Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Why is the Guardian promoting surrogacy?

66 replies

ThedaBara · 21/07/2026 15:34

Have seen 3 or 4 articles in the Guardian this week about how easy and positive surrogacy is and how the government should change laws to make it easier for people to do in the UK. They are one of the news sites without comments under their articles so I'm curious what might have prompted this.
One of the pieces had a chart showing where most surrogacies take place, and top of it was the US, where the price was 250,000, followed by a lot of developing countries.
The UK law requires the biological parents to apply for parental rights, which is apparently annoying and time consuming. Am really shocked by the biased reporting on this

OP posts:
OldCrone · 21/07/2026 17:01

user293948849167 · 21/07/2026 15:51

They’re a misogynistic far left paper disguised as being middle class liberal

Haven’t read the guardian for the last 3-4 years

It's a misogynistic middle class liberal paper which pretends to be left wing and support the working class. In fact it's only concerned with the well-off middle class people who read the paper, some of whom might be interested in buying a baby.

Original poster
ThedaBara · 21/07/2026 16:53

SadiraOfTyr · 21/07/2026 15:46

Read a few of the articles. I don’t think they were particularly promoting surrogacy - seemed more like straight human interest journalism to me. I don’t see any opinion pieces or editorials stating a position either way.

The articles i read were calling for change in legislation to make it easier to register parental responsibility for a child born overseas. And there was an article today from a first person perspective gushing about how 'perfect' the experience of having someone else carry a baby and then give it to you was. I didn't see anything about how much higher risk surrogate pregnancies are for the woman and the baby. Or what happens when a disabled child is born overseas and the bio parents get to walk away as they aren't listed as parents yet - which has happened multiple times.
The whole tone struck me as - if you would like to buy a baby this is what it will cost.

OP posts:
WorkingItOutAsIGo · 21/07/2026 16:32

I imagine that the Guardian has more than its fair share of gay male staff for whom surrogacy is seen as a desirable option, so they use the pages of the paper to promote their own interests.

SadiraOfTyr · 21/07/2026 16:31

Arran2024 · 21/07/2026 16:22

They ran two articles yesterday, which i thought were relatively well balanced. But today they have run a new one which is much less balanced - nothing much about the opposition arguments, whereas they were covered yesterday eg husbands forcing their wives to be surrogates.

I suspect their staff got very upset yesterday, forcing the paper to run something more to their liking!

Compare yesterday's article (this one) with yesterday's (below)
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/jul/19/rise-overseas-surrogates-increases-risk-stateless-babies-experts-warn

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/jul/21/uk-surrogacy-law-creaking-at-seams-as-demand-rises-sharply

Show quote history

You think that the staff got upset about an article, forcing the editor to commission an overnight article that showed less balance than the previous article from the same journalists?

Ok then.

Arran2024 · 21/07/2026 16:22

SadiraOfTyr · 21/07/2026 15:46

Read a few of the articles. I don’t think they were particularly promoting surrogacy - seemed more like straight human interest journalism to me. I don’t see any opinion pieces or editorials stating a position either way.

They ran two articles yesterday, which i thought were relatively well balanced. But today they have run a new one which is much less balanced - nothing much about the opposition arguments, whereas they were covered yesterday eg husbands forcing their wives to be surrogates.

I suspect their staff got very upset yesterday, forcing the paper to run something more to their liking!

Compare yesterday's article (this one) with yesterday's (below)
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/jul/19/rise-overseas-surrogates-increases-risk-stateless-babies-experts-warn

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/jul/21/uk-surrogacy-law-creaking-at-seams-as-demand-rises-sharply

Rise in overseas surrogates ‘increases risk of stateless babies’

Calls grow for global regulation as rising numbers of westerners use surrogates in countries with different laws

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/jul/19/rise-overseas-surrogates-increases-risk-stateless-babies-experts-warn

ProfessorBinturong · 21/07/2026 16:16

user293948849167 · 21/07/2026 15:51

They’re a misogynistic far left paper disguised as being middle class liberal

Haven’t read the guardian for the last 3-4 years

Far left? They're barely centre left.

Fully agree with you on the misogyny though.

Gerri1992 · 21/07/2026 15:58

I noticed this too. Multiple of the pieces quote from parents who used the same surrogacy agency, so I'm wondering if that agency is run by someone related to a guardian editor or has paid for a lot of PR pieces to go out.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/07/2026 15:52

ToastSafeFromMothsAndDogs · 21/07/2026 15:43

Because they are a misogynist shitrag.

In a nutshell.

user293948849167 · 21/07/2026 15:51

They’re a misogynistic far left paper disguised as being middle class liberal

Haven’t read the guardian for the last 3-4 years

Lottapianos · 21/07/2026 15:46

AudHvamm · 21/07/2026 15:44

I was wondering exactly the same thing! My thoughts were either it's Surrogacy Awareness Week (I don't actually know if that exists) or there's a debate, review or briefing coming up in the near future.

Yes I've been noticing this pattern too. Are they realising that gender ideology is going down the tubes fast, and surrogacy is their new bandwagon?

SadiraOfTyr · 21/07/2026 15:46

Read a few of the articles. I don’t think they were particularly promoting surrogacy - seemed more like straight human interest journalism to me. I don’t see any opinion pieces or editorials stating a position either way.

MoistVonL · 21/07/2026 15:44

ToastSafeFromMothsAndDogs · 21/07/2026 15:43

Because they are a misogynist shitrag.

Yes.

AudHvamm · 21/07/2026 15:44

I was wondering exactly the same thing! My thoughts were either it's Surrogacy Awareness Week (I don't actually know if that exists) or there's a debate, review or briefing coming up in the near future.

Lookingforwardtothedark · 21/07/2026 15:43

Not read the article, but I'd imagine that as a progressive left organisation it is primarily concerned with the 'rights' of middle class people, has little interest in the rights of poor women such as those that will be the carriers of the unborn of the wealthier classes, and favours the rights of adults over children. And that it has not examined its own thinking and position closely enough to realise this about itself. Like anyone of the progressive left.

ToastSafeFromMothsAndDogs · 21/07/2026 15:43

Because they are a misogynist shitrag.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread