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/

@Jellycatspyjamas You and others, who have taken the time to explain, are never going to get through to those who do not want to hear. You are right, of course.

And your answers have been enlightening.

Slightly off the immediate topic but I never knew my biological father. My step dad is wonderful but it cannot be underestimated the damage it does not knowing where one originally comes from. I am mostly at peace with it now but it's hard to come to terms with, no matter how loving whomever else was that brought you up. Before anyone jumps with how is that relevant? It's relevant in the respect of what some others have attempted to explain - the trauma and attempt to understand where you come from when you've been removed from your biological family. I only didn't know my dad and I found it pretty tough to navigate and it definitely contributed to my lack of self esteem. It seems quite sad to deliberately inflict this on a person.

I can see both sides, it’s not clear cut for me as I am battling infertility myself and know lots of women who are also in that special hell. I know lovely people who have embryos frozen that are entirely genetically theirs but because of cancer, she cannot carry them. I wouldn’t judge them for using a surrogate providing she had full rights, support and it was entirely altruistic. I actually feel more iffy about donor eggs personally. I haven’t given up on my own eggs and uterus (yet) but these are both issues I have given a lot of thought to and probably wouldn’t chose myself…

But who am I to judge, this is a complex and emotional situation. There are plenty of birth mothers who absolutely don’t deserve the blessing they are given in a child and plenty of amazing people who cannot conceive but would make brilliant parents!

Presumably, all those supporting paid (or generously 'expensed') surrogacy, are also very much pro changing the rules to allow paid kidney donation? After all, you can live a full and healthy life with 1 kidney, it's your body, and in many ways it's less controversial, as there's no vulnerable child involved.

Kidney donation also actually saves a life - and while the pain of infertility is horrendous it is not lethal, and there are also increasing numbers of people using surrogates to have multiple children, because they chose to wait past their own fertile window, or to save their own bodies.

However, paid donation or even bone marrow or blood is illegal for moral reasons, while surrogacy - which outside a limited number of close family surrogacy arrangements is a business transaction - is considered ok.

We are talking about the exploitation of women and buying of babies (because that’s what it is) and you call objection to that hysteria. Why that world in particular?

You can think what you like about me, and I assume you have many other misogynist words to mind, but I don’t really care to be honest.

Surrogacy should be illegal as it is in many other European countries. It’s not at the moment so in that case I think it’s fair commissioning parents should have the same assessments adoptive parents have, the surrogate mother should have counselling and be assessed to ensure she understands and fully consents, no money should ever change hands and the woman should have every right to change her mind at any given point. Why would you be object to any of that?

Before regulation there needs to be talk.

And lots of it..

For example - to be a surrogate you need to have a proven track record ie - have children.

So let's imagine a senario - a mother (surrogate) with young (we presume right?) children having a baby for someone else with a legal contract in place. Lets say she is single/seperated and the $20,000 would be very helpful as she is at home anyway, and has experience.

If part way through there is a "fault"identified with the foetus/unborn child, does she have to abort? What if it is too late for abortion?

We can presume that people who commision want a healthy, perfect baby. After all peopole like the Kardashians are not going to a less than Instagram perfect baby. More ordinary families too will not want flaws. How to they send them back? What happens in that case?

If it goes wrong on the day who decides to save the delivering mother or the commisioned baby?

What would happen to the mother's existing children - is there an insurance pay out for their education/theraphy/future.

I mean there is SO MUCH at play here besides the very obvious huge problem of makings babies available for sale.

We need a lot of discussion.

Surrogacy is awful. It should all be 100% banned imo.

Going back to the poster who said they'd found out as an adult that they'd been bought as a baby by their parents and that they were 'spoiling my narrative' by claiming it had had no negative impact on them whatsoever, here's a current thread by a woman who has pretended her husband is her daughter's dad.

Lots of posters saying the profound impact this kind of lie has had on them or people they love: Telling daughter he's not her dad... www.mumsnet.com/Talk/parenting/4773968-telling-daughter-hes-not-her-dad

@4plusthehound shockingly today I found an example of a woman who’d become a surrogate through SurrogacyUK who had not previously had her own children.

Defies belief.

Exactly what happened to me. Grew up believing my step dad was my bio dad until I was told he in fact wasn't at the age of 9. I was so confused it took a long time to convince me that my mum was actually my mum and my brother was actually my brother.

People can pretend all they want that it doesn't matter as long as the person bringing you up loves and cares for you but it is a very naïve view.

Nah not one single one of the adjectives I have in mind is misogynist, lol, I can promise you that!

I don't have particularly strong views on the subject. I am prepared to admit I don't know enough about it. I know I would never be a surrogate or use a surrogate. I do find the notion of it slightly disturbing, but as a woman who has suffered infertility and miscarriage, and whose children are adults, I have said from the start if there is going to be surrogacy at all, then it should be heavily regulated for the protection of everyone concerned. I actually agree with the comments from "It's not..." to the end of the paragraph.

I was hoping for a healthy exchange of views, but I forgot where I was, of course. I like to approach discussions with an open mind, and hopefully learn a little a long the way. If I feel that some of the more over-excited/over emotional posts are hysterical, well, I am entitled to my opinion.

It's execrable to be accused of misogyny, so I will just leave it there.

@Wednesdaysotherchild I really do hope it all works out for you. It did for me, after three and a half long years' trying. It's tough. I won't judge anyone either. I tend to avoid judgement anyway.

Just to say apologies I’ve not read the whole thread - 17 pages! But thank you everyone for replying.

I think this is an ethical minefield and I think that the law may well change while barely anyone has been consulted is horrifying.

If you are concerned about this in any way please, please contact your member of parliament today.

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

The womb it was carried in?

The womb.

It's not a plastic bag! The womb is inside a person. A human being. Women are human.

I’m not sure “barely anyone has been consulted” is accurate, there was a an extensive consultation (and several threads on mumsnet about it at the time) - I for one did respond to the consultation.

As if physiology and mental health are not intrinsically linked?! Get back in your time machine.

So does natural parenthood.

But they take on the risks.

If I decide to have a child with dh the risks will be mine, and his.

Existing children will be cared for by him if anything happens to me.

If I suffer an injury dh and I will have to work that out, and deal with the financial, emotional and physical consequences.

If the baby has "defects", physcial, emotional or intellectual we can't hand it back. We keep it and raise it and take the consequences.

Not of the above hits surrogate parents.

They off set all that risk for what - 20K?

They get to walk away and try again or walk away with a healthy baby.

They’re not linked before birth. 🤨
Or are you going to tell me that a fetus in the womb is an alert and aware human being with thoughts and feelings? And is conscious enough to form and emotional bond with the woman carrying it? That’s medieval shit science.

I wonder if it the day that is in it?

I find the debate here lively, interesting, passionate (on both sides), informative.

What I don't see is hysteria.

I honestly didn’t realise people had different opinions on what is a biological mother.

So do you not believe men are biological fathers? Because they didn’t carry the baby? They are just genetic fathers?

Yes you’re correct. Wombs are inside humans? Do you want a medal? The point is?

I don't understand how the surrogacy market can be voluntary. It's like prostitution - the physical hardship is too great to perform without considerable incentive.

So the price of a surrogate should be what the market dictates - sky high. Pregnancy is health endangering, exhausting, all consuming. It costs career opportunities, and lost salary, and pension and NI contributions. It is 24/7 for 10 months plus. So compensation should start at NMW X 24 X 300 which gives you just over £75k, plus compensation for lost career ops and health insurance against all later complications. Funnily enough, market pricing is never on the table for things only women can do. I think it would genuinely be less exploitative if it were fairly priced. Men are paid for sperm donation but women should perform egg donation and pregnancy for free.

Fwiw I am largely opposed to surrogacy. Seems most unfair to have to go through pregnancy and childbirth and not get a baby out of it.

@L3ThirtySeven - I can't work out if you are being sarcastic or if you believe what you have posted....

Exactly. What is the umbilical cord if not a biological connection? It’s not like incubating an egg until it hatches.

You know I actually do not know!

I mean - if the eggs and sperm belong to A & B, and the egg and sperm make the genetic material, then I think that makes them the genetic parents right?

But if that genetic material is placed in C where their C's biolological matter (cells, blood, nutrients, chemicals and so on) develop and grown the genetic material then surely they are biologically invested too no?

But to your point - does that mean that A & B are not biological parents? Sounds all sorts of wrong so no. But equally, I do not think that the female person who "grew" the baby is not the mother either.

I don't know enough biology.

With that in mind I should not have been so confident in my initial declaration, and if you can clear it up for me I would be grateful!

Their

Is this real? Or sarcasm?