Mark Feehily wants surrogacy to be cheaper and accessible for everyone

[Wouldloveanother]

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11141771/Westlifes-Mark-Feehily-discusses-privileged-expensive-surrogacy-journey-welcome-daughter.html

Why are men so entitled?

The boy was born with Down syndrome and was refused. They wouldn’t take him home.
This is sickening. I'm wonder what those in favour of surrogacy think should happen in situations like this.

Poor children, siblings separated as well as being separated from their mother.

@TheKeatingFive So ask the surrogates what they want changed, ask them what they want instead of speaking for them and wanting to control their bodies. Maybe they want to receive a much larger sum, not as 'pay' but as a gift for the huge thing they have done for someone else. An unconditional gift. Or change society so it isn't a capitalist world where we all have to sell ourselves, maybe that would be better. Non surrogate women speaking for surrogates is disempowering.
@Wouldloveanother Yes, they can in theory do what they want, including giving the baby to genetic parents when they have delivered it.

No, they don’t even have that right now @gnilliwdog . When a surrogate gives birth now they are it’s legal parent, this can then be transferred to the commissioning parents via adoption order but there is a process for that - it’s not a decision the surrogate makes.

there are other circumstances where we try to prevent women getting pregnant; for example women in prison. Even the strongest believers in bodily autonomy recognise that there are extreme circumstances that make curtailing this the safest route.

@Wouldloveanother They make women in prison have abortions? Or do you mean they offer it if wanted?

I have no interest in controlling pregnancies.

I have a lot of interest in the buying and selling of babies.

It isn't controlling to wish to safeguard the welfare of children.

🙄

They don’t allow conjugal visits, that being one of the reasons. Of course they don’t make them have abortions; as you very well know.

You know that if a mother relinquishes her child, the first port of call is the child’s father, right? It doesn’t just become a free for all by social workers.

@Wouldloveanother No, I didn't know about conjugal visits. I misunderstood the word 'curtail' to mean terminations of pregnant women in prison. You are making assumptions.

If you misunderstood it then you’re the one making assumptions…

I do. In the case I posted about above, there’s every chance they would’ve decided the commissioning dad wouldn’t be a suitable parent, given he was living in squalor and was incapable of caring for a baby.

You know that if a mother relinquishes her child, the first port of call is the child’s father, right? It doesn’t just become a free for all by social workers.

But the relinquishing of parental responsibility would involve a social worker, particularly for a newborn baby.

Social workers would absolutely look to place with family first but it is rare and structured process.

Just leaving a child is less rare particularly as a dad but that doesn't cut legal ties.

@calmlakes Yes, that makes sense. There are all sorts of children born into less than ideal circumstances, some are even conceived with the intent to sell them into slavery in very poor countries, or into slavery of forced marriages in sexist societies - where they will be expected to produce children for their husband. I wonder if the outcomes of children sold/gifted to parents who want them is any worse. I do agree with you that this is where I part ways with surrogacy - people can't be for sale. I just wonder what actual surrogates feel about their motivations and experience, rather than others speaking for them. Also, what changes to surrogacy would these women like.

@Wouldloveanother You are telling me I know something when I don't. You are speaking and thinking for me. I am sorry I misunderstood your language, but don't you prefer discussion to everyone agreeing? Isn't the listening to different viewpoints a way to get closer to the issues? If you only want agreement I am happy to leave the thread.

No idea what you’re going on about?

But that happens anyway - any parent who is living in squalor and incapable of caring for a baby is subject to being investigated by social services, and in extremis, having their parental responsibility severed through adoption.

But the point is everyone here is working from the basis that the birth mother is the only person with parental responsibility, and that if she does not wish to care for the child, it should then fall to social services to decide who should raise the child.

That's not how it works. Provided the father is listed on the birth certificate, he has parental responsibility. If the mother does not wish to raise the child, but the father does, that is what will happen. It is not a case that social workers will decide first whether the father is suitable.

Of course social workers can get involved if they have reason to suspect neglect, abuse etc, as they would with any parent. But the starting position is that the father will have parental responsibility and the same (very high) thresholds for removing it apply as they do in any other situation.

So ask the surrogates what they want changed, ask them what they want instead of speaking for them and wanting to control their bodies. Maybe they want to receive a much larger sum, not as 'pay' but as a gift for the huge thing they have done for someone else.

There are some things I believe cannot be meaningfully consented to. And some things that should never be bought and sold, no matter what sums of money we are talking about. If we don't allow women to 'control their bodies' and sell their organs, then we shouldn't allow this either.

Non surrogate women speaking for surrogates is disempowering.

No. Not at all. Some women are not in a position to advocate for themselves unfortunately. You are repeatedly ignoring the huge power differential here and as a result, yours is not an argument made in good faith.

No. If two people have parental responsibility and one of them does not want to raise the child, then the default position is that the other parent can raise them.

It is not a case of social workers intervening to decide whether a father is allowed to raise his own child, and maybe putting him high up the pecking order. There is no role for social workers to deprive a father with parental responsibility, only a court can do that, and for only the same reasons they could remove parental responsibility from any parent (i.e. abuse, neglect etc). Simply being a father through surrogacy does not cut it as a reason to remove a child from their father.

It's bad enough when dc have to be adopted at birth. But to deliberately bring a into this world to be automatically separated from their mother is utterly sad and selfish.
And practically speaking the nhs would not doubt have to sweep up any complications in the U.K. which when it's under so much pressure is immoral to create babies in this manner too, men who have no dc especially don't seem to appreciate the consequences many women have to deal with having given birth. Let alone after having a baby they've grown inside of them for so long. Sure some women seem to get through surrogacy but can they truly ever discuss it easily?!

Do we actually know that surrogates in the UK are disempowered and unable to represent themselves? Is there any evidence to show they are coerced and silenced in this way? It would be good to know, since in the UK it is presented as something women volunteer to do. If that isn't true it implies collusion between healthcare professionals and private individuals on a criminal level. @TheKeatingFive You say surrogates are unable to represent themselves - do you think that is the case in the UK?

No. If two people have parental responsibility and one of them does not want to raise the child, then the default position is that the other parent can raise them.

I understand this, but in that case the other parent still legally retains their parental responsibility.
This sometimes causes problems with passports, moving abroad etc.

I don't believe that most people who want to use surrogacy would want the birth mother to continue to have these legal ties.

This is a fair point.
if the surrogate retained parental responsibility there would be nothing to stop them exercising that at any point or seeking joint care or contact in the future.

Also if you could find a woman prepared to birth and give up a baby for you (espeacilly if it was illegal) Surely it is just as possible, if not easier, to find a woman who wants a child herself who could birth and co-parent with you. In fact I see tons of posts on here from women in their late 30s, early 40s considering having a baby but scared to do it alone. I don’t understand why more people do pursue this co parenting option over simple using a woman’s body and then Wanting to sever all links between that woman and infant.

You don't seem to have any concern about the babies who have been sold by their mothers.

Why is that?

I do and have already expressed that.