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/

It is about surrogacy. And about a potential change in it, in the UK. But about surrogacy. In general. Or does it only matter if the surrogacy is in the UK?

Yes, in certain American states 'adoption' is little different to surrogacy, the sale and purchase of newborns is legal, and a woman can be legally obliged to hand over control of her body to the purchasing parents. God bless America!

And the way things are going over there, I'm not sure I'd consider it an 'advanced' nation as regards reproductive rights.

In which other countries can women be obliged to give up their child at birth? Can you name a few? And do you consider this something to aspire to?

We don't focus on the USA as an example for this sort of stuff though, do we?
Your point is as irrelevant as me saying, well, I don't know why you're all getting all hysterical, in France it's illegal. So what? The whole point of the post is the UK. Just because it's the US, people seem to think that it matters more, but it really doesn't in the UK.

This is the direction the UK is heading in, regarding surrogacy Away from most European countries and towards the US.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20390/

You are making it sound like these women are al coersed to give their babies up, and didnt voluntarily put them up for adoption.

There are other countries where mothers can give the babies up for adoption at birth, as in, they dont take the baby home with them, even if they have to wait until 6 weeks to formally give them up.
In those cases, the baby is taken to an institution and is basically in the system until the birth mother signs her rights away.

In many ways, it would be better if it could be done straight away, as it would mean some babies are not in institutions for months on end, not able to be adopted, but also not being cared for by parents who want them.

I think for the purposes of the discussion, yes, it only matters if the surrogacy is in the UK.

Yes, it’s about surrogacy but you are trying to use whataboutisms about adoption that happen in god knows what country. That isn’t the reality in the UK.

In terms of this proposed law change in the UK, a surrogate mother would have her right to choose taken away. That is something she is still allowed to have in the adoption process unless there is a child protection order in place.

If you want to talk in terms of surrogacy in countries where it’s legal and even more lax then sure. It’s fucking appalling. It’s exploitative. Contracts in the US can exist to take away rights from the surrogate mother whilst she is pregnant - they can sue for any breach, be it her personal relationships, the food she chooses to eat, the work she undertakes. Does that sound okay to you?

So that’s why I asked - do you want to talk about surrogacy everywhere because I swear you must walk around with your eyes closed if you think it’s better in places like the US, or do you want to talk about surrogacy as it and what is proposed in the Uk?

And I don't really understand why you want to derail the thread @ASGIRC

You are making it sound like these women are al coersed to give their babies up, and didnt voluntarily put them up for adoption.

No. I'm saying that the sale and purchase of newborns is legal in some American states. That's a fact, isn't it?

You can't name any other countries where women have to give up their children at birth, so certain American states is all you have to go on. Personally, I don't think America as anything to aspire to. Guns are legal in many states too. If that's how you see the future, up to to you I guess.

I wonder how many who are not accepted to adopt for any reason then go on to use a surrogate? God writing those words “use a surrogate “ made me shudder. Is this a way people seen as unsuitable slip through the net to get a baby? That’s worrying.

I am not derailing anything. I am simply asking what, in your view, is the difference between a surrogate and a mother who gives up her baby at birth, for adoption.

Thats literally the question. It doesnt even matter WHERE this happens. Because supposedly, your thoughts on surrogacy, pregnancy, adoption, contraception, abortion, etc, don[t really changed based on where they might happen.

Most of you think surrogacy is despicable. And also that it is about the bond between the pregnant woman and the baby, and how that shouldnt be severed. Ok.

But when asked , you say adoption isnt.

But in the same circumstances, where a woman gives the baby up for adoption, and doesnt take it home from hospital (even if she has 6 weeks to sign her right away), what is the actual difference? Apart from the fact that the surrogacy baby has loving parents in the waiting room, waiting to meet the baby!

"wont somebody think of the children?!?!11". Yeah, going to a foster care institution sounds a lot harsher on a baby than going home to loving parents.

And with that, Im removing myself from this thread, because it is frankly exhausting.

Several people have told you what the difference is, you’ve not engaged with them. The difference being that the trauma to the infant is considered and is an integral part of decision making for the child (in the U.K.), and there are particular provisions made for the child to access supports through to adulthood regardless of how or whether that trauma manifests itself. The impact of removal is considered, not denied or ignored.

And in the U.K. a newborn would always be placed in a foster placement, not an institution.

In would be exhausting for someone with the inability to apply some critical thought, yes.

I’ve said this already - adoption takes place for an already living, breathing human being that needs a parent. It is trying to make the best of an already existing situation. The whole adoption process is focused purely on what is best for the child - from the suitability checks to trying to training and support for the parents of the adoptive child as traumatic removal of a child can cause future issues. Furthermore the mother still has rights at birth and can choose to keep her parental rights if she changes her mind.

Surrogacy creates a baby purely for the wants of the commissioning parents. Nobody else is thought about or matters. The birth mother would have no rights to make a choice regarding the baby if the law was to change as discussed on this thread.

And quite honestly, using ‘won’t someone think about the children’ as a put down in a conversation purely focused on the rights and welfare of babies is pathetic. Should we really not think about the children at any point during surrogacy?

Yes, there are women who will do it, and far too many of those women don't have much of a choice, or are taking a major risk for short term benefit. Even if you argue that the surrogate makes her own decisions, how do you justify bringing a baby into the world expressly knowing it's going to be taken away from its birth parent?

These changes are not in the interest of the baby or the woman who has carried and birthed the baby for 9 months i.e. the surrogate

Sorry to the people who suffer infertility or men wanting children.

But it is absolutely outrageous and entitled to think you can just pay a woman to have a baby for you. And now take that baby away from her immediately.

I'm currently 8 months pregnant with my third baby - I have a relationship with this baby already. Every kick, roll, conversation I have with it - a bond that you cannot replicate.

You will never have that, never know the impact it has on you, the connection, the hormones and impact your body etc.

You therefore cannot have a voice on something so monumental that you have no idea of.

And to minimise the experience just because it's in your interest to us absolutely disgusting - it is extreme greed.

I hope the recommendations are not implemented - there should be an outright ban on people paying women to have babies for them.

There was also a surrogate on womens hour talking about the relief she felt that she would not have parental responsibility for a child she did not regard as hers. As for How does the NHS square this advice with making it legal for a child to never legally have a connection to its own mother?I guess the same as children who are adopted at birth, or removed from their parents, or who never have their mother around for other reasons. People need to get over being so precious about this. If a woman wants to be a surrogate, its none of your business.

"Surrogacy creates a baby purely for the wants of the commissioning parents".

So does natural parenthood.

I'm out too - too much hysteria and lack of balance for me. Plus some of you people seriously need lessons in basic biology!!

Creating a baby purely for the wants of the commissioning parents? And that is different to other pregnancies how? Plenty of people get knocked up without thinking much about whether they should be parents or not.

The biological mother is the one that carried and gave birth to the baby.

The genetic mother may well be different....

What does that have to do with anything? The poster asked specifically what’s the difference between adoption and surrogacy and I answered.

And the amount of times you’ve casually dropped ‘hysteria’ about women having alternate options to you tells me all I know to know about your thoughts on women.

Ah c'mon, don't be so reasonable lol!

@letthemalldoone

*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.*

This culture shouldn't be normalised. It's not ok to say "surrogacy will happen".

It is abhorrent and legally we should be trying to put people off using this "option". Not easier and more appealing.

I'd like to tell you what I have learned from you by your posts, but I quite like being able to post here.

You don't get to tell me which nouns I may use or not use.

"International surrogacy agreements: many couples opt for agreements abroad, sometimes in countries where there is a high risk of the exploitation of women and children. Our reforms are designed to make domestic surrogacy arrangements a more attractive option. "

I'm not sure why society would choose to make domestic surrogacy more attractive tbh

Yeh, but natural parenthood doesn't require you to exploit someone else's body. It's you're own.

It's the crux of the whole debate 🙄