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/

A womb is not a oven.

But a lot of babies are put up for adoption BY THE BIRTH MOTHER. Before birth. So they are instantly removed, at birth, because the birth mother did not want the baby.
We aren[t talking about babies who are removed due to there being problems in the home after a while.
Why cant we look at surrogates as mother who put their babies up for adoption during the pregnancy.

Would that make it different? Because, in reality, it is not.

Where Im from you cant be paid to be a surrogate. Some expenses, like appointments and medication are paid for by the parents, but no actual money is to change hands.

I am honestly shocked and appaled at the opinions here.
Because it tells me you are also all against adoption, donor eggs and donor sperm. And I honestly cannot wrap my head aorund it...

If someone is dying of organ failure they don't have the right to buy a organ, why should someone who is merely infertile or a man be able to buy a baby?

So again, why do we assess for adoption? In both situations, the new parents are being handed a living, breathing human being that another woman grew and bonded with over the gestation period. Why would one situation involve careful vetting and suitability and the other involve just the exchange of money?

I don’t think there’s any feasible way of checking all potential parents without interfering with their reproductive rights, but in the case of surrogacy there absolutely is a chance to assess the potential parents suitable and assess whether the surrogate really knows what she’s signed up for and her own suitability to give up a baby at the end of this before any agreement has been made.

I’d rather just see surrogacy illegal like it is in many other European countries but if it’s not, why would more checks be a worse thing? Those commissioning parents wouldn’t have anything to worry, would they?

If the child had a dna sample to see who their parents were, would it match the dna of the man who provided the sperm (obviously) and the woman who provided the egg or the woman who carried the baby? Just wondering?

But a lot of babies are put up for adoption BY THE BIRTH MOTHER. Before birth. So they are instantly removed, at birth, because the birth mother did not want the baby.

Where? In the UK relinquished babies being placed for adoption is vanishingly rare, due to the availability of abortion and a strong welfare safety net.

Relinquished babies are more common in places where there are fewer choices for women with an unwanted pregnancy and little social safety net - so again we’re talking about the most vulnerable in our society “providing” babies.

There are millions of people in the world who would like to raise children, but who can't, for one reason or another.

Is this a great tragedy? No, not really. There are vast numbers of other absorbing, worthwhile and fulfilling things one can do with one's time.

And I would question how keen an infertile couple really are to raise kids, if adoption "isn't good enough" for them.

Surrogacy is highly questionable as a concept and bound to end in heartache in many instances.

The fact that you think they are different is what I think is thick.
What is the difference between a child who was given up for adoption, and is immediately handed over to the adoptive parents at birth, and a surrogate who has a baby who is then handed over to the parents at birth?

People up and down this thread have been talking about the bond between the baby and the person growing it. And that it is wrong to remove the baby from the birthing mother. How is that different between surrogates and mothers who put their babies up for adoption?

People up and down this thread have been talking about the bond between the baby and the person growing it.

"The person growing it"

Sounds like a very convoluted way to say 'mother'.

Just because it isnt the norm, it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. It does. So what is the actual difference between that and a surrogate?

Surrogacy is a disgusting practice.

Infertility should be supported in treatment but not to this extent.

One of my best friends was adopted. Her mother was not the person who birthed her. It was the person who put her to bed every night, fed her and took care of her all her life. That was her mother. The other person was just someone who gave birth to her.

Where is this happening? In the UK a woman cannot finalise adoption papers until 6 weeks after birth at the earliest. Nobody is handing newborns over at birth.

The only cases (which are remarkably rare) where a baby is removed from their mother in the early days is for the safety of the child.

So even in cases where a woman decides throughout that she wants to put her child up to adoption it’s recognised that there needs to be some time before that happens. Women who are surrogates aren’t afforded the same respect or consideration.

No, the 'other person' was her biological mother. Your friend wouldn't exist had it not been for her.

The difference is in the case of the child adopted from birth, there is a recognition of the trauma that caused them. They will automatically have rights to particular supports and services in recognition of that trauma right into adulthood, regardless of whether that trauma manifests itself in their day to day functioning, their parents will have been vetted to ensure they can meet that child’s needs. The child removed by surrogacy has none of that.

The UK is not the world. There are countries where this happens. So, again, what is the difference?

In which countries does this happen?

Are any of these countries advanced nations which respect women's rights and where having a child outside of marriage is not considered shameful at best?

Well this whole post is about the UK, presumably you realise that?

If you want to start talking about ‘the world’ then we can talk about the abhorrent pressure put on poor families to sell their babies into ‘adoption’ to feed their others. We can talk about women being surrogates to feed their children but being left with another mouth to feed when the commissioning parents didn’t want a disabled child. Or is that all a bit of a useless conversation when discussing UK law?

Are any of these countries advanced nations which respect women's rights and where having a child outside of marriage is not considered shameful at best?

And are they countries where women have easily access to contraception and abortion?

facepalms

I am more concerned for the babies in question. To be taken away from their birth mother doesnt do them any good.

Fair enough if the mother is ill or something but to plan it out like that is just plain cruel for the babies who will carry it with them all life.

I'm guessing not. Probably the situation for women becoming pregnant 'out of wedlock' is similar to what it was here in the 1950s. Hardly something to emulate.

In the US, where someone giving up a baby for adoption can even choose who will adopt the baby, and meet them before hand, and sign everything away just after the baby is born. The adoptive parents take the baby home from hospital and can visit it as soon as it is medically cleared after birth.

I know the US is a bit backwards as it regards to reproductive rights, but it is considered an advanced where having a child outside of marriage isnt shameful

Personally I find the idea of women choosing to give their babies for adoption up at birth desperately sad too. I don't think it is often truly free choice as evidenced by how rare it is now in countries with decent contraception, access to abortion, lack of stigma for single mothers and a financial safety net.