To make you aware that surrogacy is going to be liberalised

[VestaTilley]

Today, the Law Commission have published their final recommendations to Government, calling for reform of surrogacy laws in the U.K.

The proposed change would make commissioning parents legal parents at birth. That means that the birth mother would never be regarded as the legal parent, nor would she be listed on the birth certificate.

This has been privately lobbied for behind closed doors, away from women and maternity groups for years. The Law Commission consulted in 2019, but never published their responses or said who had fed in to their consultation.

Law firms and surrogacy agencies are rubbing their hands with glee today: I feel physically sick.

They would have you believe surrogacy in this country is “altruistic”. This is not the case. Women can receive upwards of £20,000 per pregnancy in “expenses” - which is a huge financial incentive to a woman if they are from a poor background.

Do we want to live in a society which creates a servant class of women? Which takes babies away from their mothers at birth?

When pregnant we are all advised to bond with our babies, breastfeed if we can and speak to our babies in utero. How does the NHS square this advice with making it legal for a child to never legally have a connection to its own mother?

If you are in anyway concerned about these proposals please, please contact your MP and raise all the noise you can to try and stop this before it is too late:

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/surrogacy-laws-to-be-overhauled-under-new-reforms-benefitting-the-child-surrogate-and-intended-parents/

I strong object to surrogacy anyway but I do have some questions. What does parental rights infer for the intended parents before birth.

Can they object to abortion if the surrogate mother changes her mind? Can they force an abortion if the baby has a disability?

I also can’t see how it can be considered altruistic if the choice for the surrogate mother to change her mind and keep the baby she grew is taken away. It stops being altruistic as soon as she’s no longer able to freely choose.

Maybe it's better if this is regulated more, not less, but only if the rules state that no one is allowed to offer anything more than absolutely minimal expenses to the surrogate Mother. If there wasn't any financial gain to be had then we'd see how many women REALLY wanted to do this. I'm willing to bet that as soon as there was no money in it the number of surrogates would fall like a stone. I'd also like to see the people commissioning a surrogate forced to take the baby on regardless of their health, the babies not perfect but you have to take them anyway, just like a biological parent

Cool cool, that’s such an adult way of deciding serious moral and legal questions, isn’t it. Let’s all set up baby shops then. Do the nicer babies cost more? Do you get a discount if the baby turns out with less marketable characteristics? Or a money back guarantee in case the baby doesn’t work out?

The child doesnt consent to adoption either. Or staying in care. The child has no options.

Just people making decisions.

I've e-mailed mine but she is as "woke" as buggery, so I don't expect much joy.

Adoption processes include a massive assessment of the adoptive parents, what happens with surrogacy? Are SS involved at all? Or is it just a private agreement between the mother and the couple?

If surrogacy is going to be legal then I agree with the new reforms. Without them women can exploit women suffering from infertility by offering to carry their baby taking their money and then deciding to keep the baby. I believe the biological mother of a baby is wherever the egg came from not the womb it was carried in.

I also can’t see how it can be considered altruistic if the choice for the surrogate mother to change her mind and keep the baby she grew is taken away. It stops being altruistic as soon as she’s no longer able to freely choose.

Excellent point @CountZacular

In adoption and care the choices made are in the interest of the baby first and everyone else second. This is a living, breathing human being who already exists and everything is done to ensure the best in the situation available. The adoptive parents will have careful vetting to make sure they are the right choice for this child.

In surrogacy the needs of the intended parents trump everyone else - the woman who is used as a vessel and the baby that’s being created. There are no checks as to whether the intended parents are the right choice for this child - it’s not even a mild consideration.

I also agree. Whether you like it or not, surrogacy is happening - there should be tight regulation of it.

All the emotion posters are expending here is because they are thinking of their babies who they gave birth and would never dream of handing over to someone else. That's fine. You do you. If you disagree so vehemently on surrogacy, then don't be a surrogate. I couldn't do it for any money, but there are women who will.

There must be protections built in somehow - I don't know how, haven't thought about it all that much as it's not going to affect me directly - for the birth mother, for the 'commissioning parents' (it is a business transaction after all) but most of all the baby.

But hang on, no-one checks whether the intended parents are the right choice for a child where there is 'normal', biological conception? You have to have a licence for a dog, but you can have a baby at will.

That's a shit argument tbh.

Are you in the U.K.? Because it’s obvious to us why that is. It’s because we have a welfare system that means women can financially provide for their babies, and decent paid and unpaid maternity leave and rights.

Whereas in countries without these, women, particularly young poor women, can be left with virtually no maternity leave, no job, and quite literally destitute, and so have no other recourse but to give the baby up for adoption. That situation hasn’t been the case in the U.K. (and most of Western Europe) since the early 1970s.

Because it turns out that vanishingly few women actually want to give a baby up when they don’t have to.

I also agree. Whether you like it or not, surrogacy is happening - there should be tight regulation of it.

It would happen a damned sight less if it were illegal.

Can someone post the email they sent so I can copy it

100%

So why do we vet for adoption then? Do you suggest we shouldn’t?

Before having kids I would have thought the same. I struggled with infertility and would have thought it an amazing gift.

But the reality is that babies are designed to bond with those who carry them and vice versa. The reality is that birth and pregnancy injuries can be massive and life changing - and there's no danger money that is enough for that, especially when surrogates will all or nearly all have their own children at home.

There are some good cases, of course, but the risk of harm is so high and especially strong for those with the least privilege.

Adoption is a lesser evil situation, surrogacy is an unnecessary one.

I was actually shouting at the radio this morning. The use of women to carry babies for others for financial reasons is not being even questioned. I was horrified that we are thinking of making this more socially and morally acceptable.

Really?

I believe the biological mother of a baby is wherever the egg came from not the womb it was carried in.

So women really are being reduced to an incubator - no connection to the child they’re carrying, no rights and no recompense if they have a less than positive pregnancy, they’re just a vessel that may or may not function optimally.

A birth certificate is an official record of your birth. Not having the mother who births the baby on it makes it a lie. It will affect so many things. I cannot believe this might happen. It’s completely wrong to do this to a birth certificate

But a surrogate isn't the child's mother.

That's a stupid thing to say. Leave adoption out of it as it's not a comparable scenario.

Parents want baby - they conceive together -v- parents want baby and for whatever reasons the baby they conceive is carried by another woman, no vetting involved.

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the availability. I'm just making the point that all of these parents decide they want a baby, and no-one vets them for suitability.

A birth certificate is a record of someone’s birth. It is their record. Not the parents. This is obscene. It’s taking the right away from a child to know where they came from.

But is it though? If the baby is conceived using a man's sperm and a woman's egg, which are implanted in the surrogate - who are the actual parents? Surely not the surrogate, as the baby has no biological connection to her?

A birth cert records your parentage and your place of birth.