“Our babies have barcodes”
The new Government is super-keen to ram through a law making surrogacy way more easier. The question that nobody is asking: Should we be making surrogacy and sperm / egg donation “easier”? We will ask that question. We.’ll also show you some disturbing examples of the commodification of children, and how the rights of children are not being considered.
TRANSCRIPT:
“Our babies have barcodes”
We have just made our submission on the Government bill entitled “Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill”
You may have thought that when the previous government was voted out last October, there would be less “social engineering” around marriage, family formation and the indoctrination of gender ideology in schools.
Unfortunately, we were all wrong.
In 2022, a private members bill which would have liberalised the laws around surrogacy was sponsored by Labour MP Tamati Coffey – who with his same-sex partner have a child via a gestational surrogate and egg donor (and now have two children).
We’ll come back to that.
That bill was fortunately shelved – partly due to our Submission!
Sadly, the new Government has taken it over, made some changes as recommended by the Law Commission, and is now seeking public submissions.
Yes – a more conservative leaning government is desparate to ram through a law making surrogacy way easier.
As evidenced by the title of the bill – “Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill” – the new bill is predominantly about increasing access and making it easier for adults,
The question that nobody is asking: Should we be making surrogacy and sperm / egg donation“easier”?
It’s important to say from the outset – we all completely sympathise with couples who cannot have children.
We fully understand why some consider going down the track of surrogacy in order to have children.
However, the discussion around surrogacy tends to be focussed only on the adults’ rights and needs – and ignores the rights and needs of the child.
Children have a right to life, to their mothers and fathers, and to be born free, not bought and sold (even non-commercially).
Surrogacy violates all three children’s rights. Surrogacy routinely severs a child’s relationship with his or her genetic mother and/or father through the use of sperm and egg “donation.”
It is ironic that the Explanatory Note to the new Government bill refers to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC), which includes
“a child’s right from birth to know their parents and to be cared for by them.”
(Article 7.1)
But surrogacy and sperm & egg donation can go against that exact right.
What is it like to find out that your true biological father’s only involvement in your life was the donation of his sperm? How do you deal with the feeling of loss and rejection from your biological mother who is labelled as your ‘surrogate’ or ‘gestational carrier’? Is it normal that when you see someone who resembles you, you wonder if they are related?
Can you be blamed for feeling disturbed that some money may have been involved in your conception? What if the biological parent or parents don’t want any contact?
The identity of some donors can remain anonymous, or they may refuse contact – irrespective of what the child may want, and irrespective of what the lawmakers may hope will happen.
Children have a deep longing to know who they belong to, where they come from, and who they look like.
But the process leads to the commodification of children. There is this notion of “renting a womb”.
As child advocate and expert Jennifer Lahl – Founder of The Center for Bioethics and Culture who spoke at our Forum on the Family last year says:
“Women are not easy bake ovens and our children are not cupcakes.”
Surrogacy, even when done altruistically – that is, without payment – can objectify children and surrogate mothers and creates lifelong emotional issues for both.
The research shows that surrogate mothers can be at increased risk for emotional trauma and psychological burden.
Deep bonds are formed between mother and child during pregnancy and the inability of some surrogate mothers to relinquish their babies has resulted in excruciating levels of anguish for the surrogate and in high-profile lawsuits.
Oxytocin’s hormonal bond, firmly established between the mother and her preborn child during gestation, is meant to be reinforced after birth by mother-to-baby physical interactions — skin-to-skin contact, eye gazing, and breast-feeding. This oxytocin link not only facilitates key physiological processes in the baby’s development, but also helps with a mother’s postpartum recovery. It promotes bonding patterns between the mother and child, and creates desire for further contact.
Maternal separation, a feature of surrogacy, is a major physiological stressor for the infant and even brief maternal deprivation can permanently alter the structure of the infant’s brain. Many adoptees argue that their “primal wound” of maternal loss manifested as depression, abandonment/loss issues, and emotional problems throughout their lives. It hindered their attachment, bonding, psychological health, self-esteem, and future relationships.
A powerful documentary called “Breeders: A Subclass of Women?” contains very moving stories of four surrogate mothers, revealing a more troubling side to what is becoming a big industry in many countries.
Surrogacy can also endanger women’s health and lives. There are various health complications with any pregnancy, but there are many additional surrogacy-specific health risks.
Even Fertility Associates NZ acknowledges that “there is the possibility that your surrogacy pregnancy could be more difficult or have medical complications you haven’t had before.”
One of the most disturbing aspects of all of this is that surrogacy can involve treating women and children as objects of commerce or trade. International experience shows that the women most at risk of being exploited in this industry are poor and vulnerable women, especially women in poor areas around the world who oftentimes agree as a result of financial incentives.
The Government bill allows for “actual and reasonable expenses” (but these are not defined), and also includes the costs of counselling, travel, and reimbursement for lost wages or salary. This does not give confidence that there will not be financial coercion, including that there are no limits set for what can be deemed ‘reasonable costs’.
Surrogacy and IVF also opens the door to sex-selection and the prospective designing of children. In NZ, you can choose a donor based on information around age of donor, ethnicity, physical features, eye colour, height, weight, education, and personality.
I want to show you two recent examples of this.
The first involves two guys talking about how they picked an egg supplier like they were buying a dog.
Have a watch
In the other clip that went viral last year, YouTuber Shane Dawson and his husband are in the beginning stages of buying a baby through surrogacy and they’ve created 12 embryos.
Dawson and Adams film themselves going through the results of the 12 embryos they have created through IVF, six each from Dawson and Adams. “There are only two girls, and four boys,” Dawson says, speaking of his “results.” He adds, “That’s a lot of boys.” Then, Adams reveals that his “results” show four girls and two boys. “So, we’re opposite,” Adams comments. He then adds, “It’s so weird too because our babies have barcodes” (emphasis added). Dawson, commenting on the number of embryos they have created, jokes, “It’s cheaper by the dozen, baby.” Subsequently, Adams says, “I’m curious though. I want to talk to our doctor and know, of the four boys, which boy do we choose?” Dawson’s mouth drops open, and he jests, “I don’t like playing God.” He then holds up a small wheel with different sides, and comments while laughing, “Let’s spin the wheel and we’ll put a barcode on each side.”
Have a watch
Katy Faust, founder of the non-profit children-rights organization of Them Before Us, and author of a book with the same name, Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children’s Rights Movement, commented on the video on Twitter. Responding to Dawson’s comment, “Our babies have barcodes,” Faust replied:
Yes. Because you have made them products.
Because male homosexual couples are in an inherently sterile relationship, they must rely on two modern procedures to produce children: fertilization of an egg outside the womb (IVF) and the transfer of embryos into a surrogate womb.
When IVF is used by homosexual couples to create children, the rights of these children to have a mother and a father are violated.
Andrew T. Walker, a Christian Ethics Professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said that this video demonstrates the consequences that have developed as a result of “homosexual marriage.”
“Gay marriage harms no one,” they said (except the human beings who will be denied a mother or frozen for an indeterminate amount of time). God forgive us for tampering with human nature and making children the slave of adult-centered selfishness.
The majority of children conceived via third-party reproduction want to know the essential parts of their own heritage.
A wealthy Australian sperm donor who has more than 24 children pleaded in 2015 to keep his identity secret because he feared his offspring would want to contact him and establish relationships.
The number of people conceived using a donor in New Zealand has been increasing year on year, with a slight drop in 2020 (likely due to COVID, lockdowns etc). In fact, the Department of Internal Affairs recently “celebrated” the notification of the 3000th birth of a donor-conceived child.
The documentary Anonymous Father’s Day (2013) explores the stories of women and men who are the children of sperm donors. We should listen to their concerns. How does it impact their self-perception, the choices they make, and their view of life and the world?
In New Zealand, a donor could be a ‘father’ to up to seven families.
A sperm donor has to provide identifying information, but despite the greatest intentions of the lawmakers, there’s no mandate that a donor is to be involved – or will want to be involved – in the child’s life.
It may still effectively be ‘unknown’, except for the disclosure of their name and some of their genetic origin.
An egg donor can maintain anonymity – meaning that a child may never know who their biological mother is.
Interestingly, many countries want nothing to do with surrogacy.
In December 2015, the European Parliament condemned surrogacy stating that it;
“…undermines the human dignity of the woman since her body and its reproductive functions are used as a commodity”
Many counties have banned surrogacy – Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Cambodia & Nepal.
Other countries such as Britain, Sweden, Norway, Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland have banned anonymous sperm and egg donation.
But these laws are easy to get around.
Just before I conclude, let me show you an example close to home. This is the politician who was pushing surrogacy in NZ. A Labour MP who’s in a same sex relationship. No conflict of interest, of course.They use an egg donor and then use a different gestational surrogate. The surrogate has had three children thru anonymous sperm donors. Those children will never know their biological father.
Have a watch of a couple of clips – and see if you can hear anything about the rights of the children.
And in this clip, remember – this the biological mother speaking. Where are the rights of the child.
Some interesting statements in the media story by the surrogate….“While she loved and nurtured the baby in the womb like any mum would, Dalziel felt that both herself and the baby knew they would be parting ways.” She breastfed the baby for the first 48 hours, but unusually, after this, he would not feed again, and the family instead switched him to formula. “He just kind of weaned himself off me, it was like he was ready.” “We have become so close. It’s such an intimate process…”
In all of this discussion, and although the media largely ignores the issue when talking about it, the rights of the child should remain paramount.
Biology matters – especially to the child. Connection, whakapapa, and genealogy matter.
This is not a ‘sexuality’ issue.
This is a biological issue. In the world of surrogacy, biology discriminates. Biology discriminates in that it takes a mum and a dad (a biological male and female) to create a child.
And children have a deep desire to know their mum and dad.
We should take all steps we can as a society to meet this fundamental need of every child.
We should speak up for the rights of children.
