The Rumplestiltskin Law

Fantastic post at 11:43 IcedPurple. I agree with every word.

Can I also just say adoption is no answer to infertility. We have a mammoth adoption machine exploiting vulnerable women who often have their children removed breaches of financial difficulties, emotional difficulties , who aren't helped . Then they can't get their kids back when they're in a better position because adoption is so final. Plus the obvious fact adoption is an INDUSTRY with crowdfunding for the prospective parents (often conservative , married) but no crowdfunding ever for the woman who is forced to relinquish her child.
Finally on adoption, I would like to say that if a woman waits till thirty then can't conceive she's missed the boat. You have your kids in your twenties if you are worried about fertility. Many fertility problems are literally women who seemed to have left it too late. Tough . If you're past your twenties You don't get to feed on the fertility of the young.

Somebody made a good point earlier. We don't know what percentage of surrogates have used donor eggs. A tiny percentage I should imagine. So even though i argue she's still the mother even if donor eggs were used, the chance that she made the baby with her own eggs are pretty high. Figures would be good.

Agree that example given just proves how surrogacy needs to be fully abolished. Of course the mother should have the say over her child. Of course just because someone else pays for a child, they shouldn’t have a right over that child.

like increasing numbers of countries especially in Europe are now doing.

Sweden, a bastion of progressive policies has fully outlawed surrogacy including altruistic.

And just to bring it back to the children of these purchasing arrangements...

An interview with Jessica Kern discussing her lived experience as the child of a surrogate mother.

vimeo.com/125756487

Another point: The poster above seemed to be advocating surrogacy as some kind of 'cure' for infertility. As we know, infertility is quite common, affecting many thousands of couples in the UK every year. But the number of 'superhero' 'surromums' is tiny because - guess what? - most women don't want to go through pregnancy and birth only to give the child away.

So as things stand, surrogacy can only benefit a tiny minority of couples, most of whom will be of at least average income, if not well above it. Is the poster suggesting that surrogacy become more common as a solution to infertility? So we will need a sector of womanhood to provide breeding services for those who wish to 'commission' them. The breeding classes. Or handmaids, if you like.

Let's say we ban surrogacy as you would like

What happens to the woman who has an eptoic pregnancy which turns into a hysterectomy?

What happens to the woman who as a teenager had an abortion which perforated her uterus leading to complete infertility?

What happens to the 27 year old who goes for a smear test and is given a cervical cancer diagnosis which leads to a full hysterectomy

Do these women then not get to be mothers when there are superhero women out there who want to help them? These are real examples of mammas I know through surrogacy

You can come up with as many different scenarios as you like. These situations may very well be painful for the individuals concerned, but that does not alter my opinion. No- one has an inalienable right to be a parent.

What happens to the surrobubs who would have literally ever been born or existed?

That question is just daft. Nothing happens. These children exist and will live their lives. What on earth are you trying to imply? That we are suggesting euthanasia for them?

What happens to the joy and light they bring to the world
See above. And they will be as lovely or as horrible as any other human on earth.

Btw the cutesy "mammas" and "surrobubs" language is horrible.

The baby is not the surrogates though is it. Its the genetic parents and the surrogate knows what they are agreeing to.

But what of all the occasions where the surrogate mother is the genetic mother, conceived through insemination, not donor eggs and IVF? I have a feeling that this happens more than we think. It’s a darn sight cheaper for a start.

I think that people assume that surrogates are almost always mere “gestational carriers” rather than the birth mother, because somehow that’s easier to digest and rationalise. The baby doesn’t “belong” to the surrogate, so her giving the baby up is totally fine 🤷‍♀️

I wonder what the actual figures are. Is it even possible to collect statistics? Who knows how many private arrangements go on?

You know there’s also a murky world out there where men offer themselves as private, unregulated sperm donors, by post or in person? I suppose it’s perfectly possible that there are all sorts of private “assisted conception” routes that bypass the expense of modern medicine.

Anyway, that’s all a bit garbled. Thinking out loud.

There's a stonking sense of entitlement behind some of these posts.

Combined with vast helpings of emotional blackmail.

Do these women then not get to be mothers when there are superhero women out there who want to help them? These are real examples of mammas I know through surrogacy.

The options if you lose your womb young, have traditionally been, adoption, fostering, stepparenthood, or reconciling to a childfree life.

There's a stonking sense of entitlement behind some of these posts.

Look, I'm sorry if my posts bother you but you chose to join a discussion where most posters are opposed to surrogacy. I'm not going to give in to what seems to be an attempt at emotional blackmail.

Do these women then not get to be mothers when there are superhero women out there who want to help them? These are real examples of mammas I know through surrogacy.

I'm sorry for any woman - or man - who wanted a baby and couldn't have one, but that does not give them the right to commodify women and babies. Your 'argument' is similar to that made by those who claim that disabled men (and theoretically women too, but the argument - surprise surprise - is nearly always for the benefit of men) should have the 'right' to the 'services' of a prostitute. We don't always get what we want in life, and the commodification of other human beings can never be an answer.

What happens to the surrobubs who would have literally ever been born or existed?

The 'surrobubs' - usually known as babies - would not exist and therefore could not feel or know anything. Terrible argument.

@IcedPurple

Your comments cut me like a knife. I said I wouldn't comment further and I am, like a fool but here goes.

Let's say we ban surrogacy as you would like.

What happens to the woman who has an eptoic pregnancy which turns into a hysterectomy?

What happens to the woman who as a teenager had an abortion which perforated her uterus leading to complete infertility?

What happens to the 27 year old who goes for a smear test and is given a cervical cancer diagnosis which leads to a full hysterectomy.

Do these women then not get to be mothers when there are superhero women out there who want to help them? These are real examples of mammas I know through surrogacy.

What happens to the surrobubs who would have literally ever been born or existed?

What happens to the joy and light they bring to the world.

I cannot bring myself to read any more replies as it's just too sad. I am so grateful for surrogacy as without it I would be in a dark dark dark hole still.

I will delete the app now to resist any temptation to reply! X

Surrobubs is just a fun name that's all.

It's not 'fun'. It's demeaning. And even worse is 'surromum'. Why not call her waht she is, the birth mother? I guess because it's easier to deny her connection to the baby she gestated and gave birth to by using a 'fun' name.

It's incorrect that neither of the parents can be genetically connected.

Maybe not now in the UK, but it is certainly allowed in other parts of the world. If we allow changes to be made to 'surro' laws, it may soon be allowed here too.

would not be a surro journey.

Ooh, another cutesy expession, 'surro journey'. I think you mean pregnancy and birth.

It's so obvious how all these 'fun' phrases are used to diminish the birth mother's role in well, creating the child, sorry 'surrobub'.

A baby is born prematurely through surrogacy due to ruptured membranes and requires hospital and the intended parents do not yet have any parental responsibility legally. They therefore are unable to make any medical decision for the child. The surromum has PR and is the one who must make all decisions for the baby regardless of if this is what she wanted or not.

Which is absolutely how it should be. She carried and gave birth to the baby. She must be the one - the only one - to take responsibility for its well-being.

Examples like this just reinforce what an ethical minefield surogacy is and why it should be banned entirely.

I can't see

I hope you can see why shared pre-birth PR is a positive thing

If the relationship remains good between the mother and the IP, I assume that the mother would take the IP opinion on board.

If the relationship breaks down, why give the stress of shared PR to a women who has just given birth?

I can see in this scenario what the mother gains.

Please also remember surrobubs (kiddos born through surrogacy) May read your comments one day including my beautiful little girl and I would never want her to feel a negative way about her arrival into this world x

How disgustingly twee. And suppressive.

I'm so sorry if my post offended you. I genuinely didn't mean to cause any offence. Just to share my experience. I apologise profusely for any offence.

Surrobubs is just a fun name that's all. I honestly didn't mean to guilt trip anyone as you say and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

I appreciate your opinions as painful as some of them are to read.

Could I just correct the record on the below points:

1. It's incorrect that neither of the parents can be genetically connected. Surrogacy law is clear at least one parent must be genetically connected to the child. It would be classed as an adoption if this was found to be the case and would not be a surro journey.

1. It's also incorrect that a surromums rights are being diminished or removed, it's an addition of rights to the intended parents.

Please could I leave you with the following scenario that is a real example currently happening right now:

A baby is born prematurely through surrogacy due to ruptured membranes and requires hospital and the intended parents do not yet have any parental responsibility legally. They therefore are unable to make any medical decision for the child. The surromum has PR and is the one who must make all decisions for the baby regardless of if this is what she wanted or not.

I hope you can see why shared pre-birth PR is a positive thing and how in some cases such as hospital car park handovers, registering at a GP practice, Health Visitor appointments and heaven forbid nicu/hospital stays it would be really helpful.

Again I apologise for any offence I may have inadvertently caused and I won't comment further.

Thank you for reading my comments x

Please also remember surrobubs (kiddos born through surrogacy) May read your comments one day including my beautiful little girl and I would never want her to feel a negative way about her arrival into this world

Surrobubs- ugh.
And your attempt to close discussion by guilt- tripping us into not saying anything nasty about children born via surrogacy won't work. No one has or ever will criticise the children.

It is the parents that we who oppose surrogacy are directing our comments to. Nothing which you have said changes my mind. No one needs surrogacy. There is no inalienable right to be a parent. Just because science can do something doesn't mean it should be done.

Oh, and often only one, and sometimes neither of the 'intended parents' is genetically related to the baby. So when you say the baby belongs to the genetic parents, are you saying that the sperm/ova donors are the 'real' parents?

The surrogate is not forced into the job

Do you consider gestating a baby for 9 months and then giving birth to it to be a 'job'?

The baby is not the surrogates though is it. Its the genetic parents and the surrogate knows what they are agreeing to.

In the UK, legally, the baby belongs to the woman gestating and giving birth to it and she can only relenquish those rights several weeks after birth, if she so chooses. This law seeks to weaken her rights in favour of those who have commissioned the baby. That is what many of us object to.

The baby is not the surrogates though is it. Its the genetic parents and the surrogate knows what they are agreeing to.
The surrogate is not forced into the job

"surrobub" ugh!

Why not just call it a baby? Since that is what it is.

Altruistic surrogacy is the wedge. Altruistic surrogacy still doesn’t take into account the best needs of the baby.

Of course babies are resilient and adopted children can thrive but to create a legal situation where a baby will never have the chance to be with its birth mother, to breast fed, cared for and loved when that mother is alive and well does not seem ethical or moral.

Would anyone say that a baby whose mother died in childbirth was unscathed by this experience? Would anyone celebrate them never getting to be with their mother? If not, then how can the mental jump be made to any situation which forces a mother to abandon her baby either for money or for any other reason.

No one has the right to a child. A child is a human being whose needs need to come above the desires of adults.

Here’s some links from the perspective of child who is a product of a commercial surrogacy payment:

Jessica Kern writes and advocates against surrogacy. She has been left deeply traumatised by her experience as a child who was bought by a rich older couple and abandoned by her biological birth mother.

www.theothersideofsurrogacy.blogspot.com

Another heartbreaking account of what it is like for the baby of this adult transaction:

www.sonofasurrogate.tripod.com

@gemmacandrews That’s beautiful. Congratulations on your sibling xx

It really does strike me that to parents through surrogacy the birth mum is just not given the same status as a birth mum in adoption. Yet they are the same.

If everyone has parental responsibility, how will the surrogate mother be able to change her mind without the same expensive and protracted court case that anyone in dispute over their child’s residence or contact arrangements has to go through? She would not.

I have been reading the consultation document and am struck by the provision about compensation in case of the surrogate dying in the process of bearing the child. What other contract does one enter into where this is a risk?

Plus, no surprise to see that greater consistency and transparency is needed in the Scottish courts reporting system - unrelated to surrogacy, the way this operates is a complete disgrace so it is not surprising to see the issues of inconsistency and costs raised here.

Overall, beyond the many other questions this document raises, it seems that the new arrangements like all areas of family law will make a lot of money for lawyers. Funny that