Law Commission consulting on paid surrogacy in the UK

"shocked" by UK laws that prevent people from paying surrogates

Massive entitlement. They expect to be able to rent a womb.

Every time you read something like this, replace with ‘kidney transplant.’

*"They've also spoken out about their choice to have a new kidney - revealing that they were "shocked" by UK laws that prevent people from paying for a new kidney’ . ‘That was a bit of shock to me. That in a place like this, that seems so progressive and so far ahead still than Iran on things like employment, housing, security and marriage.

"But on transplants it's not available in the same way."

Now drum up support for that? No?

This is potentially quite sinister:

Jake Graf and Hannah Winterbourne
"The newlywed couple, who are both patrons of the transgender children's charity Mermaids, will live together in the married quarters near Captain Winterbourne's Army barracks." (Mail)

"The couple has expressed interest in having children, and will likely do so through surrogacy." (Wiki referencing The Times)

Or Tom Daley and his partner:

"They've also spoken out about their choice to have a surrogate carry their child - revealing that they were "shocked" by UK laws that prevent people from paying surrogates.

Appearing on the Attitude Heroes podcast, Tom, 23, said: "We've done research into loads of different ideas, through adoption or through surrogacy and all that kind of stuff.

"Well actually the laws in the UK don't actually permit commercial surrogacy."

Dustin, 43, added: "That was a bit of shock to me. That in a place like this, that seems so progressive and so far ahead still to the United States on things like employment, housing, security and marriage.

"But on surrogacy, it's not available in the same way."

So agree then. Women bear children. An inconvenient biological fact. So lets make it easier to have wombs for hire. Not least for those made infertile from Mermaids advocated transgender treatment.

It’s worth looking up Jennifer Lahl’s work and “eggsploitation” for some top resources. There’s a great letter signed by Julie Bindel & Gary Powell (a gay activist) making the exact point about how this has been tagged onto LGBT rights.

Surrogacy is always wrong regardless of the sexuality of the commissioning parents. Ayda Field, Nicole Kidman, SJP, looking at you!

Not the consultation, but this is a resource I stumbled across a while ago.

www.stopsurrogacynow.com/gay-rights-and-surrogacy-wrongs-say-no-to-wombs-for-rent/#sthash.wzoJK4xZ.dpbs

It was this little article that clarified my unease with the practice, which had been suppressed by my desire to 'support gay rights'. I hate how it's been framed that way, in retrospect I am disgusted that the banner of rights and fighting homophobia was used to make it palatable to me and I am ashamed of myself for being convinced by that argument. Nobody should have the right to buy a woman's body and her child, and it makes arse all difference whether that person is sexually attracted to her. It would make no difference if it were another woman. It makes no difference. Attraction shouldn't be part of the godsdamned argument. It just isn't relevant.

Sadly I'm not at all surprised by this. I think many of us knew it was in the post.

And the father turned out to have a record in Australia for child sex abuse

Layer upon layer of horror.

WHEN WILL SOMEONE MENTION THE RIGHTS IF THE BABY?

I did a bit of a Google / Google Scholar to see if I could find anything about the psychological/neurological impact on the baby. Nothing. I would not be surprised though if children taken away from their mothers at birth later showed trauma-related symptoms.

With so many children being unnecessarily sterilised, there is going to be more pressure for things like surogacy, along with other problems (such as children being kidnapped in third world countries), for example.

Bowl Baby Gammy - born in Thailand to a Thai mother, paid for by an Australian couple. The Australians took Gammy's twin sister and left him behind because he had Down's Syndrome. iIRC, they'd wanted her to abort Gammy and she'd refused because of her Buddhist beliefs.

International outcry and a fund set up for her to be able to raise Gammy, administered by a charity. As a result of this case the Thai government cracked down on international surrogacy.

And the father turned out to have a record in Australia for child sex abuse.

Here's an article I have posted previously about surrogacy contracts in the US.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20390/

Everything Barracker & Lysistrata said.

Also WHEN WILL SOMEONE MENTION THE RIGHTS IF THE BABY?

Sorry for shouting but it makes me so angry.
The article Barracker posted was all about the mother's rights versus the commissioning parents for instance. Not one single mention of the child's rights. (Apart from the bit about one case where the economic advantages and disadvantages of the competing parents were considered).

Poorly worded the last bit of my post really, but what I was getting is that people desperate for money were donating as much as possible, and many of these donors happened to be people with health problems that were then passed on. So there were other things involved but the paying of donors has been heavily criticised for its part in the scandal. It just isn't right to pay for such things ethically IMO.

Regarding why don't we have put organ donation and blood donation, the blood scandal was supposedly caused by paid donors in the US who's products were used in the UK. A clear example of how paying for such things can backfire.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/03/contaminated-blood-scandal-thousands-haemophiliacs-died-simon-hattenstone

Yes lass it has happened - I’m fairly sure there was a case where twins were born and one had Down syndrome- only one twin was taken by the couple. I seem to remember they were Australians and the surrogate was Thai but I’d need to check before I was sure.

And what is also made glaringly obvious by this case is that this is about class and economic inequality.

Yes, the comment "I would much rather act as a surrogate than go on benefits." upthread illustrates this.

So where can we find the consultation to respond to it?

No, I do not want this to happen. What is going on at the moment with this onslaught towards women's rights? I find it unnerving and disturbing.

This is a really good article, Barracker, and what strikes me is the reference to the way in which the 'moral landscape' has changed since the 1980s. We are now much more comfortable with treating women's bodies as commodities.

And what is also made glaringly obvious by this case is that this is about class and economic inequality. Which will be projected, so that we will get not just economic inequality but also reproductive inequality based on economic inequality. I just don't understand why can't talk about this clearly.

And the language referring to surrogacy reform as making a 'process' less 'cumbersome' seems familiar somehow. Masking very difficult philosophical and moral questions.

www.spiked-online.com/2015/06/01/the-inhumanity-of-britains-surrogacy-laws/

This case horrified me.

Everything Barracker said. This is horrendous.

Isn’t it odd that most right thinking people are horrified by puppy farms but the govt is genuinely condiser making selling babies legal.

Exactly. This particular form of commodification of women's bodies is just as repugnant as prostituting women.

“It can take months before the intended parents become the parents,” he added. “What happens if the child is sick? What happens if invasive surgery has to take place . . . what happens if life support has to be turned off? The intended parents don’t have the legal right at the moment so that creates a problem for the hospital.”

I am not convinced by the morality of or need for surrogacy but this is more pertinent.

Should the parents be allowed to reject a disabled baby? Does that happen in practice? Who decides on postpartum testament? Should a surrogate mother have an absolute right to refuse consent for a parental order?

Legal reformers are looking at whether to change the law so that surrogates can profit from having babies for others.

The Law Commission is consulting on the subject and is to publish proposals in the new year. Sir Nicholas Green, chairman of the independent body, said that the existing laws, which were drawn up more than 30 years ago, were not fit for purpose.

Surrogacy, he said, had increased ten fold in ten years. The main problem was that the law was “quite cumbersome” and often required people to go abroad.

He told The Times that the commission, which is looking at the issue jointly with the Scottish Law Commission, had identified three main areas, one of which was payment.

Sir Nicholas said: “You can have purely altruistic surrogacy where no money passes hands. You can have another form of altruistic surrogacy where compensation or expenses are paid, and that’s what’s allowed in this country. And then you can have a third type of surrogacy based on a commercial arrangement where, for example, a surrogacy agency puts together the intended parents and the surrogate and takes a fee. We don’t have that here.”

He said there were strong views on whether that should be allowed and there did not seem to be a consensus.

The consultation by the commission, independent law reform advisers to the government, is also looking at parental orders, when parentage transfers from the surrogate mother to the new parents. At the moment that process happened after birth and was then subject to “some quite difficult and technical conditions,” Sir Nicholas said, before there was a court order.

“It can take months before the intended parents become the parents,” he added. “What happens if the child is sick? What happens if invasive surgery has to take place . . . what happens if life support has to be turned off? The intended parents don’t have the legal right at the moment so that creates a problem for the hospital.”

Sir Nicholas, 60, who is a judge in the Court of Appeal, sits for one week in four as chairman of the Law Commission, and has succeeded Sir David Bean.

Shouldn’t I be allowed to do what I want with my body?
Yes. You can get pregnant and have full autonomy over your body.

What you can't do is sell a baby that your body created.

There are two sides to a surrogacy contract.
There is no way in hell I will accept the selling and purchasing of humans.

Nor would I ever sanction laws that give men enforceable legal rights over a woman's body and health.

We are racing backwards to legalised slavery, only this time women have swallowed the lie that they've chosen it so it should be celebrated.

There have already been cases in the UK where a toddler has been removed from a mother who loves it because the law deemed the surrogacy contract gave owners rights to the 'commissioning parents'.

No-one can sign away their human rights for a price, nor the rights of a child.

I'm genuinely scared we've moved into an era where ethics have been subsumed under men's rights to legally own women.

Meh, can’t read the full article, so if anyone wants to cut and paste it here...

Can’t see this happening, would be extremely suprised I felt it did as within the surrogacy community we have been consulted with for the past 4 years about our views and how we’d like the law to change in regards to surrogacy. The overwhelming consensus is that we do not want commercial surrogacy in the U.K, or pre birth orders like they have in the us.