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

It seems highly unlikely this woman was fertile.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/23/greek-grandmother-becomes-worlds-oldest-surrogate-mother/

And, yes, I am back, I realise it’s highly inconvenient having an alternative point of view represented but life’s not perfect.

She gave birth at 7.5 months to a 2.6 lb baby via c section. So not a great outcome for either the 67 year old or the baby.

Do you think that's something to be celebrated? I don't.

It was used to prove that surrogates don’t have to be fertile. Because some of you here assert they do. Nobody mentioned celebration except the woman in the article.

I thjnk people have earnt 20k plus by carrying and having a baby for someone else as it’s bloody hard work !

I've never experienced DV or FGM but I still have a massive issue with them.
What a stupid argument.

Stupid comment.....BIG difference is both of those are illegal and crimes against women who don't consent to be treated that way.......surrogacy isn't a crime and isn't done without consent 🤷‍♀️

Guessing from your user name "contraception is my friend" that you don't have/want children....if you want children but can't have them pretty sure you would have different feelings about surrogacy

Pretty sure you've never experienced infertility.....if you had you wouldn't have such a problem with surrogacy

It's this attitude that makes it hugely important that ALL people have a say in this matter.

Women that don't have a horse in the race are looking objectively at what is best for women, children and society. Rather than just seeing surrogacy as their only means to have a child and ignoring what it's best for the wider population.

Women that don't have a horse in the race are looking objectively at what is best for women, children and society. Rather than just seeing surrogacy as their only means to have a child and ignoring what it's best for the wider population.

This. Spot on.

How would banning surrogacy benefit wider society? And that’s a genuine question, by the way.

In fact, I'd go further and say that if you were going to ask one group of women whether surrogacy should be legal or not, I wouldn't ask infertile women I would ask women who have given birth.

I was always fine with surrogacy before having DS but being pregnant completely changed my mind. It's not fair to the baby and it's something that women should never be asked to do for someone else, even if they volunteer.

@Teddypicker1 actually I've just birthed my third. So knowing the Syrians and agony of pregnancy and childbirth surely I'd be more informed on the discussion regarding the risks than those without children.

OK. So compare it to protestation.

Much of that is illegal.
However it's someone's body. So surly they should be able to make whatever choice they want....

Women that don't have a horse in the race are looking objectively at what is best for women, children and society. Rather than just seeing surrogacy as their only means to have a child and ignoring what it's best for the wider population.

ah the old overpopulation bollocks

Thanks but Someone who doesn't want a child doesn't get to tell someone who does what is objectively best for them!

Unless you've been through the heartache of miscarriage, pregnancy and baby loss and infertility you cant possibly understand what would drive someone to pursue surrogacy

In fact, I'd go further and say that if you were going to ask one group of women whether surrogacy should be legal or not, I wouldn't ask infertile women I would ask women who have given birth.

Why? I've given birth and would still support legal surrogacy?

Do you support egg and sperm donation? One could argue it's more unfair on those children given that they are not biologically related to one/both of their parents

More respect for what women go through to bear children and the physical and emotional needs of young babies would benefit society as a whole.

Why? I've given birth and would still support legal surrogacy?

I'm not saying everyone who has given birth would be against surrogacy, but those who have given birth are in a better position to make a well-informed choice and consider the risk to the mother rather than being blinded by a desire for a child.

As above, I don't think it's fair on the child who has bonded with the mother and heard her voice in uteri. I am also concerned that some women feel pressure to become surrogates when a family member or friend experiences infertility. I have a friend who has always been a people pleaser who offered to be a surrogate for a relative, and she confided in me that she was so relieved when it failed.

Do you support egg and sperm donation? One could argue it's more unfair on those children given that they are not biologically related to one/both of their parents

I'm on the fence honestly. Again, I used to think it was fine but having known a couple of people who have grown up not knowing their biological parents (one adopted, one conceived via sperm donor) and I know how much heartache it can cause. I'm sure there was a study a while ago saying that people conceived via donor eggs or sperm were more likely than the rest of the population to want it banned (although I cannot remember if it was a majority or not). But I feel if there was a vote on making it illegal I'd want to give it much further thought.

That’s a bit too woolly for me @SnuggyBuggy, would you be prepared to unpack it a bit?

Well all members of any society go through the baby stage and many through pregnancy and birth. There are many policies that serve both babies and mothers poorly and commercial surrogacy just adds to devaluing mothers and babies.

@MamaOomMowWow
I do think family/friend surrogacy shouldn't be allowed to avoid the pressure element and also it should only go through formal surrogacy group channels however demand outstrips supply so I believe it can be hard to find a surrogate this way

Sperm/egg donation should be much more heavily restricted - from what I've seen at ivf clinics it's very easy - express an interest and go on a list for some to come up. Egg donation certainly isn't altruistic as most clinics either offer your own treatment for free or heavily discounted if you offer to donate your eggs - ivf is so expensive many young women are only able to afford their own treatment if they agree to give up some of their eggs - I do think we will have a generation of confused young people born through donation

But if it's a true altruistic decision, would pp still have a problem with that? I've had my own baby, and in the past did offer to my best friend who was worried she wouldn't be able to carry a baby. The condition was that it be her and her husbands embryo, but I was happy to do it and offered without being asked, there was no pressure and no strings. She's the only person in the world I'd have done it for because I know her backwards and I love her like a sister.

ah the old overpopulation bollocks

I never said anything about overpopulation. When I say wider society I actually mean the wider impact surrogacy has on how woman and children are viewed, the commodification of women and children. How the mother is viewed. How selling your body should not be a viable employment option. That poor woman aren't there to be bought and sold, and that woman should be so kind and caring that they should be expected to put their body and health at risk for others.

It was used to prove that surrogates don’t have to be fertile.

Obviously that is nonsense, your irrelevant example aside. Also, if the women who gestate and birth babies are 'infertile', the whole "you don't understand the pain of infertility" emotional blackmail line has to go, doesn't it?

And, yes, I am back, I realise it’s highly inconvenient having an alternative point of view represented but life’s not perfect.

Personally, I expect and welcome alternative points of view on a discussion board. It would be strange not to have them. What's not so great is someone throwing out accusations and then saying 'I'm not playing anymore!" when you can't back them up.

You say an infertile woman can’t be a surrogate and I provide an example of precisely that and it’s apparently irrelevant. I’ve never used the line you suggest. I’d imagine most women who have had babies have enough empathy to understand than infertility is painful.

If the commodification argument is to be valid, then sperm and egg donors are also commodified. So couples who aren’t able to produce them but the woman is able to undertake pregnancy are also to be denied parenthood.

I don’t buy the wider society argument either. A private arrangement between a couple and another woman affects those three people and their baby. Nobody else. Which brings us back to this being a personal decision which shouldn’t be outlawed by people it doesn’t affect.

I’d imagine most women who have had babies have enough empathy to understand than infertility is painful.

Well, according to your 'argument' there would be no need for infertility to be painful, since apparantly infertile women can be surrogates!

So fertility is irrelevant. According to you.

A private arrangement between a couple and another woman affects those three people and their baby. Nobody else. Which brings us back to this being a personal decision which shouldn’t be outlawed by people it doesn’t affect.

But the baby doesn't have a say and cannot consent. If I understand correctly, this is why surrogacy is outlawed in France - because it breaches the human dignity of the child born of it.

There aren't that many at the moment, but some adults born of surrogacy are very against surrogacy, and feel like they were 'bought' and have serious problems because of it. The rights of the child seem to be completely ignored in this consultation.

That’s an entirely deliberate subversion of what I said. And the other points?

Can we be civilised and lose the aggression, please? It’s a shame to spoil an interesting debate.