The Rumplestiltskin Law

It was the King who made her weave straw into gold. The fact she married him and had a baby with him is another matter. Why, oh why would you marry such a man. And why would her father make her go through such an ordeal?

However, Rumplestilsin did the weaving. Was he to be pitied? No. He asked too many demands of her, including her first born. Sure he saved her from the awful fate that awaited her, but he misunderstood her love for her child. And for that he paid the price.

The rumplestiltkin analogy is perfect actually.

The woman in that fairy tale is very much meant to be where are sympathies lie, isn't she?
I wonder if there is anyone who disagrees with that?
Because, when you think about it they had a very clear agreement. She agreed to give rumplestiltkin a baby in return for a whole barn full of gold (and the marriage to royalty that came with it). Then she changed her mind. She found a loop hole and exploited it through subterfuge. She didn't even repay the gold!

What is it that makes her the heroine, instead of a sneaky fickle baby thief? Is it just her genetic link to the baby? Would the fairy tale be better if she was forced to stick to the bargain and hand the child over?

Agreed, it’s not OK to only give very long and complex methods for the public to respond to matters of public interest. It deters a lot of people from responding.

Jennifer That is interesting. Have you links to your documentaries?

Chatty

In this age of politics, I'm not sure how the public can indeed give a partisan view in this 'public consultation'.

I agree with Lass. It's a complicated consultation paper.

Surrogacy should be illegal. End of.

I found it quite a complicated consultation paper. I started it and gave up. And I'm someone who has completely many consultations as part of my work.

I’m not sure how seriously you are asking comparing it to a referendum (and I know not all refs are the same so I couldn't answer that) but the link I posted above shows how they say it will work.

The Law commission will digest the responses it gets from this public consultation, they then report on those plus make their own recommendations to government (in a publicly available report), govt lawyers will draft up new legislation based on the recommendations which will go to Parliament to debate. MPs and I assume the Lords too will then vote on that, making new law in this area. That’s the usual order of things.. but in this age of politics

If she didn't want the baby, why would there be a dilemma about adoption?
Disabled babies and children are not often wanted in adoptions. It takes someone very very special to adopt a disabled child knowing that for the rest of your life/childs life, you have to care for them.The very real possibility of the child dying young and the even worse option (to me) of the adult dying and leaving a disabled child with no one. No idea how the child will be looked after. Will they be put in a childrens home, will it be a nice home, will they be moved around, will family want to look after them. Will anyone care at all.

If you cant guess I put a whole lot of thought into this years ago when I thought I would adopt.

Surrogacy should be illegal. End of.

I empathise with those who are unable to become pregnant or give birth to children. However, renting a womb is never acceptable.

I used to debate with my mother when quite young, the morality of fairy tales. Rumplestilskin was the top of the list of how cruel a man can be. My mum agreed with me and still does that he was a controlling man who gave the queen more and more impossible options to overcome. However, we do love that she got the better of him in the end.

What I would like to know is this. Is public consultation different from a referendum?

This has to stop.

We had a US surrogate die. She was carrying twins for a couple from Spain (surrogacy is illegal there). The twins died too. No regulation would have saved those three lives.

The medical literature is showing good data on how a gestational surrogacy pregnancy is much higher risk than a natural pregnancy.

I hope that is taken into account in the consultation process.

I’ve produced two documentary films on surrogacy and two on egg “donation”. I’m based in California traveling to world speaking out against these medically risky/dangerous practices. No amount of regulations will protect women who serve as surrogates or egg providers. The medical literature is showing good data on how a gestational surrogacy pregnancy is much higher risk than a natural pregnancy.

lorit, yes absolutely. This is a completely public thing, anyone can respond to it. Just go here:

www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/surrogacy/

If you scroll down the page to the ‘next steps’ section it gives you their contact details for you to send them your comments.

The page is open now to take comments and it closes in September.

Maybe we need to have an honest discussion about who are the parents of children. Is it the egg/sperm donor, the women who gives birth, or the people who pay for the IVF treatment.

Do people have a right to know who their parents are?

sure they can't keep their babies.

Not their babies.

Jesus Christ, if giving birth doesn't make you the mum, what does?

I'm just saying if I found out my mum was a surrogate and not my genetic mum, I don't give a shit if she gave birth to me, she stole me.

We're all just vessels now.

“If a lot of surrogate mothers change their minds, that's surely an argument against changing the law to rip newborns from them. It suggests surrogacy can be a really problematic experience. It doesn't tell me that the law should be strengthened to make sure they can't keep their babies.”

Yes this.

Brilliantly written Chatty.

Is there any way to actually comment on the proposals?

The more I read this, the more I feel that surrogacy is wrong & should be outlawed, not try to find more and more ways to deal with the myriad of complications. Women's bodies should not be for sale / rent & babies are not commodities.

If, on the premise of it being legal, then there is no way that the rights of the woman should be taken away, including the right to keep the baby should she so decide. Women must have full bodily autonomy otherwise where does it end? Slippery slope if it's anything else - should she be forced to go through with the pregnancy even if it's detrimental to her health? Would the surrogate parents have the right to tell her what to eat / do throughout the pregnancy, including abortion for any reason?

Really wish they would ban it altogether - women's bodies are not for rent & babies aren't commodities.

Flo

imagine having gone through all the emotional commitment and expense of finding a surrogate

Christ this gave me the shivers. It's the language of contracts and ownership. "We've spent ages arranging this deal and now you back out!"

I suppose they could sue for the inconvenience. is this covered by the consultation

Well hats off to all those nannies who spend nine months growing a baby in their bodies and then push it out, at no small risk to their own health. I had no idea.