The Rumplestiltskin Law

You are just trying to make us look evil.
And telling women off for "being mean" is really boring. Contribute to the debate and leave your hyperbolic nonsense behind please.

Most people do not enter into surrogacy lightly.
You can't back that statement up. You personally might not take it lightly. You can't speak for all commissioning parents.

Unless by 'success' you mean the commissioning parents get the end product they wanted

How dare you. You are just trying to make us look evil. In my post I clearly outlined my concern for my friend as a potential birthmum and the concerns we had for the baby. Of course "success' would mean that all parties are happy and thriving. I wish to have a baby, I do not wish to have one at the expense of my friend or the baby. Most people do not enter into surrogacy lightly.

@KTara My mother was similar to yours in that she taught me to establish a career first before even thinking about having children. But I knew that my fertility would decline so I had my first baby at 25 just after finishing my master's degree, my second baby at 27. My career went down the pan of course.
I think a lot of "infertility" cases are women simply leaving it too late. Well sorry, you've missed the boat and you don't get to feed off the energies and babies of young women. And in this group include middle class women who "never met the right man" going around saying "well if I can't conceive I can always adopt". No, no you can't. I am suspicious of the reasons a lot of babies are removed from young and poor women and I'm certain that with the right state support these so called unfit mothers could absolutely keep their babies.

@KTara No it's a good discussion to be had , I don't think it's a derail. I've had a lot of experience online of all kinds of people even academics defining feminism as being all sorts of crap. I just wanted to make sure people here were in agreement that surrogacy is a feminist issue.
Of course I admire and respect the women who got us the vote but as I understand it after that happened the women's movement ran out of steam because it took so much for us to get the damn vote. And what we won was the right to vote for men. Now look what we have today, all major political parties don't even think women exist. That's such a coup.
So trying to fit women into the political and economic structures that exist is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. They were designed by and for men and they do not work for us

Thailand banned surrogacy after some western commissioning parents refused to take the baby because it had Downs Syndrome. Can you imagine?! Well done Thailand.
Do the Thais generally go with a laissez-faire approach to medicine until a westerner decides to do something abhorrent then?
They banned genital reassignment surgery after Suzie Green had her son operated on for his 16th birthday didn't they?
Ineedacupofteadesperately of course sadness is not treated with equal reverence. Sad transwoman trumps sad natal woman, we've seen that. It just shows how ridiculous the idea of pandering to the squeakiest wheel is.

ineedacupoftea it is not only that people who don’t have enough money to feed their children are having their benefits cut, it is that should they get pregnant with a third child, they are not eligible for universal credit for that child and then are seeking abortion. The number of abortions have increased following this ruling, particularly amongst older women. The article I read directly made the connection. I am all for women’s choice over abortion, but financial pressures, government policy not to provide benefits for third children, and lack of support for poor families generally mean it is not a real choice in this circumstance. Personally, I find it barbaric that a woman should be in the position of having to ‘choose’ to have an abortion to be able to look after the children she has already got.

However, that is a different point and I do not want to derail the thread. My point is that the state actively discourages women from having more than two children, regardless of how sad they are, if they are not well off.

twicemummy I agree with you about women’s role in reproduction being undervalued. I would say however that many women who fought for the vote did so precisely because they wanted to have a voice in Parliament for ‘women’s issues’ such as maternal and infant welfare. Huge strides were made on this after the First World War, for example with family allowances, antenatal and postnatal care; and after the Second World War, family planning and access to abortion. There was a clear idea of what women needed as mothers, particularly those in straightened circumstances, and that this should be provided by the state - when the NHS started, they had to deal with a huge backlog of gynaecological cases for example.

I am not sure when this changed. Now we have this paradox that there is a huge industry around having a baby (not just motherhood) but no real support unless you can pay for it yourself. I want to say this is a result of neoliberalism but that is only part of it. I was brought up by a second wave feminist mother to believe that my career should absolutely come first and children would ruin my life. So somewhere along the lines there has been a devaluing or child-bearing and rearing in the name of gaining equality in the workplace and financially but I don’t think this was a result of liberal feminism (in its classical sense). I don’t know though and I appreciate this is way off topic.

We've got attempts to introduce commercial surrogacy, the Leeds area where women are being pimped out, the redefinition of women but what seems like every public body, women in NI still with no access to abortion and this crazy idea that you now apparently have to show you didn't consent to being murdered.

So what can we do to stop this?

Does anyone feel that we desperately need a group a bit like Stonewall but better to campaign for the rights of women in the UK?

Excellent post Ineedacupoftea

I believe Britain should follow the example of other civilised countries and ban surrogacy in all circumstances.

There is a problem with those who buy babies abroad and bring them home - I understand this happens in countries like France and Switzerland, both countries that ban surrogacy. Faced with a fait accompli judges tend to take the view that the child's best interests are to remain with the "parents" who have been parenting it up to that point. So they get waved through. I agree with cupoftea, any person bringing a baby from abroad should be prosecuted for people trafficking. Even if, on the face of it, it seems best for the baby to stay with the only parents it has ever known. At least let them get a criminal conviction for people trafficking with a suspended sentence +/- a big fine. Nobody wants that on their record. It would be a real deterrent I believe.

I just can't imagine growing up and finding that my "parents" exploited an impoverished woman from abroad to buy me. Remember the earthquake in Nepal, when Israel sent a chartered flight to evacuate a group of surrogate babies leaving the mothers to their fate. How could one have any respect for people who had treated one's mother like that?

So they were really really really sad about not being able to have a baby , until they weren't. because she didn't birth it herself she simply had no connection to it, that's the long and short of it.

Great post twice, and well done Thailand indeed.

Their really, really real sadness evaporated when it wasn't the RIGHT KIND OF BABY. So, so awful.

Thailand banned surrogacy after some western commissioning parents refused to take the baby because it had Downs Syndrome. Can you imagine?! Well done Thailand.
So they were really really really sad about not being able to have a baby , until they weren't.
because she didn't birth it herself she simply had no connection to it, that's the long and short of it.

How would state or employee benefits or insurance cover or whatever other financial assistance that UK surrogates might currently get that is connected with their maternity.... be affected if those women legally have signed away that they are not the parent of the baby that they have just given birth to?

So whereas now a surrogate could be getting maternity leave and maternity pay from her employers on the basis that she is having a baby then recovering and looking after it...- if we then change the law so she no longer recognised as the mother.. how will that affect her financially?

I also wanted to make something really clear. We've heard some stories where altruistic surrogacy seems to have worked, for the adults involved at least - it may not work out that way for the children of course.

What is being proposed through this consultation is about as far from that lovely situation as you can imagine. We are NOT talking about the situation where one sister carries a baby for another, or lifelong friends or ANY of that. Very, very far from it.

The consultation proposes a number of ways in which the commissioning parents (they use the words 'intended parents' - this is intentional, as is my rejection of this term) can in law retain virtually all of the power and all ownership of the baby. There are a number of different scenarios proposed and every one I've read in detail it's all about how the commissioning parents can be protected. The bits of the consultation I've read seem to rarely if ever consider the human rights or dignity of the surrogate mother or the baby, nor long term consequences, particularly to the baby.

There is some discussion about how currently a lot of people in the UK commission babies from overseas, exploiting women in developing countries. Their solution to this problem seems to be to make surrogacy easier in the UK they say Our primary aim, however, is that our proposed reforms will encourage those wishing to enter into surrogacy arrangements to do so in the UK rather than overseas. However, it will probably still be cheaper to buy babies overseas and if it's easier to subsequently register as parents here, I don't see how this is a disincentive.

There is an alternative.... make surrogacy illegal including buying babies from abroad. If they are brought here, prosecute those who have done it and make it more difficult for them to be registered as parents easily, and also a requirement that the surrogate is included as mother on the birth certificate so the child has the right to know their origins. Personally, I'd like to see surrogacy banned and for people infringing the law, very high fines applied. This would be a disincentive. Some of this money could then go in international aid (could be ring fenced) to help women at risk of exploitation in this way in developing countries.

What is the collective responsibility towards alleviating an individual's sadness? Give them money? Call them she? Sell them a baby? Graft on bigger tits? I try to do the best by people but I don't feel in any way responsible for someone else's happiness.

Great post Flying two points I'd like to add to what you've written
1 - it's only SOME people for whom being really, really sad seems to be a reason for anything. The rich. People who literally do not have enough money to feed their children or pay for electricity are really, really sad and their benefits are being cut and the message seems to be tough shit.
2 - In any form of surrogacy the right of the commissioning parents to not feel really, really sad is being put above the right of the child not to feel really, really sad (and also compromises their right to human dignity and be treated as human rather than commodity - but here just talking about sadness). If the child grows up and is really, really sad that they were bought, and have lifelong depression / anxiety as a result, they're shit out of luck, because they simply can't change that. Why is one deemed more important than the other?

With regard to 1 I would think this is fairly problematic from a legal point of view. If a rich person being really sad is a reason for law change, where does it end....? Slavery, presumably. What if they're really, really sad and need to own human beings and have the power of life and death over them to make them feel better.

I just remember being appalled at how undervalued and downplayed women's role in reproduction was and the only political home that made any sense to me was radical feminism

@KTara I was a liberal feminist until I had my babies and I realized it was totally and utterly unworkable for women's liberation because of our biological differences. Childbirth radicalized me.

Classic liberal feminism was the idea that men and women should have the same rights and opportunities. Thus if women had the vote, access to the professions and employment, then it would level the field for men and women as they would have equality in law.

Choices choicey women exercising their agency sex positive commodifying women feminism is neoliberal feminism not liberal feminism in my opinion as it is market driven.

I feel I can hardly put into words how repugnant and distressing I find surrogacy and the dehumanising commodification of women and babies, so thank you to everyone else for expressing my views so eloquently

I'm interested in the theory behind liberal feminism, Anon992. I've never had the thinking behind it set out by a practitioner. Could you help me out please?

I'm a 2nd wave or radical feminist and I know the underpinnings of that, but liberal feminism is a mystery to me.

There have been some brilliant posts on this thread. And some that are manipulative and disingenuous. Reading them all has certainly clarified my own views. I now believe surrogacy should be banned completely.

We might not be able to do anything about wealthy people buying babies from poor surrogates in poor countries, but at least if it was banned here it would be hard for the wealthy and celebs to portray it as cool and fashionable.

IcedPurple
Yeah it's telling that your admission you don't want kids will be met with "but you don't understaaaaaaaand" and some insinuation that you are somehow a Vulcan unable to appreciate True Sadness(tm) or anything to do with families or children.

There are lots of things that could be done to improve things for women who want to have children. Affordable housing, affordable childcare, flexible further and higher education options, well paying jobs, etc etc and that's before we address any medical issues.
Of course I'm not saying that we stop trying to improve people's lives and we should all "get on with it", I just get sick of grown adults who are unable to see that the mere fact they really really really really really really want something doesn't mean they can just have/do it. Impulse control, delayed gratification, public opinion, personal resilience, they're all dirty words now.
I'd like a giant house, a new car and a beautiful loving sarcastic witty wife please. If you don't provide those things for me I'll be really really really really really really sad.

Funny how that seems ridiculous but a baby or a sex change or use of a prostituted woman or being able to flaunt one's kink in public are A-OK to just demand on threat of sadness.

@FlyingOink

Agreed. I think we should focus on improving medical solutions to infertility, making it easier for women to have children at a younger age (a lot of infertility is down to the woman's age), and perhaps more than anything, stop bringing up women to believe that childlessness is a great calamity which must be solved at any cost.

I'll admit it's easy for me to say all of this as I have never wanted children. But I'd like to think that even if I did and were unable to do so, I would not prioritise my mere wants over another woman's dignity.

@FlyingOink Loved your last post

Which is why I think the only sensible answer is to ban it entirely. Yes, infertility is sad, but you don't have a right to a baby and I think it's quite dangerous to see it as a problem which can - and must - be solved at almost any cost.
Agreed 100%
We shouldn't base laws and healthcare provision on people claiming to be really really really really really really sad.

I get called heartless but I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS at all. Neither should nose jobs or neovaginoplasty. The threats of terrible terrible sadness and possible suicide because of the terrible sadness are just that - threats. It's emotional blackmail.
We're so strongly conditioned to avoid being seen as mean or heartless that anyone who can put on an act of being really really really really really really sad gets whatever they want. It's a terrible message to put out.
Yes there are other debates to be had around fertility and reconstructive surgery and other elective procedures and not everyone wants to be stoical if there's something they can fix.
But sadness isn't justification for anything. Men kill their children and then commit suicide because of sadness. We still see their actions as selfish. Sadness can't be ringfenced and deemed out of bounds for discussion. It's just sadness.
What is the collective responsibility towards alleviating an individual's sadness? Give them money? Call them she? Sell them a baby? Graft on bigger tits?

I try to do the best by people but I don't feel in any way responsible for someone else's happiness. I wonder how we talked ourselves into this situation in the first place. Female socialisation?