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/

Arguing the semantics of biological vs. genetic misses the fact that in many surrogacy arrangements a child has 2-3 mothers. 1. The birth mother, who gestated and gave birth to the child and may or may not have used her own egg. 2. The egg donor mother who may or may not also be the commissioning parent, the surrogate OR a third mother whose eggs have been purchased. 3. The commissioning/legal mother - the woman who paid the surrogate to carry a child for her that she will raise. This woman may or may not be biologically related to her child.

The answer to this is so bloody obvious I can’t believe people are having to explain it.

children born to surrogates start their life with a loss. The loss of all they’ve ever known.

children born to parents in other pregnancies do not suffer this loss because they are with the mother they have bonded to in the womb.

Huge lack of critical thinking from some posters here.

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

@letthemalldoone you are trying to argue that people are policing your words but now you are doing the same. I would say there is more evidence of misogyny in your posts than there is of hysteria on others.

while I’m at 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.

Not in my case, nor that of several others who have also posted here. I have never given birth to a baby and very sadly I never will, as I am unable to. I remain clear eyed about the risks and harms of surrogacy, and would never want to put another woman at risk for my desire for a child, nor would I want my child to start their life with an avoidable loss.

So much unfounded hysteria on this thread.

Firstly, do you actually know any families who have used surrogacy? I actually know two very happy and healthy families (4 really if you think of it) who have one happy and healthy child each through surrogacy. Both using their own embryos, carried by a family member or close friend.
They would have loved and cared for any child that came from it. Where the fuck is this idea that surrogate parents are somehow going to ‘hand back’ a baby?? Particularly when couples of normal pregnant in the uk can currently screen for genetic disorders and terminate based on that!
Uttlerly ridiculous thinking based on nothing but fear mongering

I’m not infertile. I haven’t bought a baby, or used a surrogate for your information.

what about removing babies from severe addicts? Or those where there is a welfare issue. In my view the mother isn’t the surrogate providing it’s not her eggs used. I think surrogacy is a wonderful gift, and should be an option but only for those thoroughly checked and who have children already so know how it would feel to give a baby up.

This is the second time hysteria - which is a gendered insult - has been used on this thread. Says something about the quality of the argument when you resort to slurs.

Are all the counties which ban surrogacy outright hysterical?

Babies are removed from addicts because it's in the baby's best interest, baby's are bought because it's in the best interest of the people buying them. The two situations are in no way comparable.

Women who already have children shouldn't be risking their lives for other women (or men), their own children could be left without a mother. Again the couple who are buying the baby are the priority here, not the woman or her existing children.

Surrogacy isn't a "gift" it's a transaction, usually between a desperate rich couple and a desperate poor woman.

Babies should not be bought or sold, end of.

It’s the choice of the surrogate, pending evaluation for understanding of the consequences.

Also, given the answers on this thread about those pursuing surrogacy not thinking of the chil and only themselves - everyone who decides to procreate does it for the selfish needs of the adult, not the needs of the child.

there are those who have children when they don’t have the physical means to support them (through choice) yet as society we don’t call them selfish, or criticise their life choices, because to do so would be abhorrent.

Also, I disagree with you. End of. 🙄

''Those who want surrogacy banned understand that it has a wide social impact and this justifies restricting people’s “autonomy” to engage in it''

''By not including any questions about the ethics of surrogacy in their consultation and by apparently dismissing the majority of responses because the people making them are concerned about the ethics of surrogacy and its wider social impacts, the law commissioners have undermined their own conclusions.''
https://nordicmodelnow.org/2023/03/29/most-respondents-to-the-law-commissions-surrogacy-consultation-want-a-total-ban-on-surrogacy-in-the-uk/

Would you say that to a mother who used an egg donor?

You are wrong read up on epigenetics.

I have mixed views on surrogacy, but it's mostly childrearing that costs career opportunities, not pregnancy.

Most women, including myself, work until the last few weeks of pregnancy with minimal interruption!

😱

Where the fuck is this idea that surrogate parents are somehow going to ‘hand back’ a baby??

This is not a sweet, nice thing that happens for people who are having fertility problems.
This is an INDUSTRY.
It is BIG.
It is largely unregulated.
There are massive problems with it.

Reading about it eye opening.

An interesting start could be BioTexCom in Ukraine. Have a look at what they, the biggest surrogate agency in Europe, have done over the years. Babies handed back, babies never picked up, commissioning parents given the wrong babies, surrogates pumped with drugs and sick for years after, and lots more.

When you are finished with Ukraine have a look at India.

Then come back and talk about fear mongering.

Wow, such an interesting thread, I’ve read it all and used up nearly all my ipad battery charge in doing so. I’ve always thought what an amazing gift surrogates are giving, although it wouldn’t be something I could have done myself, as either giver or receiver. Fascinating to learn about the impact on the baby being removed at birth from the mother it knows - gonna guess that when the first (reported) surrogate pregnancy happened here in the UK (Kim Cotton, I was about 20 years old and full of admiration for her) much less was understood about the pre-birth mother-baby bond.

Women in the States are pressured to give up their babies. The Adoption industry is worth billions.
Adoption agencies donate a lot of money to pro life causes. Why?
Because they need poor people to have babies, that's what they sell.

I've read cases of mothers who have changed their mind about giving their babies up at birth. Then the agency reps show up and apply some really hard and manipulative pressure.

Here in the UK this doesn't happen. Because we recognise the best thing for children is to be with bio families.

Lots of people have this view that adoption is some happy thing. Its not.
I follow some adult adoptees on tik tok, it has been very enlightening about the USA adoption industry.

@TheFireflies

The answer to this is so bloody obvious I can’t believe people are having to explain it.

children born to surrogates start their life with a loss. The loss of all they’ve ever known.

children born to parents in other pregnancies do not suffer this loss because they are with the mother they have bonded to in the womb.

Huge lack of critical thinking from some posters here.

Are you suggesting that the best mother for the child is the biological mother?

'Biological mother' does not automatically mean that mother is caring, nurturing and bonded to the child, even if she carried it. It is this part I think many posters are missing.

Are you suggesting that the best mother for the child is the biological mother?

Its long been recognised that if at all possible children do better with their biological family, which is why we keep children with their birth family as much as we can, often spending untold sums on supporting mums with poor parenting to care for their children. Sometimes I’d argue we try too hard, but the removal of even a newborn is traumatic for that child. Even if that mum isn’t nurturing or caring or safe, the child is still impacted by the separation. The difference being in adoption we recognise that’s the case and try to put in provisions to help the child overcome that trauma.

Yea I think the biological mother is still where the egg came from.

otherwise biological fathers wouldn’t make sense.

Even if those biological mothers/parents:

• do not want to be parents, thus impacting the child in various ways throughout life

• do not have the resources to parent (emotional, intellectual, social, financial, etc.)

• have children for the wrong reasons, then resent them

• Etc.

My list could go on. I feel a loving mother/parents is better than disinterested or abusive biological ones. Always.

It's not the only option at all.

The other options are not having children or adoption and fostering.

Selling babies and space in women's wombs is not the only option at all.

Even if those biological mothers are abusive or neglectful, removing a child from their birth family constitutes a significant trauma in the life of the child. Removal and adoption are options of last resort because we know it’s harmful to children, we have to evidence that it would be more harmful to leave them with their birth parent than to remove them. The resultant trauma is known and provisions made for looked after children to try and mitigate that impact. Removing a child from their birth mother isn’t the neutral act some would have you believe.

Are you involved in the fostering space? Do you have any idea at all what some of these children go through?

Of course, it is better to have children with their biological parents if possible - and if the parents wish it and are able to provide a safe and loving environment. However, what you are suggesting is a Hallmark view of parenting. Not all parents are ideal, and a great many children would do better away from their biological parents.

Growing up in the sphere of your biological mother/parents isn't necessary for stability in later life. Love and nurturing is.

As an aside, I do find it strange you would find it preferable to leave a child with an abusive bio parent rather than have them raised in a stable, loving environment.

The point is?

I think I made it @Namechangenoidea

Women are human.

It's that simple.

Throughout this thread and others, and numerous news articles on surrogacy and even the papers from the law commission you will notice the language which dehumanises women to 'surrogates', or 'they used surrogacy', or a baby was born 'through surrogacy'.

One of men featured on the BBC Today programme once said that surrogacy is a solution to infertility, like a woman is a tool, simply a medical instrument to solve problems for others. Possibly a bit more complex and expensive than say a speculum but serves a purpose all the same and she is also replaceable.

Your language does the same. A woman is a whole human being, not a womb or a collection of body parts that can be 'used'. Her reproductive organs are not medical supplies for the fertility industry. A woman and her womb are not incubators to store babies. Babies are not made, carried and birthed (and lost or given away) by wombs, but by women who by doing so are mothers.

The dehumanising language which reduces women and the biological process and reality of making new human beings has been around for decades and has diluted the reality of pregnancy and birth (and egg donation) - which is not seen in the same way as adoption and fostering - and useful to the surrogacy industry and now to those who want to make it easier and more accessible on the U.K.

Wombs, vessels, surrogates...

Women are human, not walking cupboards for people to keep their babies in.