherless or of having a mother who is so ill she cant take care of the child?

CathyMoran

enda1 wrote: »

6 weeks!? For what?

I don't want to sound too crude but is it not a case of a syringe going into the ovary(ies) and syringing the eggs out?

Fair play to the sisters though. I wonder which sister becomes the God mother? :P

No, you have to undergo hormone treatment to develop the eggs (wrong terms here) - it is complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation

Egg donation and offering to be a surrogate is very honorable.

Curvy Vixen

Absolutely I could and would have done (bit old now )

I really don't like children and would never, ever have had any of my own but feel for those who can't have their own and would love them.

I always said anyone could have anything I didn't want or need and once I'm dead they can take what they like before they fry me

I think it's a wonderful thing to do for someone, to grow and incubate their child when they can't...so I'm a yes!

pikachucheeks

I'm not sure if I could do it, personally.
I struggle with the idea of going through pregnancy and labour to start my own family, in the future, enough as it is, without considering whether I'd carry someone else's child.

Although, years down the line, if a close friend of mine, or my sister, really wanted a child, and I was their only option, I'd considering doing it for them, out of love.

I can imagine that it must be very difficult, to carry someone else's child, to have it grow inside you, then give it away. In the same way it must be hard for a parent to put their baby up for adoption...

CathyMoran

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you are at risk of cancer or of dying, then is it really a good idea to hire a surrogate to birth a child that could be at risk of being left motherless or of having a mother who is so ill she cant take care of the child?

Everyone has some risk of cancer in their lifetime and we all die at some stage. My husband would be an excellent father and could remarry if I died.

Beiing potentially made childless is one of the most horrible things in the world, what her sisters did was wonderful.

enda1

CathyMoran wrote: »

No, you have to undergo hormone treatment to develop the eggs (wrong terms here) - it is complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation

Egg donation and offering to be a surrogate is very honorable.

Honourable, hmm.

For love I agree for money I do not, for charity I kinda would wonder at the mental health of the person.

Cathmandooo

I'd have only considered it for my sister. But luckily she has two bouncing babies. Certainly wouldn't have done it for money, I think there's something very wrong with that, like selling an organ

I believe I would get far too attached if I was pregnant and it would kill me to give the baby away.

CathyMoran

enda1 wrote: »

Honourable, hmm.

For love I agree for money I do not, for charity I kinda would wonder at the mental health of the person.

You are giving another couple a chance of a new life...

The thing is that the surrogate and egg donor (they may or may not be the same) take a lot of time and energy and pregnancy is a lot of work in itself so if they are not related/close friends then they should be compensated.

pikachucheeks

CathyMoran wrote: »

Egg donation and offering to be a surrogate is very honorable.

It definitely is. But I'm not sure if it's something every woman is capable of doing, for a multitude of reasons (fear of pregnancy, fear of getting attached to a baby they'll have to give up, their partner not being happy for them to be a surrogate...)

It takes a very special type of person. Someone who's extremely selfless and giving. It's a blessing that such people exist, to help those who cannot conceive themselves. I think it's a blessing for the human condition too, it shows the kindness we can be capable of - and the depth of the bonds we can create with other people.

Nevyn

enda1 wrote: »

6 weeks!? For what?

I don't want to sound too crude but is it not a case of a syringe going into the ovary(ies) and syringing the eggs out?

Nope, the body only ripens one or two ova /egg per cycle and if you want more then that then it takes hormone treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovarian_follicles

enda1

CathyMoran wrote: »

You are giving another couple a chance of a new life...

The thing is that the surrogate and egg donor (they may or may not be the same) take a lot of time and energy and pregnancy is a lot of work in itself so if they are not related/close friends then they should be compensated.

Ok but to me it is very similar to selling a kidney for money. You are giving someone a new (lease on) life and it takes a lot out of you!

But I don't think it's honourable.

For a loved one yes! For a stranger, no.

pikachucheeks

enda1 wrote: »

Ok but to me it is very similar to selling a kidney for money. You are giving someone a new (lease on) life and it takes a lot out of you!

But I don't think it's honourable.

For a loved one yes! For a stranger, no.

Why not for a stranger? If someone is willing to be a surrogate mother for a person they've only just met, what's the problem? It's their body and their choice.
This "stranger" might not have any loved ones who were willing - or able - to act as a surrogate for them.
I think it's a credit to the person, that they could be giving enough to carry out such an act, to bring happiness and joy to someone else's life.

enda1

enda1 wrote: »

But I don't think it's honourable.

For a loved one yes! For a stranger, no.

Are you a woman? Parent?

Dudess

I suppose I've no way of knowing for sure, but I'm extremely confident it would be too painful for me to do it for a stranger, so that is something I would never risk.

Friend or family? Perhaps...

Doing it for a stranger seems like an extremely brave thing to do.

MJOR

I'd do it. It might be hard to give up the child but as long as i knew it would be loved and looked after then yes.

Clare Bear

Not a hope in hell! I'm freaked out enough about ever having my own baby and all that pregnancy has to offer so no chance am I going through all that for someone else. I'll keep my selfish body to myself thank you.

b3t4

I don't think I could do it for a stranger.

I would concider it for a very close friend or my sister.

However, I would have had to have had safely brought into the world healthy and happy children of my own before I could concider it.

enda1

Moonbaby wrote: »

Are you a woman? Parent?

No and no.

pikachucheeks wrote: »

Why not for a stranger? If someone is willing to be a surrogate mother for a person they've only just met, what's the problem? It's their body and their choice.
This "stranger" might not have any loved ones who were willing - or able - to act as a surrogate for them.
I think it's a credit to the person, that they could be giving enough to carry out such an act, to bring happiness and joy to someone else's life.

I never said there was a problem, nor that there wasn't their body/choice.

But I don't understand why someone would go through such pain and risk and making such a life changing sacrifice for a stranger! Seems just a little ... strange.

Would you give your kidney to a stranger? Because there is someone right now who needs it and it would save their life. So are you gonna go into a surgery and do it tomorrow?

Dudess

That makes it all the more brave and admirable to me.

Piste

actually on second thoughts pregnancy is weird enough with your own genetic material inside you, it'd be downright creepy to have something totally unrealted to you living inside you. Like an alien.




So maybe moeny wouldn't be enough.

Anna Molly

I told Novella I'd do it for her, that's about it!:D

Nevyn

Piste wrote: »

actually on second thoughts pregnancy is weird enough with your own genetic material inside you, it'd be downright creepy to have something totally unrealted to you living inside you. Like an alien.




So maybe moeny wouldn't be enough.

Thats one of the reason's I didn't want to know what I was having,
Really the notion I was possibly growing a penis inside me was weird enough with out it being confirmed.

Xiney

I'd still do it for the right amount of money.

The Big Red Button

Xiney wrote: »

I'd still do it for the right amount of money.

The way I'd see it is - if I decided at some point in my life that I was going to do this for a complete stranger - I'd only be comfortable doing it if I would be willing to do it for free.

I'm not saying I would actually do it for free - I'd happily accept whatever money I could get for it! But in a way, you are selling your body. Not only that, but it's going to have significant long-term consequences for your body and mind ... OK, some people can detach themselves from the psychological impact - in fact, I believe I'd be able to myself - but your body will be physically altered forever, and that's a big thing.

That's why I'd want it to be a choice I made voluntarily and for the right, moral reasons - before I'd bring the issue of money into it.

Xiney

I agree with everything you're saying.

Truth is though, if someone offered me 50 grand to be pregnant with their kid for a while, I'd do it. I'd have to discuss it with my husband, and he'd probably be against it. But if I could convince him, I'd do it.

Dudess

But what about the strong likelihood of bonding with the baby? What if you were floored with an all consuming rush of love and need to cherish and nurture and protect this little person after going through the pain of labour? And then having to hand them over? Oh Jesus no - the thought of that frightens me.
I know I'm not everyone else and I'm not judging anyone who says they'd do it, but I don't know... can any woman be guaranteed the above wouldn't be the case for her?

SeekUp

Dudess wrote: »

But what about the strong likelihood of bonding with the baby? What if you were floored with an all consuming rush of love and need to cherish and nurture and protect this little person after going through the pain of labour? And then having to hand them over? Oh Jesus no - the thought of that frightens me.
I know I'm not everyone else and I'm not judging anyone who says they'd do it, but I don't know... can any woman be guaranteed the above wouldn't be the case for her?

I'd guess that in many cases, this is one of the last chances for a couple to have a child with their DNA, and - let's be honest - how many people could you honestly ask to carry your unborn child for you? So while surely it couldn't be guaranteed that the woman wouldn't bond with the child . . . I suppose that some people are willing to take the risk of themselves being unhappy in order to do such a selfless thing for someone else (especially if they aren't getting anything in return).

Xiney

I suppose that's a risk, sure. And I'm sure there's extreme hormones at play.

But women used to give up babies for adoption. They don't do that as much now, but now there's surrogacy. Women survived giving up their own flesh and blood that they simply weren't in a position to keep, so I'm sure they can survive giving up someone else's child for whom they were essentially an in vivo incubator for the better part of a year.

shellyboo

Dudess wrote: »

But what about the strong likelihood of bonding with the baby? What if you were floored with an all consuming rush of love and need to cherish and nurture and protect this little person after going through the pain of labour? And then having to hand them over? Oh Jesus no - the thought of that frightens me.
I know I'm not everyone else and I'm not judging anyone who says they'd do it, but I don't know... can any woman be guaranteed the above wouldn't be the case for her?

That's kinda what I'd be afraid of... but since I do want kids of my own anyway, obviously I wouldn't want my first pregnancy to be for someone else! I'd have already gone through it and know the feelings and bonding involved.

For women who already know they don't want children, but are willing to be a surrogate, I'd imagine this could be a huge dilemma.