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

So women who conceive using donor gametes, are they mothers then? Using your logic AlsoHuman they're not? Or are they? Is motherhood all in the head, which is what you seem to be arguing!?

Agree, the consultation seems to be saying that childless men have more to offer the discussion than women who have been through pregnancy and childbirth.

Frankly childless men are at the bottom of the pile of whose opinions are important in this debate.

If that’s sexist then blame Mother Nature.

I think the core of the problem is the unspoken belief that everyone has a right to their 'own' baby. Even when they are in a same sex male couple. Babies are not commodities, and neither if female fertility.

I have no issue with truly altruistic surrogacy or IVF. I had IVF myself.

Funny how the people opposed to both always tend to have, usually, more than one child themselves conceived without any great difficulty.

I considered surrogacy for money about 10 years ago. Or selling eggs. I was already a out at the top end of the age range they wanted though so left it. I see no problen with women choosing to surrogate eitber for pay or not. I would hapily do it without pay for a close family member.

I really don't see any issue with this being an option and putting a ban on it is dictating what women can and can't do with their bodies too.

@PegasusReturns
Thank you for your defence.
I have been out most of the day and out of phone signal and unable to respond.
@SimonJT came on the thread to accuse me of racism because I used a common phrase which is also the name of a best selling product popular with many Mumsnet users. I had no idea the origins of the phrase harked back to the Slavs trade and neither did @mnhq
Of course Simon could have chosen to message me privately and advise me to request the post be edited, as MNHQ have done for me. Or he could have asked MNHQ to advise me of the mistake. But he chose to make accusations of racism and then go away. He has not made any comments about the topic of the thread, just came on to police women's speech and language. And also, I suggest, to disrupt the thread and insult me in a way that would be seen as acceptable.
Other posters repeated the accusation without even knowing what had been said as MNHQ had kindly edited the post.
I have asked MNHQ to delete every post with an accusation of racism.

As I said and as PegasusReturns said : it is a common phrase. MNHQ were unaware of any problems with the usage. It is the trade name of a popular product that many of you will have in your own home and will probably have seen advertised on Mumsnet.

Funny how the people opposed to both always tend to have, usually, more than one child themselves conceived without any great difficulty

I'd be very interested to see the statistical research on which you base that statement. Not that it matters, but I'm opposed to surrogacy despite having no children and never having wanted any.

And couldn't you turn your argument around and say that those who support IVF or surrogacy are those who, like yourself, have personally benefitted from it?

All the decent countries are banning or have already banned surrogacy. You should never be able to buy and sell babies.

I am completely and utterly infertile and I’m absolutely opposed to all surrogacy.

According to half the posters here, I can’t possibly hold that opinion.

I really don't see any issue with this being an option and putting a ban on it is dictating what women can and can't do with their bodies too.

That's how laws work. There are lots of things women - and men - can't do 'with their bodies'. We can't sell our organs. We can't take certain drugs. We can't ignore Health and Safety legislation in our workplaces.

Not to mention that surrogacy involves the creation of an entirely new, defenceless human being who didn't ask to be created in order to be separated from its mother at birth to satisfy the desires of adults.

@womanaf, I’m your diametric opposite. I have children and strongly support the option of surrogacy. Apparently I can’t have my opinion either!

No alsohuman, that's not what is being said, you have used dehumanising language to explain why you support surrogacy and then claimed we weren't being logical but failed to put forward any real logical points.

We can't sell our organs as that would be exploited. I can't see how this is any different.

I don’t need to make any points, logical or otherwise, I’m not defending a position. My view is quite simply not to have any issue with surrogacy. My brand of feminism doesn’t seek to decree what other women do with their bodies because I don’t agree with them.

Aside from the fact - as has been pointed out to you many times - that this involves the creation of an entirely new and innocent life, does your 'brand of feminism' also agree with women having the 'right' to use heroin or to sell their kidneys?

@CamperVan69 Commercially I think both organ donation and surrogacy are definitely a bad idea but earlier I was thinking about altruistic organ donation versus altruistic surrogacy if it happened in my family.

Scenario A: My son was infertile or gay and my daughter was thinking about being his surrogate. I would very strongly advise my daughter not to do this and my son to refuse such an offer. It feels like the sort of explosive situation that could lead to family members never speaking again if it went wrong and unbearable upset and pain all round.

Scenario B: One of my children needed a kidney transplant and the other was a match. I would be very worried about both children. However assuming the medical stuff checked out (and I wasn't able to do it instead) I wouldn't try to dissuade them from going ahead.

I think the big difference is that despite the pain of infertility people can still go on to live happy and satisfying lives if they don't have children. Not so much so (or for so long) on dialysis.

Oh and there is no potentially confused child at the centre of an altruistic organ donation.

@IcedPurple, I said several hours ago I was out. How about you guys just carry on without me? I’m not going to change my mind.

@IcedPurple, I said several hours ago I was out.

I think that just as we have a different definition of 'mother', we also have a different defintion of 'out.

For me, someone who declares themself 'out' of a discussion doesn't keep coming back for more.

My point was made to a pp who seems to think that it’s fine for a lesbian couple to become parents but would deny that right to a male single sex couple, who have no option other than to involve a surrogate if they want a child genetically related to one of them. To my mind that’s definitely sexist and verges on homophobic

This makes literally no sense. Was it you who asked how this “flies with equality law” at the start of the thread? I can give you the long answer if you like, but the executive summary is: it flies absolutely fine. No one is suggesting lesbians be able to use a surrogate but not gay men.

That might be sexist if it were being suggested. It isn’t. The point being made on this thread is lesbians can have a baby because they don’t need a surrogate (and are therefore not in like circumstances for the purposes of section 13 equality act). The suggestion is no one use a surrogate. Lesbians and gay men are therefore being treated equally, and in terms of indirect discrimination, that can potentially be justified.

If you want to complain about lesbians being able to use donor sperm, the comparison is with being able to use donor eggs, not renting a womb for 9 months.

I actually don’t have a strong view on surrogacy but the idea it is “sexist” not to allow men to commoditise women’s wombs just blows my mind.

YANBU

I strongly disagree with surrogacy. It commodifies female fertility, always poor women’s, in a way I can never believe is morally or ethically right.

I think some people just have to accept they can’t have biological children. I say this as an infertile woman who has had to accept this.

The way I see it is; I am fortunate to have children by choice, but their are those for whom it is not possible.
If their only chance is this and the child is loved and wanted and all concerned are in agreement then so be it.
I see it as none of my business to judge.
We can only truely know if we have been there.
I am more concerned about people getting boob jobs and other cosmetic work on the nhs .( not those who medically need such)

Booboostwo FannyCann now you want to force women into counseling before they make decisions?*
*
Compulsory counselling and legal advice for both surrogates and intended parents is one of the recommendations in the consultation paper. Five Male law commissioners think this is a good idea for the protection of all parties concerned.

Reply to the consultation if you think this is not good advice.

Can't be arsed repeating all the arguments again,so here's another thread discussing the issues with surrogacy, which go beyond the impact on the woman and extend to babies being abandoned due to being disabled,separated from their twin or even having the "parents" asking for their life support to be turned off(spoiler alert..the baby lived).

Couple angry over surrogate DNA mix up - don't want child because of their race. Opinions? http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/inthee_news/3670095-couple-angry-over-surrogate-dna-mix-up-don-t-want-child-because-of-their-race-opinions