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/

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

This ^

But where did they come from? Their biological parents, whose DNA runs through them?

Surely not the surrogate, as the baby has no biological connection to her?

It does though! Mothers aren’t incubators. It’s not how the human body works. Imagine if the parents never tell the child, they could grow up never knowing their own birth story.

The proposed reforms are for the surrogate to continue to have complete autonomy during pregnancy - including the right to make any abortion, screening or birth decisions.

As I understand the proposals, if the surrogate were to change her mind during the pregnancy and decide she wanted to keep the baby then she effectively withdraws her consent to the surrogacy agreement, meaning there may have to be a legal process to determine what happens next (which is always determined by the best interests of the child).

In reality I know many surrogates none of whom have changed their mind. If we wanted (more of) our own children we would have had them, not offered to carry somebody else’s. Proper regulation of surrogacy including counselling and screening for all parties to the surrogacy agreement should reduce this risk further.

I don’t think they are comparable but I was responding to a line of conversation about it. And the reason they aren’t comparable is who the consideration is put to. In adoption it is about children first. We careful assess potential parents of children in adoption to make sure it’s the most suitable outcome for the baby.

In surrogacy the consideration is only with the intended parents. There is no consideration of whether this is right for the child and the parents are suitable. Buying babies is absolutely abhorrent but it’s made even worse that it doesn’t really matter who’s buying them. Nobody cares as long as money changes hands.

That is the risk a surrogate chooses to take. Rightly or wrongly. They should not be induced by money.

If a woman decides to be a surrogate for her sister who can't carry a baby for medical reasons, and the baby is conceived with the sister's egg and her husband's sperm - they can't both be the baby's mother?

I wish we were like European countries including Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Bulgaria and Germany that prohibit surrogacy in all forms. I was really angry the Commission started with the view that it needed to be made easier and smoother rather than actually exploring if it should even be legal!

The reoprt also says that the Commission want to discourage people from going abroad to do surrogacy (buy a human) but then go on to say they would like to make it much easier for people to bring a baby born to a surrogate mother abroad into the country by allowing them to start the paperwork in advance. Seems to me that the proposals just encourage more "use of surrogates" in the UK whilst also encouraging exploitation of women in poorer countries.

She created every cell of that baby's body, other than the speck of genetic material, from her own body.

But she has no biological connection to it?

What is she? A woman or an incubator?

STOP SCAREMONGERING. LAW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT BINDING:

it also clearly says this at the end

"It is now for the Government to review and consider the recommendations in our final report."

She created every cell of that baby's body, other than the speck of genetic material, from her own body.

But she has no biological connection to it?

What is she? A woman or an incubator?

I think some people don’t really understand how babies are made, they only think about conception.

It's a very male view of biological parenthood.

Funny that.

Can't you see though, it's exactly the same 'process' for want of a better word than every other set of parents who procreate?

Do you want to vet potential parents via surrogate, or all parents? It's illogical.

I personally find surrogacy distasteful but I did wonder sometimes during my childbearing years what I would do if a sibling could only have a baby if I carried it for them? It would be one hell of a dilemma. I am glad I never was in the position of being asked to donate an egg to a sibling either - but I would have 100% struggled at the same time to say no?

To me, the whole money thing is key. Surrogates should not be paid other than expenditure actually incurred. That way nobody is going to do it just for the money.

That is the risk a surrogate chooses to take. Rightly or wrongly.

Well I guess people are saying it’s wrong and they are actually paid. There’s a limit to it but who would know if more exchanged hands somehow? Imagine if the birth mother died, and she has kids at home. I could never ask another woman to risk her life like that, having a baby is still the riskiest thing a woman can do.

That's all very cozy, but we don't make legislation on complex social matters by just looking at best case scenarios.

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

What a bizarre way to look at it - does that mean that every Madeira cake I've ever made belongs to Delia Smith?

The mother doesn't just 'carry' the child, it's not like a seed growing in a bit of damp kitchen towel - her body builds it piece by piece from the few cells that are implanted. The mother is absolutely the one who gestates the child within her, providing every single piece of that child but initial instructions.

It's hilarious given that I am the mother of three children and two who never made it into the world.

I'm just throwing those comments out there. It's very, very complex. I am trying to be logical rather than hysterically emotion. I'm not shaking at all, for example. Just trying to make some sense of it.

If this goes through it would mean human babies have less protection than puppies, who cannot be legally removed from their mother until 6 weeks. The reason for this is the impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the puppies if removed too soon (can cause big emotional problems).

So dogs will have more protection in law than human babies.

What's 'hilarious'?

This is an important point and it HAS happened. The commissioning parents should have to pay for the upkeep of the children of the surrogate in this situation.

The surrogate mother's children don't have a say. The baby doesn't have protection in law. It's so adult-centric with so little thought for the rights of the child / children affected.

So do you feel that adoption is wrong too?
So taking a baby away from a drug addicted woman who doesn’t want the baby anyway, and giving it to loving adoptive parents - is that cruel to the baby?

If this goes through it would mean human babies have less protection than puppies, who cannot be legally removed from their mother until 6 weeks. The reason for this is the impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the puppies if removed too soon (can cause big emotional problems).

I’ve never thought of it like that before. Good point.

What a ridiculous comparison. Sadly there are some circumstances where adoption is necessary for the wellbeing of the child - the child is centred. However adopted children don't all just run off into the sunset and are completely fine, many of them suffer significant trauma. Being taken away from their birth family is traumatic which is why it's an absolute last resort.

In surrogacy you are creating trauma in a child at birth for the sake of adults - the opposite of child centred.

So taking a baby away from a drug addicted woman who doesn’t want the baby anyway, and giving it to loving adoptive parents - is that cruel to the baby?

We recognise the harm caused to the baby by removal, by law adoption needs to be the least harmful option for the child, with evidence that there is no other way to keep the child safe. Very little consideration is given to the baby in surrogacy. In adoption decisions are based on the best interests of the child with full recognition that it’s not a neutral act to remove a child from their birth parent.

That’s really not correct.
The cells grow from the original embryo, and are entirely made from the genetic material of the biological parents. The woman who carries the baby provides nutrients and oxygen. She contributes no genetic material.

You cake analogy is rather ridiculous, but to continue it - you are essentially saying that the credit for making a cake should be given not the oven that cooked it, not the person that mixed the ingredients!

This.