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

I'd be interested to know whether those of you who are so against surrogacy have children of your own?

I don't advocate commercial surrogacy at all, but altruistic surrogacy is a beautiful thing.

Where do you get off on telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies? Are you anti-abortion too?

I don't think you can totally ban surrogacy unless you are also prepared to send people who have babies and then have them adopted by someone they know, and the adopters in these cases to jail. Just as anti-abortion legislation often threatens to send women who miscarry to jail.

I know someone who seriously considered being a surrogate for "altruistic" reasons. In her case there was no way she would have been doing it for financial gain (nice house, children at private school).
But if you allow an exception for her - then aren't you discriminating on income levels?

But yes I think these issues are not discussed enough, and the effects on the woman's life and possible long term health consequences are rarely discussed. (And seem to have been totally ignored in a certain Radio Soap opera.)

@GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit so are homosexual couples not allowed to adopt then either in your view? Given that it would "sever the maternal/paternal link"? Or indeed is adoption allowed at all?

Basically we almost have commercial surrogacy already with over inflated expenses payments.

If you read the consultation we are heading straight for full blown commercial surrogacy with enforceable legal contracts to remove babies from their mothers.

Well some surrogacy is altruistic, but I agree that the vast, vast majority isn't and as soon as there is financial benefit, it isn't altruistic.

So male same sex couples aren’t allowed to have children in your world but lesbian couples are @GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit? How does that fly with equality law?

YANBU

Except in a tiny minority of cases - e.g. sisters carrying for their sibling surrogacy is a horrible concepts that feeds of structural inequality.

All of this chat around "expenses being reimbursed to cover being unable to work" is nonsense. Women with careers aren't turning to surrogacy out of the goodness of their hearts.

Woman with few options are becoming surrogates out of desperation and because as a PP put it, it's better than a shit job.

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?

Sorry but yes. The baby is removed from its birth mother, you could have been injured or even died, and it gives people who want to exploit women and children argument to commercialise surrogacy.

@Lockheart well adoption is completely different isn't it? Everyone understands that adoption isn't the ideal situation for a child. It's the best we can do given that the child's parents can't care for it. Of course gay men should be able to adopt if they are the right people for the job. But it's not a solution to being infertile or part of a same sex couple. It's entirely for the benefit of the child and not everyone will be able to take on the challenging role of adoptive parent.

In adoption child hasn't been deliberately created to be sold as with commercial surrogacy.

@Alsohuman babies are not a commodity to be bought and sold. There is nothing "equal" about turning them into such.

@Alsohuman it's just reality that lesbian couples will find it easier to have children that gay men will. There are basic biological differences between men and women that cannot be denied.

Woman with few options are becoming surrogates out of desperation and because as a PP put it, it's better than a shit job.

Based on what evidence? How many of these women have you met?

Because I've met plenty of women who have been surrogates who would passionately disagree with you.

Just to ask again:
the state should control women’s bodies by telling them when to start pregnancies but shouldn’t control women’s bodies by telling them when to end pregnancies. Does anyone defend this position, or does everyone who wants to control the bodies of surrogates, also want to control the bodies of all women?

@Teddypicker1

The baby is removed from its birth mother - But the baby would be handed over to its biological parents.

you could have been injured or even died - Having been lucky enough to have my own child I am fully aware of this, considered the risks and decided I would still do it.

and it gives people who want to exploit women and children argument to commercialise surrogacy - How? Personally I'm against commercial surrogacy.

I don't believe anyone should ask a friend or family member to have a baby for them. I would be outraged if my DDs did it. Why not just be the best aunt?

And it's when you get into the fine details if the questions, especially those relating to payment and compensation that one sees what a terrible imposition it is, to expect another woman to take all this risk for another person.

Pain and inconvenience?
Specifies complications including hypermesis, ectopic, miscarriage, LSCS, Haemorrhage, loss of Fallopian tubes/ovaries or full hysterectomy?
Compensation to surrogate's family for death of surrogate?

Not to mention reduction of payment for miscarriage?

The nature of obstetrics is that bad things can and do unexpectedly happen sadly. Adam Kay's Book "This is going to Hurt" details the disaster that led him to hand in his cards and cease to be a doctor. What should have been a relatively straightforward LSCS (albeit for foetal distress),first time mother, low risk pregnancy , he agreed the SHO could do it with him supervising but when she makes the incision there is blood - lots of it. (Abruption and undiagnosed placenta praevia) The baby dies and the mother has an emergency hysterectomy, it isn't clear if she subsequently dies "the patient goes to intensive care and I am warned to expect the worst".
A husband lost his child, possibly his wife and all hope of future children with her. A doctor gave up on his career.

Should we really ask other women to take these risks? Imagine if that was your friend or sister?

[Edited by MNHQ]

And now someone’s told me men and women are different. If that’s the level of debate, crack on with your puerile, sexist, homophobic nonsense.

@alsohuman you're going to have to explain how pointing out biological sec differences that make it harder for gay men to have children is sexist and/or homophobic

Anyone who is against commercial surrogacy (as many have said they are) should click on the link in the OP to find out how to respond to the consultation.

Otherwise we are going to get it whether we want to or not. I imagine we will become an attractive destination for surrogacy tourism as well. Given that unlike in most places the NHS will pick up the tab for the medical care.

“Why not just be the best aunt?”

What an absolutely horrific thing to say to an infertile woman. I truly hope your daughter never does have to hear that from you.

It’s pretty homophobic and sexist to say lesbian couples can have children but make it impossible for same sex male couples to do so. Biology isn’t a defence for that kind of attitude.

Booboostwo the state is entitled to put in place protections that you personally may feel you don't need for the greater good. At the consultation event I attended it was explained that the new laws will mean women proposing to undergo surrogacy should have counselling and legal advice and so should prospective parents. One hopeful parent put up her hand and said she wouldn't need legal advice as she was a solicitor. A recent surrogate put up her hand and said that she knew perfectly well what she had done thank you and didn't need counselling.

I was frankly shocked. The state is suggesting protections Be put in place for all women but just because they didn't think they needed them they didn't see why these protections should be put in place.

Vulnerable women need protection from coercion whether financial or emotional and it is right that the state should provide that protection. Which is why it should not be seeking to expand surrogacy and introduce commercial surrogacy under the fraudulent idea that it is all kindness and love and no money changes hands except for "expenses".

Thank you so much @GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit and @OrchidInTheSun

Unpopular opinion alert, I think that surrogacy AND IVF should be banned.

The world and the economy are going to shit and the last thing we need is more people, and money and resources being wasted on producing more people. We need to look after the ones we've already got.

I don't agree with commercial surrogate mothering, as it tends to open up too many risks of exploitation.
On the other hand, when it's not done for money, it can be a real gift.
One of my friends was a surrogate for their sibling. It was a wonderful thing to do.
If needed, I'd have been willing to do the same.
It wasn't done for money, it was done out of love.
If you don't like it, don't do it, but you are wrong to try and stop others.

The link for those that want it.

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