Law Commission consulting on paid surrogacy in the UK

Paid surrogacy simply doesn't fit with the children act in the U.K.
there is no way the law will be changed to remove the automatic PR of the birth mother, or the 6 weeks relinquishment rule.
There is no way that pre birth contracts could ever be enforceable under the children act.
That's such a major, groundbreaking and successful law that it simply won't and can't be messed with in this way.
Nothing can come of this consultation.

"There is a certain element of hypocrisy though in telling gay couples to deal with the fact that they cannot have children naturally when many heterosexual couples would never accept this for themselves and would have IVF,"

Lesbians can have babies if they can get some sperm from somewhere and let's face it, it's hardly a rare thing to come by (pun not intended!". (Although I hear there are issues with this at the moment > for another thread > point that follows stands).

This is not discrimination against gay people - it's a biological fact that women are the ones who grow the babies. The fact that two men need a woman to make a baby and her input is waaaayy more thnan a quick wank is just a fact of life - in the orgininal sense!

Gay men are welcome to have babies with women who are prepared to do so because they want to (not for cash).

I'm not sure about the gestational carrier thing, this seems to involve greater risks for the woman due to teh way it's done, and also really does reduce her to the status of flesh-bag for growing a baby in. It's a very male way of viewing things - that if the egg is not hers then it's nothing to do with her, even as it shares her blood nutrients immune system, is wrapped in her heartbeat hearing her voice etc etc. A very funtional view of something that almost certainly has more to it than just a "bag" >> it's the type of reductive view of our biological functions that belies a deep misogyny. Hardly a new thing, this.

The idea that rich gay men must be provided with poor women to grow their babies (at not insignificant physical and emotional risk) is not a progresive equalities idea, it's a deeply misogynist one.

Thanks i used ... it’s a bit of an ethical minefield isn’t it?

Bowl I believe egg "sharing" is a thing in the uk to reduce costs.
One of the issues donors must consider is that one of their donated eggs may go on to become a live baby for the recipient whilst they themselves may never achieve a viable pregnancy resulting in a "take home" baby.

I think the mother and baby bond is hugely important. But that’s not the same thing as saying mothers must stay home & look after their babies and have as many as possible.

That said I do wish that women could have the realistic option to spend more time with their children as toddlers/pre-schoolers and not lose out financially or career-wise. That’s a whole other thread.

It’s only hypocrisy to say that gay couples shouldn’t have biological children and avail themselves of IVF, if you are doing it yourself. It’s leaving yourself open to charges of homophobia.

But the biological fact remains that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, whether au natural or in a testube and I think we ignore this at our peril.

Nobody has the right to commodity either another human being’s body or to buy and sell children.

There is a reason why commercial organ donation is banned. Though one wonders for how long in this climate?

Yes I take your point PeakPants the genie is out of the bottle. However I don't think that prevents us saying there will be an outright ban on commercial surrogacy or even all surrogacy. That ban applies to gay and straight couples.

Such a ban would have the same effect on male gay couples as it has one heterosexual couples. In both cases the couple does not have a partner who has a functioning womb.

How do people feel about sperm donation and a child growing up not knowing the donor parent? Just interested.

I think the child must have a right to know who the donor is and that there was a donor. Ditto egg donation.

Neither procedure is quite the same as surrogacy though. Sperm donation is risk free physically for the man although obviously there are psychological factors. Egg donation is NOT risk free for the woman. A proportion of eggs donated are the side effects of IVF - some clinics offer a service whereby ‘spare’ eggs are used or women can undergo an extra harvesting to offset cost - that is something I think is also wrong (does that happen in the uk or are all egg donations altruistic?)

Lass I agree to an extent. I do think though that if we say to same sex couples that they must accept that they cannot have a family, we need to ask why we don’t say the same to the heterosexual couples who have round upon round of IVF.

Sorry that was meant to say biological parents of course

There is a certain element of hypocrisy though in telling gay couples to deal with the fact that they cannot have children naturally when many heterosexual couples would never accept this for themselves and would have IVF, often paid for by the state. It’s certainly hard to blame some couples for doing everything they can to become parents

I'm old enough to remember Louise Brown - the first "test tube" baby. It may possibly be the only time my opinion on human sexuality and family life coincided with that of the Vatican's.

I was very uncomfortable then at the idea of everyone who wants a baby must get one- no matter how unatural or expensive the procedure involved was. I'm still of the same view. That is a very unpopular view but well life can be unfair, sometimes some things just have to be borne.

I am conflicted with the stories of donor conceived children. I know couples who have conceived this way and their children are happy and well adjusted. There are also countless stories of children who have issues with their biological parents (myself included). It’s not that simple. Biological link really doesn’t automatically equal good parent so I think it’s easy to look at the donor stories and condemn it without considering the context of the many millions of adult children who have no or limited relationships with their biological children.

I realise that sperm donation is not the same as surrogacy though.

Thanks for the link- I will read the stories. Oh and of course I realise there is a huge difference between IVF and surrogacy. It’s just the way that it’s often flippantly said that these people must simply accept that they cannot have children when many heterosexual couples refuse to accept the same thing. That suggests that perhaps it’s not something that is easily accepted.

You need to search categories for Donor conceived.

Here are some stories from people who were sperm donor conceived Peakpants

anonymousus.org/?s=&cat=4*
*
Also there's a big difference between IVF/fertility assistance and surrogacy - using a random woman for her reproductive services.

There is a certain element of hypocrisy though in telling gay couples to deal with the fact that they cannot have children naturally when many heterosexual couples would never accept this for themselves and would have IVF, often paid for by the state. It’s certainly hard to blame some couples for doing everything they can to become parents.

How do people feel about sperm donation and a child growing up not knowing the donor parent? Just interested.

Following this thread with interest. I have some friends who are pursuing surrogacy. They are quite involved in one of the uk surrogacy networks and go to various events. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to bite my lip when they talk about their surrogacy plans.

Apparently Tom Daley was at one of their events a couple of weeks ago because he is doing a tv show on surrogacy. I don't know if I can bear to watch it.

As above, why is having a child that is biologically yours more important than providing a home for a child without one?

I don't think it's that simple. Adopting a child almost always involves a child with a traumatic history of some kind, even if that "just" means removal from biological mother at birth (which we have seen upthread is damaging to the child). I can understand why someone would prefer having IVF for their own, biological child rather than adopting a child already emotionally damaged.

Not that those children don't deserve a loving home, but only people who feel able to take responsibility for these potential issues should adopt.

I think IVF is not at all like surrogacy as the child remains with its biological mother after birth.

As above, why is having a child that is biologically yours more important than providing a home for a child without one?

But I don’t think fertility treatment should be allowed either.

Can I ask why?

We are animals,
Desire to reproduce own offspring is a fundamental impreative
Bolstered by old ideas about carrying on "lines" (patriarchy)

We can think oursleves out of it but it's a pretty big thing to quash and I think dismissing out of hand the idea of people wanting their own kids as selfish is similar to dismissing ideas that mother/baby (where the mother has grown the baby) relationship might have an additional dimension. And is related probably as well.

We are animals is the bottom line no matter how much we trump ourselves up as super-objective brainy ones detahced from such cocncerns.

How can having a child that is biologically yours be more important than giving a home to a child without one?

Surrogacy is the buying and selling of women and children. The buying of the woman's womb and body, the selling of the babies to wealthier people.
Surrogates in other countries are almost always women in poverty or financial crisis and the new parents are almost always wealthy couples.

Asdf12345 Why don't you think fertility treatment should be allowed?

Whilst there are a surplus of kids for adoption I can’t get behind this. But I don’t think fertility treatment should be allowed either.

It's just misoghyny >>> women as non people that you can use to grow babies in.

I occasionally wonder why this wasn't a dimension in The Matrix . People as batteries, women as battery hatchers.