To say there is no such thing as "altruistic" surrogacy?

[FannyCann]

To say there is no such thing as altruistic surrogacy and that this fiction is a massive state sponsored fraud?

The Law Commission has a Consultation to review surrogacy laws in the UK and you have til 11th October to respond.

There are 16 questions relating to payment, but they find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Admit women are paid for this “service” and recommend full commercial surrogacy puts the UK on a par with countries such as Uganda, the Ukraine and Russia. The UN Special Rapporteur links commercial surrogacy with the sale of babies. So of course we don’t do that in the UK. Oh no. We have “altruistic” surrogacy here. Surrogates are merely recompensed for expenses incurred as a result of the pregnancy, plus the odd “gift”.
So altruistic that from the Law Commioners own research into payments surrogates have been receiving, the median payment was £14,795.54 and 9.61% were paid more than £20,000.

Payments were claimed for things like takeaway meals and cleaners.

This is clearly State Sponsored Fraud. I challenge anyone to produce receipts to prove their pregnancy cost them £20,000

I also suggest that this puts surrogates in a tricky situation should HMRC or the benefits office ever take an interest in the origin of that £20k. It is very wrong for the law to encourage this fraud.

I ask you to look at the background and if you want to have a say into whether commercial surrogacy should be allowed in the UK please respond.

Here is a link to the Nordic Model Now template which you can download and use to respond in ten minutes.

https://nordicmodelnow.org/2019/08/30/how-to-respond-to-the-uk-surrogacy-consultation-in-10-easy-minutes//_

You can find moe background and discussion of the Consultation on this thread.

Building families through surrogacy: A new Law - Consultation
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3649812-building-families-through-surrogacy-a-new-law-consultation

Furthermore the Law Commissioners recognise what I recently pointed out. Many people have a commercial interest in surrogacy and this will increase if their recommendations are passed into law. Lots of lawyers of course, IVF clinics, surrogacy agencies, advertisers. And yet the surrogate, on whom the whole edifice is built, is expected to go through pregnancy and childbirth for love. Plus a few expenses.

14.54 It is notable that other people involved in surrogacy receive payment for their contribution. Lawyers and medical staff receive their professional fees, while private fertility clinics, for example, operate on a commercial basis. Indeed, it seems that the role of surrogate – a role uniquely played by women42 – is the only one that the law prohibits from being recognised by receipt of payment. It may therefore be argued that not permitting payments undervalues the role of the surrogate:

14.55 It may be suggested, therefore, that not permitting surrogates to receive payment is a form of exploitation: surrogates are uniquely deprived of the choice whether to be paid for the service that they provide. This lack of choice is linked by some commentators to long-standing denigration of the economic value of women’s work.44

I'm not too sure what your point is. Would you like a total ban on any kind of payment for surrogacy? This seems rather unfair as some surrogates will incur costs. I would imagine that someone with HG, for example, might find it impossible to work for most of the pregnancy, why shouldn't that person be reimbursed in some way?

Are people using the existing law to make exaggerated payments? Sure but why is that a bad thing?

But we know actual altruistic surrogates. It does happen.

I still don't love surrogacy as a general idea and think it's ripe for abuse, however it doesn't help to say that surrogacy is only a fraud.

I would like a total ban on surrogacy. My point is that the recommendations for new law are looking to bring in a fully commercial model with agencies and advertising and many other players who will get paid, but meanwhile denying, in law that this is commercial because actually, you see, it's totally altruistic. The surrogates don't get paid.

How would you feel about a friend asking to stay at your house while you were away and when you come back you find they have let it out on air bnb and made themselves a tidy sum?

To have so many commercial interests in the process but not pay the surrogate is exploitation. And to pay the surrogate a substantial sum and pretend it was for expenses is fraud.

YABU.

Why does surrogacy bother you? Have you had a bad experience?

It bothers me because until rich women start having babies for poor women it is always economic exploitation. Not to mention bartering and buying of babies.

Take a look at how it's going in the Ukraine and ask if this is what you want in the UK.

I would think anyone who would consider surrogacy must actually get something out of being pregnant and giving birth? It must make them feel good, so it can’t be totally altruistic?

Thanks for this Fanny. I am staggered by those expenses figures and can totally see who attractive those sums would be to women living in poverty (of which there are increasing numbers in the U.K.).

I would absolutely be behind the U.K. taking the same stance as the rest of Europe in recognising that surrogacy is effectively selling babies and introducing a total ban.

Unfortunately I suspect a more commercial approach to surrogacy fits very neatly with the tories' enthusiasm for a more free market economy.

I wonder who will pick up the tab for looking after the babies who are inevitably rejected for their disabilities?

Surrogacy is wrong no matter how its done. The baby can't concent. Women can't know what effect the pregnancy will have on them.

All surrogacy needs to be banned. I'm sorry some people can't have children. But that doesn't make it OK to farm women and sell babies.

If there was a total ban on payments for surrogacy, even for 'expenses', then the only surrogacy would be truly altruistic - a sister carrying a baby for her sister without any expectation of financial compensation.

YABVU. £14,000 surely covers missed earnings while pregnant/post partum recovering? It's not a huge sum.

Unless you are banning capitalism then there will always be economic exploitation? I would rather be pregnant than work a shit job tbh!

I would rather be pregnant than work a shit job tbh!

What if that pregnancy led to a prolapse making sex painful for life, and life time anal incontinence. Would you still rather be a surrogate than work a shitty job.

I would worry that it would be an alternative to working by the government. You turn up for your job coaching session, they tell you to go to a clinic to be a surrogate. (Ok that won’t happen exactly like that, but it may be presented as a form of work for women to consider)

It’s a disaster to ever monetise women’s fertility

I would rather be pregnant than work a shit job tbh!

And that's why surrogacy should be outlawed. Because there will always be women desperate enough to put their health at risk for £15k

Surrogacy is wrong no matter how its done.

Really? I offered to carry my sister-in-law's embryo as she didn't seem able carry to term (4 fails). Is that bad?

yanbu
I am against selling babies surrogacy.

Where does not linking money and fertility stop? No ivf clinics? Can you imagine the outcry among women who can’t conceive any other way? No children for male same sex couples? Outrage at homophobia.

The genie’s out of the bottle, it can’t be put back.

I will be filling the the consultation as suggested in your link. They are planning to bring in commercial surrogacy and it will be a disaster for the rights of women and children.

There is a bit in the consultation where they suggest no upper limit for the number of surrogate pregnancies a woman can carry.

And the suggested response points out that even the kennel club has a limit for the number of litters of puppies a dog can have.

My childhood friend was born with no womb.

I was her surrogate, she now has a beautiful family.

What’s actually wrong with that?

A question for those of you against surrogacy, commercial or otherwise, you are happy for the state to tell women what to do (or not to do) with their bodies, does that extend to other areas? Terminations? What women wear (from burkas to free the nipple)?

Surrogacy is wrong no matter how its done. The baby can't concent

No baby ever consents to being born!

Of course surrogacy can be altruistic- eg carrying a child for a family member!

YABU. Until they were successful in adopting, I was on standby to possibly be the surrogate for my best friend.

The only thing we agreed on is that once on maternity leave I'd move in with them for a few weeks either side of the birth so they could wait on me

No "selling babies" or "farming" involved thank you very much. They asked, I thought about it for a while, I agreed.

@AlsoHuman two men can't have children. It's not homophobia to say this. It's just reality.

All surrogacy does is create a legal fiction which severs the maternal link to the detriment of both mother and child.

Gay men could have children by co-parenting with the mother. Then the child would have both a mother and father.