Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The Rumplestiltskin Law

470 replies

Barracker · 07/06/2019 14:59

There is a consultation happening regarding surrogacy.

Here is a link to the Law Commission on the subject.

It's key aim is horrifying.
To sever all rights of a woman over the child she has created with her body, the moment she gives birth to it. Presumably, to sever her rights before she gives birth, in fact. To contractually grant someone else ownership of her body and the child within it.

"Creating a new surrogacy pathway that will allow, in many cases, the intended parents to be the legal parents of the child from the moment of birth."

I'm calling it what it is. The Rumplestiltskin Clause.

I'm taking your child, and there's nothing you can do about it. A deal is a deal. Your body is mine. Your human rights were forfeit when you signed the contract.

It's the stuff of nightmarish fairytales.
Rumplestiltskin was not the good guy.

#TheRumplestiltskinLaw

The Rumplestiltskin Law
OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Jennamn · 17/06/2019 21:46

IcedPurple - I get your point. However, as long as you can understand my point too. A mother raises a child, loves the child etc. I don't - I have my own two hooligans to think about and they are more than enough for me. I am happy to love her as my niece and that's all.

IcedPurple · 17/06/2019 21:44

IcedPurple - I'm not. I haven't raised her, I am no longer on the birth certificate.

I never said you were legally her mother.

I said you are biologically her mother. Which you are. Certificates don't alter biology.

Jennamn · 17/06/2019 21:41

IcedPurple - I'm not. I haven't raised her, I am no longer on the birth certificate. I have been estranged from the woman on my birth certificate for almost a decade - she will never be my mother. I have a mother and it's not the one on my BC :)

Jennamn · 17/06/2019 21:39

drspouse - my children aren't her siblings; she wasn't raised with them and sees them as her cousins. I have never ever come across a child born through surrogacy who has taken to it negatively at all. They've seen how desperate their parents were to have them, so much so that another woman carried them. I don't see why people think this is so wrong? We don't do this for money, we do it so that people can experience the love that a child brings. All I think is how amazing that is, but it seems that some people still live in the dark ages!

IcedPurple · 17/06/2019 21:39

I'm not her mother and I do not want to be recognised as that.

You may not want to be recognised as such, but biologically you are most certainly that child's mother.

IcedPurple · 17/06/2019 21:36

I also think that this is where women's rights collide with gay men's rights because gay men and apparently trans people ( who are usually middle class IT guys) too believe they have a right to buy babies from disenfranchised women.

I don't see any collision of rights.

Everyone has the right to bodily autonomy. In the case of women, that includes the right to the baby growing in their body and the baby born of that body.

Nobody - male, female, gay, or staight - has the 'right' to a baby. Certainly not if that means the commodification of women and children.

drspouse · 17/06/2019 21:35

So, you have a link to her.
But given how many IPs talk about surrogates there is NO guarantee that will happen.
Presumably she knows that your other children are her siblings etc.

Jennamn · 17/06/2019 21:26

drspouse - i actually see the little one often. i carried for family and she will always know how she came about :)

Jennamn · 17/06/2019 21:21

ZuttZeVootEeeVro - yes there is a child. A child that is NOT mine. I have not raised her, I have not breastfed/fed her (yes her mother was able to breastfeed), I have not clothed her, loved her, etc etc. It's a good thing that the majority of people aren't narrow minded about surrogacy. The little one will always know how she came about and I will always play a part in her life as her auntie (quite literally as I carried for family), but I'm not her mother and I do not want to be recognised as that. Thanks!

drspouse · 17/06/2019 21:18

The last thing I wanted was to have any parental responsibilities over a child who wouldn't have existed had it not been for my IPs
So what if the child wants a link to their biological mother?
All the evidence from adopted children and donor gamete children is that many, if not most, do want this.
What will you tell them when they are older?

FionaOD56 · 17/06/2019 21:17

One of the many reasons I’m against commercial surrogacy is the risk of exploitation of vulnerable women for financial gain. But in a not-for-profit system, in my experience, it’s a pretty beautiful thing and the women I know who volunteer as surrogates are strong, well informed and certain of their choice

ZuttZeVootEeeVro · 17/06/2019 21:14

Surrogates do not want their names on the birth certificates of the babies they carry; it's not what we set out for.

It's not all about the wants and needs of the adults. There is a child in the middle of all if this with human rights.

FionaOD56 · 17/06/2019 21:12

I think the thing that makes you the parent is the **intention to create/adopt that child and the years spent raising them.

Jennamn · 17/06/2019 21:00

Hello. TRADITIONAL surrogate here! Yes, i used my own eggs! I 100% welcome this change to the law. The last thing I wanted was to have any parental responsibilities over a child who wouldn't have existed had it not been for my IPs. I never have, or ever would, have seen that little one as my child, regardless of where the eggs came from. Surrogates do not want their names on the birth certificates of the babies they carry; it's not what we set out for. I hated the fact that I had to give consent for everything that happened to the baby; vitamin K injections, newborn screening etc - the list goes on. I am NOT that babies parent and never will be. Genetics does not determine a parent.

JoanOfQuarks · 11/06/2019 22:00

FannyCann That is so bleak. And this is the route the UK government is also keen to follow with the proposed Rumplestiltskin law.
A bunch of privileged white men rewriting laws without any reference to the lived experiences of women and children.

I can’t believe the New York law doesn’t even have any regulation on the commissioning purchaser couples. The lack of any safeguarding towards a baby is shocking.

JoanOfQuarks · 11/06/2019 21:48

Chatty lion Thanks for that, so the UN can see that surrogacy is a human rights violation. And the European Parliament officially condemned the practice of surrogacy in December 2015. Two years before the UK launched the first phase of its consultation into commercial surrogacy.

Taken from:
www.cbc-network.org/2015/12/breaking-news-european-parliament-condemns-surrogacy/

In condemning the practice, The European Parliament in Brussels says surrogacy “undermines the human dignity of the woman since her body and its reproductive functions are used as a commodity.” European leaders also consider it an urgent human rights matter and say gestational surrogacy “involves reproductive exploitation and use of the human body for financial or other gain,” especially the bodies “of vulnerable women in developing countries.”

www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2015-0344_EN.html

So strange that the UK government is going the opposite direction to other more enlightened European countries as well against international law in the rush to commodify women and sell babies.

FannyCann · 11/06/2019 20:51

Excellent letter from Gloria Steinem, supporting the campaign to stop New York legalising commercial surrogacy.

www.stopsurrogacynow.com/gloria-steinem-calls-upon-new-york-gov-cuomo-to-not-legalize-commercial-surrogacy/

The bill as it stands includes some horrific provisions. I am speechless. God forbid this should be allowed in the UK.

"In addition, the bill’s only requirement of what it calls the “intended parents” is a 90-day residency in New York State, which is waived if the baby is born in the state. No background checks are required, much less the home visits and attention to psychological and economic stability that are required of adoptive parents.
This means that anyone, from a well-intentioned and loving couple to a sex trafficker or pedophile, could come to New York and enter into a commercial surrogacy contract.
The bill also allows for any woman, from anywhere in the world, to be brought to New York, by anyone, in order to carry a commercialized pregnancy. This carries the big risk of human trafficking for reproductive and other exploitation of both women and children."

ChattyLion · 11/06/2019 20:19

Blush formatting fail
Anyway it does say, specifically it does not agree with the right to a child.

ChattyLion · 11/06/2019 20:17

I came across this from 2018 from the UN (it’s a report to the Office of the high commissioner on human rights), IANAL so my understanding of it is limited, but it looks very interesting. Can any lawyers explain what force this UN report would carry?

This report is arguing for legal reform too, but from a radically different child-focused and woman-focused perspective. It was so unexpected to find this, I feel quite emotional reading it:

www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Children/Pages/

During the 37th session of the Human Rights Council in March 2018, the Special Rapporteur Maud de Boer-Buquicchio presented her thematic report on surrogacy and the sale of children.

Some key recommendations from the report

Adopt clear and comprehensive legislation that prohibits the sale of children, as defined by the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, in the context of surrogacy;
Create safeguards to prevent the sale of children in the context of commercial surrogacy, which should include either the prohibition of commercial surrogacy until and unless properly regulated systems are put in place to ensure that the prohibition on sale of children is upheld, or strict regulation of commercial surrogacy which ensures that the surrogate mother retains parentage and parental responsibility at birth and that all payments made to the surrogate mother are made prior to any legal or physical transfer of the child and are non-reimbursable (except in cases of fraud) and which rejects the enforceability of contractual provisions regarding parentage, parental responsibility, or restricting the rights (e.g. to health and freedom of movement) of the surrogate mother
Create safeguards to prevent the sale of children in the context of altruistic surrogacy, which should include, where altruistic surrogacy is permitted, proper regulation of altruistic surrogacy (e.g. to ensure that all reimbursements and payments to surrogate mothers and intermediaries are reasonable and itemized and are subject to oversight by a court or other competent authority, and that the surrogate mother retains parentage and parental responsibility at birth );
Ensure that in all parentage and parental responsibility decisions involving a surrogacy arrangement, a court or competent authority makes a post-birth best interests of the child determination, which should be the paramount consideration ;
Closely regulate, monitor and limit the financial aspects of all surrogacy arrangements, with a requirement for full disclosure of the financial aspects of all surrogacy arrangements to the court or competent authority reviewing the surrogacy arrangement;
Regulate all intermediaries involved in surrogacy arrangements, in regard to the financial aspects, relevant competencies, use of contractual arrangements, and ethical standards;
Protect the rights of all surrogate-born children, regardless of the legal status of the surrogacy arrangement under national or international law, including by protecting the best interests of the child, protecting rights to identity and to access to origins, and cooperating internationally to avoid statelessness;
Ensure that any international regulation developed in regard to surrogacy, or in regard to legal recognition of parentage in international surrogacy arrangements, focuses on both private international law and public international law, providing in particular for the protection of the rights of the child, of surrogate mothers and of intending parents, and recognizing that there is no “right to a child” in international law;
Encourage other human rights mechanisms, such as the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and United Nations entities to contribute, with further research, to discussions on surrogacy and its impact on the human rights of women and other stakeholders concerned, in order to develop human rights-based norms and standards and prevent abuses and violations.

twicemummy1 · 10/06/2019 23:40

I agree that surrogacy should be banned. Disgusting practice. I also think that this is where women's rights collide with gay men's rights because gay men and apparently trans people ( who are usually middle class IT guys) too believe they have a right to buy babies from disenfranchised women. I remember some large international organization ( could have been Amnesty international, could have been the UN, I can't be bothered to check) declared that it was a "human right" to have a child, meaning single blokes can now claim they have the "right" to own a baby and so on. It's gross on so many levels, and so many actual birth mothers are not given the money and resources they need to raise their children.

JoanOfQuarks · 10/06/2019 23:07

That’s a really powerful description of the brutality of severing a mother from her baby.

How dare a bunch of 6 men decide that this is the fate that British women should be opened up to.

There are so many heart breaking, thought provoking tragic stories linked to on this thread, The stories are so visceral, they’re hard to absorb. It’s the sheer dehumanisation of the individual women and their babies. They are just seen as accessories and chattels.

Haworthia · 10/06/2019 22:54

Great piece by Glosswitch in the New Statesman:

www.newstatesman.com/2019/06/proposed-changes-uk-s-surrogacy-laws-risk-creating-patriarchy-20#amp

I’ll copy & paste an extract:

A more liberal approach to surrogacy is liberating – for some. Biological fatherhood is no longer off-limits for men who are not straight. Biological motherhood becomes a possibility for wealthy women who cannot or do not wish to take on the risks of pregnancy and birth.

But what of less privileged women? Is it truly liberating if your only choice is to specialise? If, instead of being a whore in the bedroom, a maid in the living room, a cook in the kitchen, et cetera, et cetera., you now get to be just one? (Just like in The Handmaid’s Tale – only this time it’s okay because the god is capitalism instead of the boring one from the Bible.)

The proposed changes in law have the potential to exploit economic pressures on potential surrogates and limit the time frame in which these women might reasonably change their minds. They risk re-inscribing rules that dictate who gets to have babies for themselves, and who doesn’t. As such, they could send us back to a far more conservative age, such as the one in which a friend of my mother’s, who gave birth unmarried in the early 1960s, was coerced into giving up her baby for adoption.

This woman still recalls running out of the hospital, through the snow, her slippers soaked, still bleeding, breasts red hot and aching with milk, following the car that took her baby away. She’d changed her mind. It didn’t matter. She didn’t see her daughter again for four decades. However much traditional motherhood is constructed through artifice and sentimentality, the feelings of those who gestate and bear children have been disregarded far too often for us now to insist they can be signed away in advance.

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 10/06/2019 13:04

Lorit great post. Yes, what if the way the comissioning buyers behave around the surrogate in a way which makes her feel they would be bad parents? That's a really good point.

Another good point is the outsourcing of pregnancy for vanity reasons which is abhorrent on so many levels.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 10/06/2019 11:36

I doubt that prospective adoptive parents change their mind that often, but even once is one too many human lives ruined

Traditional adoptions break down surprisingly often. It is a tragedy for the child(ren)-rejected all over again

Children are not commodities