Times article on surrogacy

Who does the baby see as its mother when its born?

No, obviously, but if you’re willing to be a surrogate you’re hopefully able to view them as the other couples child. I’m not saying it would be easy but I would do it- to give someone else the chance to be a parent is a pretty good reward.

The lady I know best that has been a surrogate doesn’t regret it at all, she is bonded with the whole family and is happy she made that decision. I think it’s a different story when you start monetising it.

What I can’t get past with surrogacy is that babies are so tiny and so uniquely vulnerable how could any woman carry and give birth to a baby and just hand them over to someone else, it’s hardwired into us to protect our children. The night I had my baby I sat on the hospital ward holding her and asked a midwife to stay with her if I needed the loo because I couldn’t bear to put her in the cot, I could only relax when my husband arrived the next day and I knew he was with her. I would wake in the night to check she was breathing for months after she was born. How can a woman be so detached as to hand a baby over to strangers, all the checks in the world will only tell you an abuser hasn’t been caught yet.

And for the children to know that possibly not one but two women who by any natural law should have loved, cared for and protected them had given them away without a care for their welfare by the time they were less than 24 hours old as if they were a bag of blood being donated.

There had been some reports that the law was being delayed because of concerns from the Department of Justice that it would leave Ireland in breach of a European Union directive on human trafficking.
In a statement, the department said it “does not have concerns about the commencement of the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024 from an anti-human trafficking perspective”.
The statement said it had worked with the Department of Health to ensure the law “has sufficient safeguards to protect the rights of surrogate mothers, including from the threat of human trafficking”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/06/22/i-have-no-rights-to-him-mothers-of-children-through-surrogacy-wait-in-legal-limbo/

I think the brick wall for the viability for surrogacy in the UK is the requirement for a baby to be legally linked to its mother from birth.

I can't see this law changing, and i can see its the stumbling block for the commissioners, who dont want the risk of being left with no baby to take home.

I think the government should really crack down on surrogacy from abroad, which is only going to increase. The government need to protect the children from these foreign arrangements just as much as they do the children born here.

I can't see a way around it other than following countries that have banned foreign arranged surrogacy.

And get rid of the fudge that is commercial surrogacy is illegal, but you can have expenses.

There is, or was, someone else too. Male, had two children via surrogacy with his husband, works for the Times but not a journalist. There was one of those articles about them that also tries to sell the clothes they are photographed in. It might have been in the Sunday Times rather than the Times. I remember it but can't find it now. Comments were heavily moderated too.

Recently I also saw footage of a single man buying a baby.

I find it very hard to discuss or even think about what's happening out there, sometimes.

I always find it sickening that the people commissioning the buying of a baby, deny the importance of the mother and baby bond. The same people deliberately use eggs from one woman and another for the pregnancy and birth, because they do know that there is a bond and hope to break it by losing the genetic link to the child in utero. It’s so inhumane , and completely wrong .

Seeing as commercial surrogacy is illegal in the U.K., and the couples who go abroad are engaging in commercial surrogacy, I really believe they should not be allowed to bring these babies back to the U.K.

Article reads like a troll thread on MN - sounds as if they pitched ‘here’s an article that will stir up 500 angry comments by midday and you can sell that engagement’

This is one of the concerning cases https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14756779/amp/Elderly-couple-70s-parents-surrogate-baby.html

In theory. The trouble is that the alternative is that the baby will be taken into care. There have been cases with older parents where the sws and the courts werent happy but the judge grudgingly allowed it. These people wouldn't be able to adopt.

This seems like an entirely proportionate way to ensure at least some basic safeguarding for the baby. I would hope these processes weed out violent and sex offenders and abusers, at least those with a record, plus people with other factors like alcohol dependence which would make them unsuitable carers.

That's if the surrogate is in the UK and that is rare these days. Most people use surrogates abroad then bring the baby back to the uk as the father is the bio dad and so it's a fait accomplit as the courts won't deny the parent their child and take the baby into care instead.

Or it occurs to him but he gives zero fucks, so long as he gets what he wants.

Interesting that the article is framed to give sympathy to a man. The poor man, his wife almost dies but now is well and the poor man's genetic offspring is stolen by the surrogate. Not the poor woman who had ovarian cancer and has her baby kidnapped by the surrogate.

(I think surrogacy is totally wrong and I think it should be banned, but i just think it's Interesting that that article is framed in a way that there is no compassion for ANY woman. The pesky wife with her defective reproductive system and the pesky surrogate deny the man his birthright of a genetic offspring.)

A Times journalist - Sophie Beresiner - wrote extensively in the paper about her surrogacy. It was reading her articles (usually on a Sunday if I recall) that alerted me to the issue. The comments were tightly moderated and only fawning responses were allowed. Any reservations / criticisms were immediately deleted. Discussed here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3920212-Sophie-Beresiner-The-Times-Baby-Born-from-Surrogate-Mother

Would you happily give away your child at 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years old?

I haven't read the full thread yet (I will later) but a 'fact' in the article jumped out. Kim Cotton did not 'carry an embryo for a couple who couldn't have their own child'. She conceived and gave birth to her own genetic daughter then glibly gave her away to a couple she didn't know, from Scandinavia. She also said that the baby was 'very keepable' (words which have stuck with me ever since) but she handed her over anyway. Money talks.

I did read a few years ago that she was sorry that she'd never heard any more about her daughter from that day. Except she didn't say daughter as that would have spoiled the transactional part. Probably her child still doesn't know her true origins 40 years later as there was no obligation to tell her then.

I wrote to my MP about my misgivings re the proposed relaxing of the law and eventually got a cut and paste ' be kind' email back. I doubt he'd given it a second's thought as he's currently busy campaigning for a new airport in another country thousands of miles away.

I think the current U.K. law treats surrogate pregnancy the same as any other.

The mother is the woman who gives birth. Somebody who can prove they are a genetic parent can apply for a parental order.

Surrogacy agreements are not legally enforceable.

@AnneLovesGilbert you mention someone high up at the Times must have used a surrogate given how many pro articles they have - off the top of my head, News International exec Rebekah Brooks used one.

The risk doesn’t seem to occur to him.

I recently received a link for this site - I barely know where to start with it, but I do know that it is alarming:

Future of Human Reproduction - Lancaster University

Ectogenisis?
In-vitro derived gametes?
Stem cell based embryo models?

Very entertaining case recently where a male couple bought a baby from
a woman and tried to
bring it up insisting it had no mother.

Birth mothers are homophobia personified, the purchasers felt.

This gay-positive thinking was supported by their local authority, who refused the DM access.

Mother and son reunited by family court.

The family court judgment on Bailii is worth a cackle.

The section below about Mr Empathy’s thoughts on this subject (in the second article) was particularly disgusting:

“One of the aspects of surrogacy that intrigues them is the emerging science of epigenetics — how your environment interacts with your genes. By that theory, what happens to the surrogate during pregnancy can be passed to the baby, even if they’re not genetically related. It was why they wanted to find a surrogate who was well supported, so there was a low chance of stress being passed on in the womb.”

So the only reason “the surrogate” should be “well supported” and properly looked after is because of the possible effect on the baby you’re buying. Not because of the effect on her and her family. Charming.