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/

Sorry for the dm article but this is a woman's account of her experience of being a surrogate

I carried a celebrity's longed-for baby. She treated me appallingly. mol.im/a/11916555 via dailym.ai/android

@GoldenAye I’m a social worker if 25+ years experience in children and families. The families I’ve worked with are very far from Hallmark, the law says removal of a child is the option of last resort - we need to evidence we’ve tried everything to avoid that happening because of the trauma imposed on the child. I personally think children are at times left for too long in adverse situations in the hope it’ll work out, and no I don’t think it’s better for children to be left in abusive situations - what a ridiculous thing to say.

The question was about whether children removed from birth parents was harmful citing adoption. Children are harmed when they are removed, often that’s a lesser harm than leaving them in their birth families. The difference in adoption is that we recognise that harm, in surrogacy we pretend it doesn’t exist.

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.

The above is what you wrote. TBH, in some of the situations I've seen, removal would cause emotional stress - but only in that the child is adjusting to a new environment and different caregivers. Removal would be a positive relief. Yes, Mum isn't there - but perhaps Mum was never 'there'.

It is the male supremacists' dream of reducing women to providers of sex, and providers of wombs as incubation units when a child is desired.

Women are not people to them. And many women themselves can't see this,. They feel the pain of their own childlessness - which I'm sure is dreadful - but can't see the cruelty involved in having another woman carry and give birth to a child that will be taken from her; cruelty to the woman, and to the baby.

In many areas of the world there are already "baby farms" where women are effectively as enslaved as those in a brothel, but instead of providing sexual services, they are impregnated - often repeatedly - and receive a tiny proportion of the fee paid to the organisation. They are women forced into this because of the desperation of poverty, or who are trafficked into it.

Remember headlines like this?

https://inews.co.uk/news/russia-ukraine-war-surrogate-mothers-babies-embryos-stranded-uk-couples-turmoil-1498140

Remember the British couple who were desperate to get over there and collect "their" baby? Babies trapped in eastern European "baby farms" when war raged around them?

There was similar when covid hit. Children have ended up abandoned. Some have been looked after by people who have had them so long that they don't want to part with them, because they love them. Others are no longer attractive propositions to their "commissioning parents". Some have had nowhere to go at all and are in institutions. The clinics they were born in aren't charities - they certainly don't want the responsibility of these babies as they grow. I wonder where many of them are now.

This is an evil trade and should be stopped immediately.

Saying that surrogacy doesn't consider the 'needs of the child, only the parents' is a bit misleading since virtually no couple plan having a baby 'for the child', they always do it to satisfy their own needs. No difference on that front!

Anything that results in people getting a baby when they would not naturally be able to is seen as an unalloyed good and no discussion of ethical considerations is allowed it seems.

⬆⬆⬆⬆⬆

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.

Really not understanding your issue with this @GoldenAye
Even if a mother is abusive or neglectful, removing a child from their mother causes trauma. There is nothing controversial about that. It's very well evidenced.

@Jellycatspyjamas speaks sense. Removal of a child from the biological family is absolute last resort. There is trauma from that and knowing you ‘belong’ somewhere is a huge psychological thing. Love and nurturing from a happy MC family isn’t enough alone for a child who has trauma. They have a wound from separation and it will show itself to them at some point in their life. I’m guessing surrogacy mitigates some of the complexities that cause more damage, eg. foster care, mother and baby units, prematurity (more common in children who end up on social services radar). But even a straight removal of a newborn from the woman who has grown it will be traumatic. And then sent to a woman (or man) who has none of the hormones raging that scream that the baby is yours and must be fiercely protected - it’s impossible to recreate that. It’s not in the best interests of the child. Infertility shouldn’t mean causing trauma to newborns for adults desires and wants.

They have a wound from separation and it will show itself to them at some point in their life

I have multiple people in my family who are adopted and now in their 50's and despite their nice mc upbringings, they all have significant trauma. Always have. The sense of belonging is something so intangible and deep, something hard to articulate. Last resort these days is good - it wasn't like that in the late 60's and 70's and for my family members - that was simply about 'single mums' and religion - but I think quite a bit about how we can help these families stay together more than we currently do, it still strikes me as punitive and 'enforcing' rather than rehabilitation lead. It is important as this is a thing that impacts for the entirety of people's lives

You are saying here that the primal bond of the commissioning parents is to be respected. They want their own genetic child, otherwise they'd adopt. (There is nearly always a man in this couple)

But no one is respecting the primal bond of the mother who carries the child for 9 months, or the baby who has their own primal bond with their mother.

Either these pre rational, mammalian instincts matter or they don't.

So true, usually men at the helm of the decision making. Sure look at the trans groups who feel completely entitled to women's rights, prisons, changing rooms etc.. Women are becoming more & more oppressed.

I’m sorry, why on earth are you talking about ejaculating into a cup? The OP made a point that one of the reasons she thinks that surrogacy is wrong is because it denies the child the right to know their biological parent(s). This is the same for sperm donation performed via fertility clinics and some adoptions. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that the OP would therefore have an issue with those too?
By the way, is there any reason that you are so rude? Having a bad day?

This. ^ I have absolutely no problems or issues whatsoever with surrogacy, and don't understand why mumsnet goes absolutely batshit about it. They come up with all these tales and examples of women being forced to do it for money, and rich people buying babies off poor women lalala, but in most cases, it's really not like that at all.

Yeah, if a woman agrees to be a surrogate for a couple who have been going through fertility struggles for many years, and then she decides to keep the baby; that's very wrong IMO. AND if the birth mother decides to give her baby to someone else, then no, she should NOT be regarded as the legal mother, like, ever.

And I am not 'shaking and sobbing' with anger like you @VestaTilley so no I will NOT be contacting my MP about this, or signing any petitions to stop this happening. I will sign any petition available, to make sure it DOES go through though.

Some of the comments on this thread about surrogacy are utterly ludicrous.

I really hope they pull in social workers, adults with a history of adoption (ideally from birth), therapists who support people with developmental trauma and family of people who have this trauma to advise before pushing this through. I hope newspapers publish the evidence and all discussions and the general public can be educated out of this idea that it’s a ‘nice thing to do’. There’s a baby at the end of it and it is never in their best interests.

I find it so completely troubling that people have such a blind spot to this. That you could seriously think it’s ok and applaud all these celebrities finding happiness in this way. What about the child?! Just so bizarre it even needs pointing out.

Can you discuss how removing a child from a neglectful and/or abusive mother causes trauma?

Quite often children do love parents who are neglectful, or useless or drug addicts or otherwise incapable of providing proper care. Why they feel that way is debatable but it does happen.

And therefore parting parent and child can be traumatic for the child.

Could you go away and read the last seventy years of evidenced work in child psychology and attachment theory before you ask such a frankly daft question?

@GoldenAye

LMGTFY

scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2087&context=all_fac

news.stanford.edu/2018/06/26/psychological-impact-early-life-stress-parental-separation/

www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/how-mother-child-separation-causes-neurobiological-vulnerability-into-adulthood.html

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115616/

Etc etc

Thanks. Happy to have a read. But hopefully they'll specifically delve into abusive mothers and the consequences of separation. That is what interests me.

Apologies if my questions appear to bothering people.

Even in the most dire circumstances, a child being with their biological mother is better for their sense of self than separation. That has been researched and proven thoroughly. Social services will leave children in houses that are thick with dirt, bedtimes non-existent, cold chips for breakfast, petty crime by the adults commonplace and engagement with education minimal. It is known that being in an environment that dysfunctional is better for a child than being separated from the birth family, in terms of psychological outcomes. Separation will only be recommended where there is sexual, physical or psychological abuse or neglect. Arguably, neglect has to go some way before that’s considered to be more damaging than separation of the child.

You could take a child from that environment and put them in their nice MC home and they will seemingly thrive in the early years. Then adolescence comes, questions come, self-identity becomes important. And they’re often quite lost individuals at great risk of addiction problems, going to prison, suicide etc. These problems would have existed even if they stay with the birth family (as it often does in those demographics), but at least they wouldn’t have the added wound of separation.

As a society we try and spread public health messages, help those families make positive choices etc. but we know that removing their children isn’t the answer. Research and outcomes on this have been found out from the forced removal of indigenous children from their birth families in countries such as Canada and Australia in the early 20th century. The evidence is overwhelming that it is harmful. The sense of self is paramount and that does develop in utero - the language and sounds you hear etc.

I may be wrong and surrogacy is completely different to adoption at a young age. But when would we ever normally walk blind into something that could be harmful to children? We need to take our time and see from other countries the outcomes for these children who have been part of the baby selling movement.

@Spirallingaround

As a society we try and spread public health messages, help those families make positive choices etc. but we know that removing their children isn’t the answer. Research and outcomes on this have been found out from the forced removal of indigenous children from their birth families in countries such as Canada and Australia in the early 20th century. The evidence is overwhelming that it is harmful. The sense of self is paramount and that does develop in utero - the language and sounds you hear etc.

I appreciate your thoughtful answers, but please don't bring in the removal of indigenous children - aka 'the stolen generation'. This is an entirely different ethical and societal issue steeped in colonialism.

Surely the psychological consequences are similar in many regards?
I think it's a valid data set.