This is regulation though. And in my view a reasonable way to do it. It’s the way that we do lots of family law for good reason. Regulation just means there are rules and laws.
But regulation for surrogacy, even in the UK, barely touches the issues. Like the example I gave, how it’s supposed to be expenses only. Who is checking this? That’s just a basic fundamental element of surrogacy legislation in the UK and it’s completely unregulated and unenforceable.
I understand in the US there is contestation around whether abortion stipulations can be included in contracts, and many contracts do in practice, but the legality around these provisions is contested and variable. I absolutely think such provisions should not be enforceable. They aren’t in the UK.
But there are campaigns to make the UK like the US. So I’m assuming you’re against this. But these contested areas have arisen from the very idea that no protections should be put in place.
The same way you do for any pregnant person. How do you check a woman’s decision to terminate is her own and not her partner’s?
Exactly. How do you check? If you’re talking about a regulated industry then the responsibility falls on those creating the regulations. If you don’t think it can be done then how can surrogacy be allowed?
The decision ultimately lies with the pregnant woman because of the principle of bodily autonomy. So it should work with surrogacy.
As above. If it becomes an industrial standard that intended parents get no say, then you have to demonstrate how you intend to enforce that. Otherwise it’s not worth the legislative paper it’s written on.
I have no doubt there are countries all over the world with terrible laws around surrogacy, as there are with abortion etc., that doesn’t mean that all surrogacy is immoral and we should outlaw the practice in the UK.
Ok, so you acknowledge that surrogacy can be terrible, but not our surrogacy in good old Blighty, we are sooo much better at it. But you still haven’t explained how you’re going to solve all the challenges. And you still haven’t addressed the rights of the baby.
The right to make unadulterated choices about our bodies should be a fundamental principle. However, in law, we draw certain boundaries where there are questions as to whether someone has the capacity to consent.
When someone makes a decision that is ultimately harmful (eg euthanasia, suicide, self-starvation, etc) their capacity to consent comes into question.
Firstly, you acknowledge that women can’t just do anything to their bodies. Second, capacity to consent is not the only restriction to unadulterated choices about our bodies. I can fully understand the implications of selling a kidney for 50 grand, doesn’t mean I’m allowed to do it. We put restrictions in place because of the human trait of taking a mile when given an inch. If we allowed people with full capacity to sell kidneys, it’s only a matter of time before someone starts harvesting kidneys of vulnerable people to make money. This is why it’s banned. It’s the same in surrogacy.
It may be that there are perfectly willing and able women, 100% freely consenting, with non-controlling intended parents and a happy child with a happy life at the end of it. But inevitably because of human nature, bad humans will exploit it as FannyCann’s example demonstrates, and as a result banning it is the only solution.
You talk about “greater good”. The number of completely happy, genuinely altruistic surrogacy cases that occur with fantastic outcomes around the world is minuscule compared to the worldwide scale of exploitation and misery of poor women being exploited for it.
You are massively pathologising pregnancy. Pregnancy is an ordinary and perfectly healthy function of the female body, and has plenty of protective health benefits.
But when you take a normal healthy function of the human body and make it part of a financial transaction then the entirety of the risks need to be considered. Sex is a normal healthy function of the female body, but it doesn’t entitle men to buy it from women. You have to take into account all the pathology that can happen with a pregnancy because it’s being asked of someone to do it on behalf of someone else, not for their own benefit. If you’re going to ask someone else to undertake something so significant as a pregnancy, don’t you think considering all the potential outcomes is the very least you can do? Again, if you’re not prepared to consider the fact a woman might die on behalf of providing someone else a baby, you’re basically just shrugging.