Interesting use of ‘service users’ (‘pregnant service users’). This is because (I think) they get twitchy about using ‘patients’ (‘cos of pregnancy not being a disease ‘n all that). So….they pinch a phrase from the world of community mental health. So with a puff of smoke….pregnancy becomes a mental illness instead.
I’m not sure that’s progress.
‘Women’ would be just fine, and solve all their terminology problems 😀
Deborah Neiger works locally to me and was at a couple of home birth meetings I went to before I had my eldest... Feel a bit like I met an alien now I know she's joined the crazy language crew....
In the USA, the LA Times reports: “Republican bill would ban transgender girls from high school sports in California”
Excerpt: “Assemblymember Chris Ward, chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, said in a statement that the caucus, whose members are all Democrats, “will not stand by as anyone attempts to use kids as political pawns.”
Despite the disapproving tone of the article, almost all the comments are against men in women’s sports.
Yes it is. Speaking only for myself as a midwife (and as a human being), I am totally against surrogacy because I see it as the purposeful creation of known harms for babies and their mothers (even if it's a donor egg, their lives are intertwined forever). I have every bit of sympathy for women who for whatever reason cannot carry a pregnancy to term, but this is not a reason that justifies surrogacy. And gay men are not suffering from "infertility" problems. It is not a human right to have a child that you are biologically related to and in some situations that involve donor eggs and sperm, there is no genetic relationship happening for anyone. https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/telling-it-like-it-is-without-the
Thank you for your response. I have always felt icky about surrogacy and I think you hit the nail on the head that it is not a human right to have a child that your are biologically related to. I had a brief conversation with several girlfriends who are in their 40’s neither have kids, although one is pregnant with her first, and they were both saying they would choose surrogacy over adoption if IVF had failed. I don’t know if it is the fact that I do have kids so I have firsthand experience of how vulnerable and precious they are, but I would choose adoption 1,000 times over. That conversation really bothered me, but I couldn’t put my finger on what specifically left me feeling so disturbed by both of their comments.
Depending on how you look at this, it can be very complicated or quite simple. For complex societal reasons, many women are now waiting until it is really too late (or nearly too late) for them to achieve viable pregnancies and babies the "usual" way. Really women are being sold a story that is in the fiction section, which is that they have plenty of time to sort out their perfect lives (partner, career, financial stability, etc.) before they get around to the next item on their 'this is my life' plan, which is "have baby". Unfortunately, physiology doesn't care about life plans; we have a certain window for reproduction and that's it folks, when this shuts it shuts. Sure, modern medicine can lever it open sometimes, but this is not a given. (All those female Google employees who have had their eggs frozen so that Google can use their skills without the interruption of baby making? Most of them are never going to be mothers, which is going to be beyond hard to face when they get to their 40s.)
I view surrogacy as a prime example of adult selfishness because it is based totally on the wants and desires of adults, with no real thoughts around the needs of babies and their human rights as individual people. (And ditto when considering the place of "gestational carriers". I wonder at the terminology that just erases motherhood from the visceral experience of pregnancy and birth.)
I am a mother too, and if I think about what I would have needed to do to tell myself while pregnant, "this is not my baby". And as most women acting as surrogates are already mothers (so proving their fitness for purpose), what do you tell your children when no, you aren't giving them a new baby brother or sister, you are giving this baby away? What sort of legal contract can compensate children for the loss of their mother (because some surrogate mothers have died as all surrogate pregnancies are high risk)?
I do not believe that most people are inherently bad, but rather they have not really thought about this beyond their strong desire to be a mother or a father. Emotionally they are stuck at "I really want..." without considering the impact of their desires on others, especially babies who are totally voiceless, so unheard. And of course, there are always societal actors with an eye on profit making and surrogacy is such a gold mine, it must be irresistible to those who are only too happy to cash in on the misfortunes of others. Follow the money always pays off.
To deliberately create motherless children and childless mothers is obscene. Goodness knows there are enough orphans created by our violence obsessed world, but they might be traumatised and hard to handle, so don’t bother with that. No, create your very own traumatised baby instead, and give the poor mother a bit of money to deal with her grief. How is that ok?
Interesting use of ‘service users’ (‘pregnant service users’). This is because (I think) they get twitchy about using ‘patients’ (‘cos of pregnancy not being a disease ‘n all that). So….they pinch a phrase from the world of community mental health. So with a puff of smoke….pregnancy becomes a mental illness instead.
I’m not sure that’s progress.
‘Women’ would be just fine, and solve all their terminology problems 😀
Deborah Neiger works locally to me and was at a couple of home birth meetings I went to before I had my eldest... Feel a bit like I met an alien now I know she's joined the crazy language crew....
In the USA, the LA Times reports: “Republican bill would ban transgender girls from high school sports in California”
Excerpt: “Assemblymember Chris Ward, chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, said in a statement that the caucus, whose members are all Democrats, “will not stand by as anyone attempts to use kids as political pawns.”
Despite the disapproving tone of the article, almost all the comments are against men in women’s sports.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-16/new-republican-bill-would-ban-transgender-girls-from-high-school-sports-in-california
https://archive.is/spcP2
I am curious to hear your thoughts on surrogacy and midwives pro-ridiculous language are often pro-surrogacy.
Yes it is. Speaking only for myself as a midwife (and as a human being), I am totally against surrogacy because I see it as the purposeful creation of known harms for babies and their mothers (even if it's a donor egg, their lives are intertwined forever). I have every bit of sympathy for women who for whatever reason cannot carry a pregnancy to term, but this is not a reason that justifies surrogacy. And gay men are not suffering from "infertility" problems. It is not a human right to have a child that you are biologically related to and in some situations that involve donor eggs and sperm, there is no genetic relationship happening for anyone. https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/telling-it-like-it-is-without-the
Thank you for your response. I have always felt icky about surrogacy and I think you hit the nail on the head that it is not a human right to have a child that your are biologically related to. I had a brief conversation with several girlfriends who are in their 40’s neither have kids, although one is pregnant with her first, and they were both saying they would choose surrogacy over adoption if IVF had failed. I don’t know if it is the fact that I do have kids so I have firsthand experience of how vulnerable and precious they are, but I would choose adoption 1,000 times over. That conversation really bothered me, but I couldn’t put my finger on what specifically left me feeling so disturbed by both of their comments.
Depending on how you look at this, it can be very complicated or quite simple. For complex societal reasons, many women are now waiting until it is really too late (or nearly too late) for them to achieve viable pregnancies and babies the "usual" way. Really women are being sold a story that is in the fiction section, which is that they have plenty of time to sort out their perfect lives (partner, career, financial stability, etc.) before they get around to the next item on their 'this is my life' plan, which is "have baby". Unfortunately, physiology doesn't care about life plans; we have a certain window for reproduction and that's it folks, when this shuts it shuts. Sure, modern medicine can lever it open sometimes, but this is not a given. (All those female Google employees who have had their eggs frozen so that Google can use their skills without the interruption of baby making? Most of them are never going to be mothers, which is going to be beyond hard to face when they get to their 40s.)
I view surrogacy as a prime example of adult selfishness because it is based totally on the wants and desires of adults, with no real thoughts around the needs of babies and their human rights as individual people. (And ditto when considering the place of "gestational carriers". I wonder at the terminology that just erases motherhood from the visceral experience of pregnancy and birth.)
I am a mother too, and if I think about what I would have needed to do to tell myself while pregnant, "this is not my baby". And as most women acting as surrogates are already mothers (so proving their fitness for purpose), what do you tell your children when no, you aren't giving them a new baby brother or sister, you are giving this baby away? What sort of legal contract can compensate children for the loss of their mother (because some surrogate mothers have died as all surrogate pregnancies are high risk)?
I do not believe that most people are inherently bad, but rather they have not really thought about this beyond their strong desire to be a mother or a father. Emotionally they are stuck at "I really want..." without considering the impact of their desires on others, especially babies who are totally voiceless, so unheard. And of course, there are always societal actors with an eye on profit making and surrogacy is such a gold mine, it must be irresistible to those who are only too happy to cash in on the misfortunes of others. Follow the money always pays off.
To deliberately create motherless children and childless mothers is obscene. Goodness knows there are enough orphans created by our violence obsessed world, but they might be traumatised and hard to handle, so don’t bother with that. No, create your very own traumatised baby instead, and give the poor mother a bit of money to deal with her grief. How is that ok?
This guy took it one step further, by opening telling the world that the only acceptable persona for his daughter is "queer": https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/queering-babies-is-there-no-escape
Couldn't agree more.