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

What else would you call her? If she’d had one appalling experience and left it there, she’d have had my total sympathy. She said herself she kept going back for more because she wanted the money.

I don’t see why other people think they get the right to tell other people what they can or can’t do with their reproductive organs.
Do you think we have the right to tell other people what they can or can’t do with their babies?

Apparently not @womanaf. Check out all the Mil threads.

I haven’t seen the documentary in question, but it’s naive to think that there aren’t women who do this purely for the cash. In an industry which is so driven by emotion there is always going to be exploitation on both sides. Both from the parents who are so desperate to have a baby that they will stop at nothing to get one, and the women who are prepared to cash in on that desperation and ramp up the price which the desperate parents are willing to pay.

I would 100% be a surrogate for my sister if needed. She wouldn't even need to ask. And I wouldn't take payment.

Th point is that she was desperate for money. Anyone who is desperate can be exploited and she was. Lets not blame her for being poor.

Do you think we have the right to tell other people what they can or can’t do with their babies?

Ermm we already do? And if the abuse,neglect etc is present and continues then that baby is removed .
You can't simply do whatever you want.

If I’d wanted to give her £30k for that then why shouldn’t I? My money. Her body.

Because in this country we don't buy people. Also you're not just "using" her body. You're buying her baby. No one should have the right to buy or sell a baby. Not the birth mother, nor the genetic parents, or the lovely couple that just desperately want to be parents.

@LochJessMonster thing is, the fact that you would do it altruistically is irrelevant. Fact is that most wouldn’t. And most parents would pay the price for the baby they want, including going abroad to buy a baby from a woman who is desperate for the money if necessary. But equally there are women who absolutely will exploit parents’ desperation for a child. In fact the entire fertility industry is exploitative really, you only have to look at e.g. the cost of IVF etc.

I watched a documentary about surrogacy in India once, where young women Lived in a baby house until they had their babies. Then the rich westerner swooped in and took the baby as soon as it was born while the surrogate went back to her family who she hadn’t seen for nine months.

And the very fact that there are women who would be surrogates because they were desperate for money is good enough reason to ban it. We should never look at surrogacy as a way to earn a living.

Ermm we already do?
I know. And we don’t generally let people sell or give away their babies. I’m not sure why we’d make an exception for surrogacy.

I’m not blaming her for being poor. Being poor would be an excuse the first time, not three after she’d had it go horribly wrong. She used her uterus like an ATM.

@Alsohuman because that's all that was available to her?
You are blaming her for being poor and using what she had to make some money despite knowing how bad it can go.

This is what happens when women,their bodies and babies are for sale. And that's why they shouldn't be.

The fact that someone would go through it 3 times is what should've changed your mind. It's not going to be Mrs. Jones living in Maida Vale who's a lawyer and the husband works in finance that's going to risk her health like that is it?

Your focus is all on her, not the despicable people who took advantage of her and bullied her. Why is that?

How noble,beautiful and sentimental.

www.mother-surrogate.com/mother-or-figure.html

That’s completely illogical. Three times tells me she’s greedy and doesn’t learn from experience. As I said, I was expecting that film to change my mind, it could have done. As it is, it made me feel frustrated and cross.

An interview with a lady that contributed to some of these documentaries

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/23/the-surrogacy-risks-the-media-wont-cover/amp/

My focus is the same as the film’s @MonsteraCheeseplant.

Bloody hell @StockTakeFucks you can only imagine how screwed up those kids will be when they grow up, can’t you? “Well, because mummy didn’t want to lose my figure I paid someone else to give birth to you.” Assuming her work commitments don’t mean she doesn’t actually see these children and instead has a nanny.

Some people are stupid,some people are desperate, some people are naive or easily influenced. It doesn't make them greedy. The greedy ones are the companies making the money off selling babies.

Just look at the countries that promote and allow commercial surrogacy. They're not exactly at the top of the wealthy pile are they? And it's not the mothers that benefit the most from the business.

@NoCauseRebel the even worse thing is that the model used as an example actually suffers from infertility. It took about 3 goes of ivf to have her son, it isn't even about figure and career.

But it shows the fucked up mentality of the people promoting,offering and practicing commercial surrogacy. They obviously will care immensely about the well being and welfare of the mother or baby...

I think @Almosthuman would be a more suitable username based on their comments.

The woman was a waitress her dh a builder who's work was on and off. They had three children to care for. They were doing surrogacy as a way to pay the bills. She wasn't buying fancy cars and handbags with the money.

I can't believe anyone would watch that documentary and come away thinking the surrogate was just a greedy woman.

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

How can that possibly be a reasonable sum for lost earnings, given that most women would go on maternity leave no earlier than a month prior to the birth and then hand the baby over shortly after birth?

Clearly not every woman who becomes a surrogate is being exploited, but the OP's figures indicate that if average costs routinely reach £20k then there are a sizeable proportion of surrogates in this country who are indeed doing it for financial reasons, and therefore the law needs to be tightened to limit the amount that can be paid.

I disagree OP - I think there is such a thing as altruistic surrogacy, as other people who have actually been involved in surrogacy have already pointed out.

I knew it would only take a couple of pages before the 'ban IVF' too would come up (people are so predictable) and to compare having a surrogate for your child in the way we have in this country against buying a new dog is frankly disgusting.

I do not agree with purely commercial surrogacy and I do not think a lot of people do. I do not agree with paying tens or hundred of thousands of pounds to a surrogate nor with the exploitation of women. There is little we can do to stop the exploitation in other countries, short of banning the use of international surrogates who do not have a familiar or close friendship with the parents. Again, would not have a major issue with that.

If anything, I do think there should be some recognition of surrogacy so that it can be regulated. I believe there should be a binding surrogacy contract so that the surrogate cannot change their mind and decide to keep someone else's child (after all the child is not generally genetically theirs). I believe that it should be binding that the parents accept the child (I cannot believe the American cases of some refusing the child). I do not see an issue with payments for expenses, but they could be capped.

There should also be stringent requirements over counselling to ensure that both sides know the implications and make an informed decision to go ahead (as you have with altruistic organ donation).

Those who have said that they could not be a surrogate because they had their own child and could not imagine giving them up are ignoring the fact that the surrogate is not going into it expecting to keep the baby so they have a different outlook. It is not selling babies - the surrogate is not the mother - but the surrogate offering to grow another couple's baby for them.

I had always said that if my sister had needed a surrogate I would have done it in a heartbeat. There are an awful lot of truly altruistic surrogates. My sister never needed one (I ended up being the one with fertility issues) but to have someone try to tell me that I could not would be completely against my rights to do with my body as I choose.

I also love the fact that 14k is not a huge sum. It can be life changing to some people. Normally the ones that do end up doing it,for "altruistic " motives of course.

I believe that it should be binding that the parents accept the child (I cannot believe the American cases of some refusing the child).

So you would force couples that do not want and reject that child to take it home anyways? And that would be a good outcome for the baby? Especially when those babies also tend to be disabled.

What world do some of you live in?
Is there seriously no concern about these babies,their wellbeing, their emotional needs, their quality of life?They're not fucking puppies or shoes. They are human beings .

And you would force a woman that carried,fed,grew and gave life to a baby, that bonded with that baby and loves that baby to give it up? Once again we are talking about human beings here.

This is what happens when we have humans as products,their humanity is stripped and laws are made to protect the consumers and producers.