Why is the Guardian promoting surrogacy?

Far left? You jest. They’re pretty much where the Daily Telegraph was 30 years ago.

Exactly. The Guardian is liberal, not left wing.

This is what an actual far left paper has to say about surrogacy.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/selling-babies-should-be-regarded-scandal

The idea that the Guardian is far left is risible. They’re bog standard centrist dad. Hardly calling for the proletariat to own the means of production. Might affect the old SIPP and the kids’ trust fund.

An entertaining case in the High Court last year laid out the reasons why buyers want the law changed so birth parents don’t feature.

The parent buyers - gay couple - wanted to bring their acquired son up without mentioning he had a mother. They said to suggest the child had a biological mother was homophobia.

The local London council agreed with them. The boy’s mother, a previously close friend of 20 years, wanted to rely on the agreement they’d made pre-birth to maintain a relationship. The council sued her for gay hate and tried to remove her rights.

The council and 2Dad lost.

Maternal status and visits were enforced by the judge.

Radio 4 had Cash Cow (clever title) as their Book of the Week last week. Was very interesting.

Another reason is of course that there is a lot of money in baby farming and an increasingly large lobbying effort to grab that cash.

They are lobbying the new PM.

I think also changing the messaging in schools that if you have sex you will get pregnant and you will die
It leads to false expectations about the ease of conception
Also a change in mentality that having children isn’t a right or entitlement.

Or even further, a Jenner/Kardashian-type has a baby for poor infertile Olga who has struggled to get pregnant in Kyiv.

What toast said..⬆️

This is so pro surrogacy it's embarrassing journslism . Maybe tomorrow they will cover the ethical issues?

I was struggling after eight rounds of IVF – then a midwife became my surrogate https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/jul/21/struggling-eight-rounds-ivf-midwife-surrogate?CMP=sharebtnurl8

I really want to see the article where is a GP/ barrister / professor / dentist/ headteacher who loves being pregnant and wants to give other women the chance to become mums and the intended recipient is on a zero hours contract claiming UC
Then, and only then, will I believe in the altruism

Yes. And I think some of their gay male journalists have also traded in babies.

And older women who can't get pregnant. We subscribe to The Times and they have featured several of their female journalists and their surrogacy stories.

Yes. I bet that plenty of their staff went ballistic. Guardian journslists are absolutely the demographic using surrogacy.

Remember how the Guardian staff ganged up on the gender critical journslists like Suzanne Moore and forced them out? They have a lot of power.

If it was human interest, they should be covering an all round perspective: from the child’s point of view, from the grown up child of surrogacy, from the woman’s point of view and from a social worker.

As women, we need to reflect on the fact that having legal right to our own children, and legal status as mothers, is very new in the context of history.

The Victorian women started to fight for mother's rights. They were WARRIORS.

But - we modern women, and of course, children, are in very grave danger now with all this redefining of what the legal terms means and subsequently, what the rights of children are in terms of their rights to their parenthood.

Agree. I don’t believe it’s ever a good idea.

I heard that too @Theonethatmakesmelaugh .

The word "mother" was mentioned once, in legal terms.

Words like "female" or "woman" never got a look in.

The very non-human, mainly functional word "surrogate" was used to cover all the above.

The "poor me, my dreams were not met" from the man interviewed was simply jaw dropping. Surely he should have been happy that the hospital was making sure his daughter was looked after?

Never once did safeguarding or the rights of the child get mentioned, just his rights to his dream.

The lawyer was very slippery in how she got around the idea that poor (women) surrogates give birth for rich foreigners.

The interview really showed how this is all about the rights of rich, entitled people who have precious little concern for anyone, or anything outside of their wants.

I was very disappointed by the interviewer but, in fairness, between her and Evan Davis's right on attitude PM is grim nowadays.

Agree

BBC now at it too - a very pro-surrogacy item this evening on PM on Radio 4. There was an interview with an intended parent who was sad that safeguarding concerns meant he couldn't leave hospital with his baby. There was a mention of the UN Special Rapporteur (and others) viewing surrogacy as exploitative of women but the tone was very definitely in favour of liberalising the law. There was not one mention of the impact on the baby.

I have become increasingly hard line on this and think it should be completely illegal in the UK and that it should be illegal for someone to go abroad to use a surrogate too. Years ago this country criminalised people who go abroad to abuse women and girls. The same approach should be taken to surrogacy.

Lesbians, generally speaking have at least one functioning womb between them so it’s much easier to source a sperm donor.

Gay men on the other hand have no way of having a family without a female being involved.

They have two reasonable options, adopt, or share a child with a close female who is willing to carry the child, and co-parent.

Surrogacy should not be an option and should be outlawed completely, IMHO.

Some people seem to see children as a lifestyle option, something one has to have and own completely.

Some Gay men (usually wealthy), see women as no use to them other than to have their babies.

I’ve been wondering this as well