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 wouldn't be allowed to leave hospital with my newborn and sell her for 20k. Why should I be allowed to do that pre birth under the pretence of 'bodily autonomy' and 'expenses'?

SnuggyBuggy

The point they made was surrogacy and IVF should be banned.

Dress it up how you like but selling human beings is not about bodily autonomy. It's a hideous, selfish and exploitative. I understand why you like to kid yourself that it's not but it's frankly barbaric.

Those of us that know anything of altruistic surrogacy know that it can be a wonderful thing, and all the nasty, evocative words that you're throwing in the air won't change that.

Understanding of surrogacy is growing, and it's generally socially acceptable and appreciated as a wonderful gesture from one person to another IME.

A minority of bitter and twisted keyboard warriors on Mumsnet aren't going to change a thing. It's not going to be outlawed, and people will carry on doing it.

Crack on and enjoy yourselves, ladies.

Because it’s your newborn glitch. Most of the time surrogates aren’t the biological parents of the baby. Their just growing it for those who can’t.

Agree with everything @RedSuitcase has posted on this thread.

IVF is the same surely, a small proportion of births, not the cause of overpopulation?

Please do tell us what other personal feelings and opinions you believe should be enshrined in law for the rest of us to abide by

Erm is this not a discussion board designed to be a place where we share our experiences, feelings and opinions on things?

Otherwise why are we here talking to each other ??

Of course the woman who gives birth is the biological parent. She may not be the genetic parent but gestating and birthing a baby is about as biological as it gets. Besides which there are altruistic straight surrogates who use their own eggs, and the birth mother is the legal mother in UK law so it would technically be their newborn regardless of whose eggs are used. So why can I sell my baby pre birth but not post?

@Alsohuman something that every human is going to have to accept before life on earth crumbles before our eyes is that life is not fair. We do not have the right to what we want. I want to be 6 ft tall, I am not. My mum told me to get over it - was she being "shortphpbic". - you seem to have a definition of a phobia for every part of the reality of life on earth which you don't want, well, no one is entitled to anything in life and if you cannot physically have a child, for any reason (particularly if you cannot physically carry a child in your own womb - ie gay male couples) then you do not have a right to your own biological child.

I really despair that this fact is seen as homophobic by you, but we cannot change your level of intellectual discourse so we will just have to let you live in your bubble of homophobia equalling factual discourse and hope the rest of the world eventually realises that all surrogacy is wrong and a culture of individuality and I want therefore I get is not compatible with real life.

I would disagree that it's becoming socially acceptable. Most people are glad it is only for altruistic purposes in the Uk.

People keep saying it's selling human beings still haven't explained to me how a family member volunteering to carry a relative's baby is buying a baby.

I'm pregnant now naturally by the way, not that it particularly matters. I'm just a bit astounded that some people seem to avoid a reasonable 'there are questions and issue with surrogacy and there's a need for safeguards and rigorous debate' and go straight to "it's buying and selling babies... It's always wrong regardless of the situation and so my opinion trumps any woman having the capacity to make an informed choice herself on the issue".

I can’t debate with you because I don’t want to dumb myself down to try and see it from your point of view.

LolaSmiles

Because the concern is that the those who can (ie the rich) will bypass reasonable safeguards to ensure they get what they want.

How do we (society) ensure that all surrogacy is done for altruistic reasons?

That's nice. I'd say the dumb one is the person who thinks selling your organs is just fine but there we are.

It's hard to debate when you deny reality to pander to the wants of adults. So suddenly the woman who has gestated and birthed a baby is not it's mother etc. It's nonsense but is happening more and more with lots of debates- feelings over facts.

And it’s not buying and selling human beings - it was my friends egg and her husbands sperm

No she’s not the mother. The person who loves and wants to raise the baby is the mother. If I changed my mind about the baby I’m carrying now and decided to give him away, I cease being his mother. The person I give him to to raise, love and provide for are the parent.

@Annasgirl, I’m not sure you meant to address me as I haven’t mentioned fairness at all. 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.

That different almosthuman

Nobody had a right to be a parent. Gay men certainly don’t have the right to a woman’s uterus unless she is willing to offer it for them to use. Lesbian women have that right because they have their own uteruses. They also don’t have the right to use anyone else’s unless it is offered for them.

alsohuman *

Lesbians have the means to gestate their own babies, gay men don't. It's not a difficult concept surely.

Because the concern is that the those who can (ie the rich) will bypass reasonable safeguards to ensure they get what they want.
That's a valid concern. It doesn't justify the claims from some that surrogacy is always wrong, that it can never be altruistic, that it's always buying babies, how bodily autonomy means women can choose to get pregnant but only in a way that some on this board approve of (because she couldn't possibly make an informed decision herself).
How do we (society) ensure that all surrogacy is done for altruistic reasons?
And THAT is a useful question and something to consider exploring. It's a much more relevant and useful debate than the same old sanctimonious nonsense that suggests women are incapable of making an informed decision on reproductive issues.

I agree a uterus has to be offered @MonstranceClock. The anti surrogate posters here want to deny women the right to make that offer.

FannyCann now you want to force women into counseling before they make decisions? How about compulsory counseling before terminations then?
There are very few cases where individual liberty is restricted for the greater good as when people with infectuous diseases are treated against their will to prevent them infecting others. What is the greater good in preventing women from acting as surrogates anyway?!

Perhaps you should put some of the energy you are currently putting into feeling affronted into your reasoning instead.

No it's not homophobic, it's biological reality. In that it would apply to a single hetrosexual man too.

Surrogacy is not becoming socially acceptable, it is banned in a whole raft of European countries, because of the ethical and moral problems it poses. This is not a case of keyboard warriors judging people's lives, it's a concern over the exploitation of women and children. Many governments of many countries share our concerns.

If surrogacy becomes truly altruistic there won't be much of it happening.

It certainly won't happen on a large enough scale for all the gay couples and infertile couples that want to have babies.

That's why the push is to commercialise it.