For those against pre-birth matching, how do you feel about surrogate pregnancies or donor embryos?

Question

With regards to the concerns on pre-birth matching for adoption, I wonder what Adoptees think of infertile couples using a surrogate rather than doing a pre-birth match adoption. Or what the thoughts might be on donor sperm/eggs/embryos. Do you feel that this should be allowed? Why or why not?

A good friend is trying to find a surrogate to carry an embryo for her. She intends to use her egg and her husband's sperm, but due to having cancer previously she had to have a hysterectomy and is unable obviously to carry a child. She is also not sure that her eggs will be viable as she only has one ovary intact, so a donor egg may need to be used. Her husband refuses to adopt but would consider surrogacy. I'm just curious what adoptees think about this since you have mentioned the feelings of loss, etc. In your opinion, do you think that a child born to a surrogate would have the same issues? If donor sperm/eggs are used, isn't that basically the same as pre-birth matching?

Answer 1

Wow! Day of the heavy questions huh? I'll try to be somewhat coherent but I've had a few glasses of Fat b*****d Chardonnay. Seriously good wine btw.

OK, I think that embryo adoption is pretty much the same as adoption except you can end up with three mothers if a surrogate is implanted with an embryo from a donor. That made my brain hurt to think about. So then you have a biological mother, a "birth" mother (what the heck would you call that??) and an adoptive mother. That would make for some messed up story telling later in life. I think my bedtime tale of being chosen is messed up enough imo.

So what if you use a surrogate and her eggs? Well then you have a true adoption situation. The natural mom just makes a pre-conception-adoption-plan. Wow, that doesn't really sound so hot either. There is going to be that "what if she fights for the baby?" thing too. *makes mental note to get a copy of Baby M.* That sounds an awful lot like extreme pre-birth matching to my ears.

I'm not really ok with sperm and egg donation either. But that is due to a personal conflict with a medical storage facility. I don't think it should ever be anonymous but I find this idea more palatable than the others.

Idk, everything about all of it just strikes me as odd and a bit creepy. I get the wanting a child thing, I really do. I just don't understand people putting themselves in such toxic places to accomplish thier goal or dream.

Answer 2

I had a friend who was a surogate mother and it put her into such a depression. She felt as though she had given up her own child and she did as it was her egg. It was an open adoption (I guess that's what you call it) so when she died last month the amom brought the boy to see the woman who had given birth to him. The whole thing was sad.

Answer 3

Just an FYI-some of the newer forms of embryo donation -known as embryo adoption (not my term) has only been around since the late 1990s. These are more generally more open at least in regards to information sharing. The donors picked the receivers and the adoptions range from totally closed to totally open. At the very least it seems that health information is shared.

It seems that many people are against embryo donation in any of its forms. I'm not judging -just curious, but what do you think should be done with the remaining embryos that the parents don't want? Remain in storage until 'no longer viable'? (since this costs storage money, some parents won't agree to it) Embryos destroyed. Embryos used for research. Something else?

Answer 4

i'm not an adoptee, but i do have strong opinions regarding pre-birth matching, surrogacy and biological material donation, so i hope you find that i'm not out of line in answering your question. :-)

quite honestly bpd wife, the whole sperm/egg/embryo donation practice just ethically doesn't sit well with me.

i tend to be very liberal and non-judgmental regarding a  reproduction choice, yet borrowing genetic material from another smacks in the face of real ethical issues for the children produced from these activities.

that being said, i do not, however, view embryo donation/surrogacy the same as pre-birth matching with a traditional b/f/nmom.  in traditional adoption you have a mother who may have some trepidation regarding placinng the child (not the case in surrogacy). also, in traditional adoption, the surrogate doesn't have legal rights over the child, hence can't change her mind. all of these issues (trepidation over placing, ability to change mind) are what make pre-birth matching in traditional adoption coercive. it is assumed by those who are against the practice (myself included) that the presence of paps in the delivery room, giving gifts, and being involved in prenatal care are moderately coercive.  this is not usually the case in surrogacy.  

regarding surrogacy, i think the decision to become a surrogate should be one out of the desire to be pregnant, and not a monetary decision. i also think that the dynamics are different with regards to a surrogate and a pre-matched bmom who is placing due to her age, poverty, marital status. surrogates simply do not have the same pressures placed on them as traditional bmoms do. hence, i would not agree that the pre-birth matching in surrogacy is the same, from a pregnant woman's perspective.

now from that of the child: i'm not quite sure. since i am a believer that children bond at birth, i would find that the child might experience some of the same natal bonding issues as a child born to a genetic mother.

what i do find distasteful are the advertisements in college newspapers on ivy-league college campuses, and on websites like myspace and facebook, trolling from fertile wombs and elite sperm and eggs.  yuck!

take care...and merry christmas...

Answer 5

My friend had IVF with donor eggs some years ago and another gal I know received donor sperm for artificial insemination. In both cases, their arrangements include allowing contact open records after the age of either 18 or 21.  My sister's relative has an agreement with both families, for which she was a surrogate, to meet with the child at any time the child wants to meet her.   It is my belief that parents who are knowledgeable about the future impact these arrangements may have on their children go out of their way to make certain that there won't be big mysteries held out.  

Will they have the same issues? Well, in many cases, particularly of donor sperm, children aren't even told.  However, is that any different from children who result from their mother's sordid affair (and hubby never knew)?  I know a couple of people who found out when they had an illness that their father was not their biological father. Quite a shock.  The fact that I know TWO such people is more of a concern as it makes me think it may be more common than one would hope.

Answer 6

A very interesting question my elder brother and his wife had to use a donor egg for their 2nd child, they tired for TTC for 6 years.  My SIL carried him and gave birth to him, thus she feels no different towards him then their eldest son whom is biological both of theirs. They meet his biological mother and she looked very similar to my SIL.  I also know a L*****n couple and they used some donor sperm they purchased a block of sperm they have 2 kids but they do have more sperm if they ever wanted to have another child. I think it is possible for Donorchildren  to have some of the same issue that some adopted people have. I even think this is true for surrogacy kids even more when one of the parents is not the biological parent.

Adopting an embryo is similar to ‘normal’ adoption only difference is that the adoptive mother or  sometimes a surrogate  carries the embryo. I’d rather just adopt a child that is already here that needs a loving home. They say adopting an embryo gives the couple the chance to go through the pregnancy and birth, so the mother bonds once the fertilized egg is placed into the womb, the father can do what guys do when their wife or girlfriend is with child.

Andraya makes a good point there was situation a few months back about a couple from Florida whom used a surrogate for their 2nd child, they had also used a surrogate for their first but different woman. So they found this woman and she agreed to carry and donate her egg. Well once the baby was born she decided not turn the baby over, even more she actually did not even sign the contract that she was suppose to. The couple was to trusting and just figured she would have done it. Though she did cash the check that she was given to be the surrogate. I don’t know how it turned out the baby was the biological child of the husband. Very sticky situation.  The surrogate is also demanding child support, health insurance and life insurance for the baby, not to mentioned fully custody.

http://www.surrogacyissuesblog.com/2007/...

I also read of a man in England where he got some donated eggs and used a surrogate and ended up with triplets. So the boys had a surrogate mum and biological mum, their dad explained it to them best he could and they acutal meet both of their “mum’s”

Answer 7

Honestly, I'm much more strongly in favor of adoption before I'm for all the Frankensteinish infertility test tube babies that are made these days without a second thought.

In order to do embryo transfer, there are dozens of embryos created that are never used.  They remain frozen in time for years and then later destroyed.

Because the transfer is such an expensive procedure, the doctor's will implant four to eight embryos at a time in order to increase the chances for a successful pregnancy.  This is why we get these mothers having quads, quints, etc., because sometimes most of the embryos "take" and start to develop.  Those mothers that carry all the babies to term are the very rare exception.

What most couples choose to do if there are multiple fetuses developing, is another procedure called a "Selective Reduction".  This procedure is basically "reducing" the pregnancy from multiple fetuses, down to a more manageable twin or single pregnancy.  This means that they are killing the "extra" fetuses.  I have actually seen this procedure done, and I will explain it to you so you can understand how distasteful it is, and why I feel so strongly about this topic.

The doctor first visualizes the fetuses on ultrasound.  He chooses those fetuses that are most physically accessible  (closest to the abdominal wall) to "reduce".  He then inserts a long needle through the mother's abdomen and into the amniotic sac of the fetus.  He will then withdraw the amniotic fluid in that sac and replace it with a solution of  Potassium Chloride.  This is the same chemical used in the cocktail given to prisoners when they are put to death.  It stops the fetuses heart.  (In the death penalty, the prisoners are first given anesthesia before the Potassium is injected in order for them not to feel the pain when their heart stops.)

This is repeated on each fetus until the desired number are left.  During the entire procedure, the doctor is visualizing the fetuses on the ultrasound.  The beating heart of the fetus can be seen to stop on the monitor.

The dead fetuses then remain inside the uterus of the mother until delivery.  They become calcified and flattened out as the live fetuses grow and push them against the uterine wall.  When the live baby/babies are delivered these calcified fetuses are delivered at the same time.

It is beyond sick.  To create fetuses just to kill them, imo, is despicable.  It just indicates to me how much it's all about the parents, not the child.  I am shocked at how little respect is shown for the actual babies that are often the genetic children of the couples undergoing these procedures.  They just don't care, they want a baby of their own so badly.

Then sometimes there is the additional complication to the equation that you talk about, when donor eggs and/or sperm are used to make the embryos.  I just don't even get why this is bothered with at all.  If it's not going to be your genetic child, why not just adopt?  It baffles me.  The only thing I can think of is that the couple can choose the donor(s) and they can "manufacture" a "designer" baby with the right kind of genetic characteristics.  I can only imagine how screwed up those kids will be as they reach adulthood.  It's bad enough knowing that you were conceived naturally and then adopted.  How will it feel to them to know that they were created with anonymous genetic material from hard-up college students?  Yikes, I can't even imagine the nightmare that creates in those designer kid's psyche.

When all else fails, then those infertile people turn to adoption, as an absolute last resort.  Why isn't this the first option if adoption is so freaking great, huh?

Answer 8

I have wanted to ask the members of this forum the same question. Glad you asked!  

Over time, adoption laws have developed that do not allow a woman to sign over custody of her child until after the child is born.  Although sadly, some states allow a woman to sign over custody within as little as 72 hours after giving birth.  She hasn't even had time to recover from the enormous task of having an entire little human being come out of her body!  Yet she's pushed to sign papers and say goodbye and let strangers walk out of the hospital with that little human being in their arms.        

"Pre-birth matching" sounds like a fancy term to circumvent adoptions laws established to protect women - that is, not signing over custody before the birth of the child.  Instead, a mother is making a promise to sign her baby over before the baby is born.

Surrogacy definitely circumvents adoption laws by having a woman sign a contract before she's even pregnant!  

Not only donor embryos, but now donor eggs!  Most ads appear in college publications looking to purchase an egg from a healthy, college going gal for $5000 or more.  ONE egg!  In the industry, it's recommended that women 'donate' no more than six times.  But there's no law.  $30,000 will go a long way toward tuition.  This targets women with limited resources, as has been an ethical issue in adoption for decades.  

Never having had a child, these young women won't feel the full weight of their decision until much later in their lives.  At what point will they realize they have biological children in the world?  When they see a child that looks just like them?  When they give birth to their first baby?

What will dating be like in this brave new world we're creating?  In the future, will people need to have a DNA test before pursuing every relationship to ensure that they are not dating a sibling?  YIKES!!

I recently read the term "gestational carrier".  I couldn't help but think that even in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", nothing seemed as cold, clinical & sterile as this term.  

A GC carries and bares a baby that is not her biological child (as in the case of your friend).  Prospective parents provide the egg and sperm.  Can we remove the term "birth" and the idea of another woman (in connection to a child) any farther? Or pretend that infertility is really not an issue?    

I do understand and have a deep sense of empathy for couples facing the heartache of infertility.  Our identity, especially as women, is often interwoven with our ability to bare children.  This is true for many men & their sense of masculinity.

But seriously, the extremes that some couples go to in an effort to have a biological child is at times beyond my comprehension.  

From "Brave New World" (1932);  "the combination of genetic engineering, bottle-birth, and sexual promiscuity means there is no monogamy, marriage, or family."  "surgically removing the ovary from the female and keeping it alive artificially." "babies develop in bottles and are 'decanted'."

Answer 9

I think many points have already been covered.  I agree that most of these donar/surrogacy situations are just plain icky.  I'm glad that people have articulated the ethical issues with them, as my thoughts are much clearer now.  When we struggled with infertility, we decided not to go through all these weird things to have a child.  We adopted a child already in the world who needed a home.  We even had close friends who did the IVF ordeal and had twins.  They had embryos left over and offered them to us (our problem is my ovaries, but I could carry a child).  I know they really were offering something  very generously that they had talked about seriously, but I just got the ickiest feeling when they offered.  I suppose, as such things go, it would have been the best situation possible.  The child/ren would know his or her biological parents and siblings as they are in our life, but I wanted no part in it.  I guess what I have a problem with is INTENTIONALLY creating an adoptee.  Adoption should happen out of necessity.

Answer 10

I am currently working on a story for The Adoption Show on donor conceived children and adults. This is highly unethical and does not have an ounce of my support.

Birth certificates are completly misleading as to who the genetic parents are of the child. Since the donor egg / sperm happens before birth there is no record of it on the original birth certificate so the child / adult will never know by looking at their birth certificate that they have another mother and / or father in the world.

There is no law in place that requires adoptive parents to tell the donor child he/she was conceived by donor sperm / egg.

There is no law in place that allows the DC person access to their medical history, access to their biological parent, or siblings.

Donor Conception is putting siblings all over the place, I have read of cases of there being 14 - 15 siblings in the same area, which is totally discriminating against the DC ( donor conceived ) because what if they date a sister, a brother and what if they want to know their siblings?

Surrogacy is just as bad. Primal wound!!!!! I don't care if the egg isn't the surro-moms, this is soo unethical, it is intentional separation trauma on a child to fullfill the wishes of another couple. The surro-adoptee is then denied all of their rights since  an adoption takes place and they are discriminated against just like adoptees.

There are no laws protecting the children or putting the children first. ALL OF THIS adoption, surrogacy, donor conception is NEVER PUTTING THE CHILDREN FIRST. And until it does, i won't support it.

ART artificial reproductive technology NEEDS TO PUT THE CHILDREN / ADULTS FIRST. There are no rights covering us. One generation after another we're swept under the rug.

Answer 11

I believe this is the latest form of closed adoptions. I suppose it's handy for adopters though and they drive the market.

I oppose the current system of doner assited fertility treatments. Currently there are no provisions in the USA for donor names to be included on OBC's. Therefore we are creating generations of people that are going to be separated from those they share traits with. I imagine donor conceived children will also struggle with the sense of being different and not fitting in.

Surrogacy is another issue - I believe it is simply a planned version of baby selling where the mother profits instead of middlemen professionals. Some surrogates later regret it, and I believe the baby will always feel a sense of loss when separated from her. This is an area somewhat more aberhent than adoption. We don't allow people to sell organs, why should we allow children to be gestated and sold?