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

verging on homophobic

But it's not homophobic is it?! Lesbians can gestate their own baby, men - gay or otherwise - cannot. It's not homophobic to point that out.

But so much easier to throw out accusations that something is "verging on homophobia" like some sort of dog whistle.

If you think purchasing babies is fine then own it. But stop with the accusations of homophobia, sexism and racism.

@PegasusReturns making a lot ps assumptions there. The reason I wouldn’t do commercial surrogacy is because the risks don’t outweigh the potential payment. Not because I am not financially stable (need to find 14k by the end of the month if you must know, should be fine but may not be). Consent is an entirely spectate issue which is already covered by the law. Doctors already have a duty to inform patients of material risks and obtain consent. This has been a part of tort law for quite a while. There is absolutely nothing that legislation can do to prevent this happening in the absence of consent because that already provided for.

I'm astonished by some of the posters on here, a woman doesn't just grow a baby - their bodies literally create ever single cell in its body. It is a gruelling experience that can hurt the mother and leave long lasting effects and even death.

@Alsohuman it’s not homophobia to outlaw all surrogacy. Parenthood isn’t a human right. However it is sexist to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies

Of course men and women have different right! JC if you have an issue with that take it up with evolution!

Isn’t right to a family life a human right?

Thy right is based on children and a family unto that already exists! There is no legal right to have a family

GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit
I think there's two issue though. One is the push in some quarters for commercial surrogacy and the associated issues (which I think many people would probably share concerns). The other is whether surrogacy can be altruistic and does doing something altruistically mean having to make losses in other areas of you life?

Eg when we started the fertility investigations early on, one of my siblings said if it came to it she would be a surrogate. That's altruism and done out of familial love. However, I would never want her to be deprived of things because of her kindness so I would want to pay for her maternity clothing, her antenatal classes, and loss of earnings because they are costs I would have covered if I was pregnant.
Some on here would try to argue that's buying and selling a baby. I would say that's ensuring someone in my family who would have done an extraordinary act of kindness isn't worse off or their kidnness

It would be better, in my opinion, to avoid muddying the waters by confusing (and in some cases deliberately conflating) very different situations

Having a baby isn't a 'right' it's a biological process!

Of course it's not homophobia to outlaw surrogacy! How ridiculous!

Now being weirdly reminded of that scene in the Life of Brian.

"Having a baby isn't a 'right' it's a biological process!"

And? Going through a biological process doesn't make you a loving parent who will look after a child.

I haven't read the entire thread so don't know if this has been covered, but difficult ethical situations must come up with surrogacy. I mean apart from the obvious what if the gestating woman decides she wants to keep the baby, what if it is discovered that the baby has a disability or illness whilst in utero? What if the couple or whoever is getting the baby then decide they don't want a baby with that disability but the pregnant woman does not want an abortion for whatever reason, especially if it comes to light quite late? This must have already happened?

@LolaSmiles of course you are right. And that is how the idea of 'expenses' started. But now they have reached a level where surrogacy has become semi commercialized in this country.

So now rather than trying to work out how we can make surrogacy properly altruistic (and from where we are at the moment we might need to ban expenses or perhaps introduce a family link) we are rushing into commercialisation.

I don't believe altruistic surrogacy doesn't exist but I think it's unusual (especially outside of immediate family) and that the push for commercialisation is due to the imbalance between supply and demand.

Ok @BogglesGoggles

I'm totally confused then. One the one hand you tell people who say women (as a class) shouldn't have the right to sell their babies to "fuck off".

But on the other hand you wouldn't do it because the "risks don't outweigh the payments".

Are you saying you wouldn't do it but it's ok for others?!

And? Going through a biological process doesn't make you a loving parent who will look after a child

Nor does purchasing one. It's hardly best for the infant.

It could easily be the best for the infant. What could be better than loving parents?

@alsohuman

I haven’t accused anyone of racism although MNHQ clearly thinks OP is.

Accusing the OP of racism is really disingenuous.

MNHQ didn't think OP was racist. She used a well known phrase which a poster pointed out had origins in the slave trade.

It also happens to be the name of a popular commercially available product, the likes of which will be found in many a U.K. home, so hardly known as overtly racist.

Yes property, these are my issues too. I just can't buy into the idea of renting a womb and/or expecting someone to undertake a huge physically and emotionally traumatic experience for you.

It’s a disaster to ever monetise women’s fertility

Absolutely.

Plus, the buying and selling of babies can never ever be justified.

It's similar to prostitution in the sense that there are clearly a few women who don't mind earning their living in this way. But most women prefer not to and so to meet demand we get trafficking and exploitation of the vulnerable and drug addicts.

I don't agree that the rights of a few women to make these choices outweigh the rights of many not to be exploited. And in the case of surrogacy the rights of the child have to be considered too.

I value the right of my daughter to vote, to be educated, to pursue a variety of careers, to chose who she marries and to control her own fertility.

I have no interest in campaigning for her right to prostitute herself or be a commercial surrogate.

Alsohuman, how can being taken away from the mother at birth be better for the child? It is established that infant trauma is a common occurance amongst adoptees etc.

Adoption cannot be helped at times but surrogacy is actively doing this on purpose.

Surely if someone offers their body for surrogacy, they are controlling their fertility?

GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit
I agree the current system doesn't work in that it leaves grey areas.
There's a lot of work to be done and a lot for debates to be had. I don't believe commercial surrogacy is the answer eitherm

I just feel very very uncomfortable with the way some women on this thread feel qualified to decide it's never altruistic, it's always wrong, that they are promoting bodily autonomy whilst also being some sort of judge and jury on times it's acceptable for a woman to choose to one pregnant (clearly they have a low view of women's ability to make informed decisions)etc. It's that sort of "I think X so other women lose the right to make an informed decision for their situation" that is quite concerning and damaging, not only for women but also because the debate ends up catering to the extremes of emotive opinion instead of reasonable open debate.