The Rumplestiltskin Law

Excellent points ChattyLion

The comparison with being a nanny is absurd.

I think, if you're willing to be a surrogate, you should understand that it's no more your baby than if you're a nanny caring for someone else's child while they're at work.

Is it possible to reduce surrogacy to 'work'? How would the risks in pregnancy be covered by h&s. If a women suffered long term medical problems as a result of being pregnant would she be able to sue her employer?

Please can we go back to the principle of Chestertons fence. This rule of thumb says that you can make changes, but before you rip something down you need to first understand why it was put up like that.

This new proposal, which will be taken very seriously by government, is saying you can enforce handing over a baby in surrogacy (as agreed in writing before birth).... and the surrogate will only have 2-4 weeks to object to that.

Look at section 8.26- 8.32 in the full consultation document: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2019/06/Surrogacy-consultation-paper.pdf

We need to look carefully at the detail to see what is really being proposed. (Which is not really how public consultation on a fundamental rights issue should work- it should be made very easy for any member of the public to respond even to the complex and contentious parts- but that’s for another post)

How many of thousands of posts are there on MN from women who thought they were going to do one thing while they were pregnant, then they had the baby and realised they felt totally differently about doing that thing?

Also only 2-4 weeks to object?
Who of us felt in the first 14 days after giving birth that we were in a position to mount a big legal case against some other, (understandably very disappointed and angry) would-be parents? you must be absolutely joking.

How many thousands of women have posted on MN talking about birth injury, brain fog, exhaustion, looking after their other children alongside the baby being knackering, PND, post natal anxiety, and all these things lasting on for months or even years after birth? Female socialisation to be kind and put up with things, which lasts a bloody lifetime..

And please note, the proposal is not that the surrogate is actually asked by anyone whether she objects (because she has signed away). She must object after the birth in writing to the intended parents and whoever regulates this. And if she doesn’t do so the intended parents just sign saying they have no reason to believe that she objects. How are they in any position to judge this? They don’t even have to speak to her as part of doing this. I’m not suggesting they should do either- they are not judges or doctors or social workers- just that there is a massive conflict of interests in this question.

I believe in defending women’s consent to bodily autonomy. But that autonomy and freely-given informed consent requires women not to have had a huge amount of external pressure on them of other desperate people’s expectations and having a fortnight ago having had a massive physical experience like childbirth which for some women is extremely physically and emotionally devastating to cope with 14 days ago.

How prescient Mary Warnock was back when she chaired the committee on embryology and assisted conception, when she argued against commercial surrogacy on the grounds that it was a form of slavery

How prescient the 19 year old me was too when expressing my objections to IVF in 1978.

See, that scenario just makes me more convinced that surrogacy shouldn’t be allowed, not that the law should be changed so that the pregnant woman has fewer legal rights.

Yes, me too.

"There are many cases where a surrogate has carried a baby in no way gentically theirs but have refused to hand baby over to genetic parents at birth."

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.

I notice that the law commission say at the start of their summary document that the UK government do allow surrogacy, so the principle of whether surrogacy be allowed or not, is not in this consultation.

Yeah, I am kind of sympathetic to the observation that when there are all of these really difficult scenarios and details, not just technically but on principles, it may be an indication that this is not a good area for commercialisation or even unpaid contracts.

That's not an argument from principle obviously, but I think it can be a good approach with law making that if an activity simply can't be managed in a safe or fair or just way, it may be appropriate to disallow the whole activity.

For me, the main issue is that I think it amounts to buying infants.

Don't delude yourself into thinking you're somehow being rational, you're not.

Pinky, what are you on about? Of course everyone has a say in society about women's and children's rights the discussion is not and cannot be limited to the people who are pro-surrogacy.

Leave stem= listen

It’s called perspective lorit, I have mine and you have yours, I can accept that, which seems to be a novelty on this board.

I tend to leave stem to people who have actual knowledge or experience of the subject, not those who express over the top opinions which don’t appear to be formed from anything other than emotional reaction.

typo - can't stake a claim

There is also the issue of mitochondrial DNA passed from the surrogate mother via the placenta. Science is yet to fully understand the entire complexities around genetics, pregnancy and birth.

Who is to say that as science advances a surrogate can stake a claim as a third DNA parent?

I agree with Floral, instead of building more and more complex legislation twisted to fit every scenario just respect the personhood of women and children and don't allow it to be legal to commodify them.

"I'll only listen to people who are part of the problematic system to see what they think"

Not sure you're reading the same thread Pinky

Teen I do think it should be banned completely, including altruistic surrogacy - and I say that as someone suffering from infertility whose friend offered to be a surrogate!

I don't know what could be done about babies already born abroad: from memory there was a major problem when the Nepalese(?) government banned surrogacy and many poor women were left holding babies that they had no way to pay for. Preventing people from "commissioning" babies abroad would be a start, but I'm not sure how that could be done.

I think I’ll listen to voices of those on this post with ACTUAL lived experience of surrogacy who are say that this consultation and its suggestions within would be beneficial to all involved in the process.

But hey, let’s continue talking about taking choices away from women when it comes to deciding about their own bodies and fertility, cause that’s what feminism is - oh wait(!)

I'm against surrogacy, but:

if we changed our mind because the baby was born disabled why should she have the obligation to care for the baby or the dilemma of whether to place the baby for adoption, and not us?

This is surely easily dealt with in the contract - the commissioning parents (this phrases fills me with disgust) can be placed under a legal obligation to care/pay for the baby, without removing rights from the mother (the one who gestated and grew the baby). Or forcing her to view the baby she's creating as a commodity.

I think that if professional surrogates are saying that they want to be able to legally wash their hands of the baby before it's even born, then I also find that personally extremely disturbing.

Also, this whole 'not her baby' - she took 2 cells, and grew a child using them as the starting instructions. Every cell in that baby came from her body. Of course it's her baby.

Flora I wouldn't have a problem with that. My whole argument has been predicated on it being legal, not that I actually like it.

Banning it would be a clear-cut sign in the belief in women's and children's rights. As a cynic, I'd be amazed if it ever happened though!

I always read these threads with the endless complicated scenarios that point out the Gordian knot created by surrogacy, and the pro-surrogacy voices that suggest these scenarios are why we need new legislation to accommodate all these possibilities.

I think we do need new legislation. That clearly and unequivocally closes the door on surrogacy and any notion that it should be legal or right to buy a baby and a woman to grow it in.