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/

Are we still in a position where if a married woman has a child her husband has PR even if he isn't the father? I don't remember hearing about it changing. I would have thought that would be the first thing to consider updating.

If you haven’t been through infertility then you have no idea of the pain it causes.

If you haven't been through organ failure you've no idea of the pain it causes either. I still wouldn't advocate for the ability to buy organs from poor people.

The recipient parents are always going to be happy though. This I would take as a given. I expect you have no insight into the surrogate.

So the surrogate is not giving up 'her' baby

If you've grown every cell of another human being with your own body, I'd argue that they are more yours than whoever provided just the genetic blueprint.

@Bumbers time in utero is critical: it often determines children’s outcomes! You’re encouraged to talk to your baby when it’s in the womb, to do skin to skin at birth, and told at ante natal that it’ll come out knowing you’re it’s mother.

A woman is not a vessel. Mother and baby are intrinsically linked.

The problem being, is that often vulnerable, desperate people don't have the right or the capacity to make their own truly free decisions.

I don't know if just outright banning surrogacy is the answer, but I do know that people like Tom Daley being able to effectively buy a baby is morally very, very dubious.

"We recommend reform to parental orders, include allowing the court to make a parental order where the surrogate does not consent, provided that the child’s welfare requires this.

I’d be interested in how they’ll assess the child’s welfare. We have an increasing understanding of the impact of removing children from their birth mothers even in early infancy, and the impact of in uterine experiences on the development of babies after birth - the whole 4th trimester concept.

At least with adoption there’s a very full assessment of the prospective adopters, and recognition of the impact of post birth separation on the baby. I’m not seeing much consideration of that here.

People aren’t owed a child, infertility is awful, I’ve been there, but using another human as an incubator to procure a child without consideration of the impact on that child is pretty abhorrent in my view.

No decision in life for rich or poor is “truly free”. Not one single decision. That’s an impossible standard you are dictating and it’s simply an excuse to control women’s bodies and decisions.

time in utero is critical: it often determines children’s outcomes!
Oh get in your Time Machine and go back to 1823. In utero only affects physiology of a fetus, not their mental health.

There are cases where a woman chooses to carry for her sister, as an example; because she’s infertile and they already have a family. She wants to do it, they both have equal income; the child will be raised with lots of love from both sisters and families- what’s the issue there?

Don’t come at me with “think of the baby” trope either- that’s lifted from the anti-abortion playbook verbatim.

Nonsense, at the end of the surrogacy process you have a living, breathing human who will grow and develop. Who will have a right to know the circumstances of their conception and birth and who will have thoughts and feelings about this that may impact their sense of self throughout their lives. I’d love to be able to fast forward 20 years and see how these children process their understanding of their birth history, I suspect it won’t all be hearts and flowers.

We should have a study into the effects of surrogacy 10, 20 & 40 years down the line. For both, the surrogate mother and the child.

I bet a high % will have some sort of MH problems- but sadly nobody would admit to the facts.

I don't think that half of you realise that surrogacy doesn't always mean that the woman that carries the child is the biological parent. The surrogate can have an embryo of the intended parents implanted. So she wouldn't be related to the child in any way.

The majority of the views on this thread are so narrow minded.

So adoptive/fostered children, where do they fit in your "every child needs a relationship with their biological parent"?

Some people in this world are proud to give something back whether its donating their organ, donating sperm/eggs, or donating their body to help a family.

The women that become surrogates, don't have to accept expenses, there is caps on how much can be received to protect the surrogate and intended parents.

Surrogacy isn't just about designer babies or people that cant be arsed. Some women have to have hysterectomy's through no fault of there own but still desire to be a mothers.

You might want to actually speak to a parent of a surrogate child before making such pretentious remarks.

You view on this seems to be that it's somehow liberating for women to be surrogates and have less rights in the surrogacy. Is that right? If so I am missing all the (well off) women deperate to be surrogates with less rights than they currently have?

£20,000 for some people will absolutely not be a "choice" because of their cirumstances. Also, I would imagine that agreeing to being a surrogate and then actually doing it are two very different things. Especially if there is emotional or financial pressure to do it.

@Jazsimone

Some people in this world are proud to give something back whether its donating their organ, donating sperm/eggs, or donating their body to help a family.

Just, incidentally, you never really hear of financially well off ones. Or are rich people just meaner?

You might want to actually speak to a parent of a surrogate child before making such pretentious remarks.

Or you could talk to, you know, the surrogate. Whose body we are discussing. There is not much doubt that parents of a surrogate child will think it's a good thing

The only good bit of this is the right to know the surrogate at 18 like egg or sperm donors. If surrogacy is allowed this should be the case. I don't think it should be allowed at all though it is.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/15/the-stranded-babies-of-kyiv-and-the-women-who-give-birth-for-money

This doesn't sound at all exploitative.

@Ylvamoon

Children have MH issues with their biological parents present. So your theory is completely absent.

Oh get in your Time Machine and go back to 1823. In utero only affects physiology of a fetus, not their mental health.

The physiology includes brain development - which impacts cognitive, psychological and emotional development. Pretty sure those have an impact on mental health.

I’m sure it’s pretty convenient to decide that conception, pregnancy and birth have no impact on the developing child. When you place the child’s rights at the centre of the discussion surrogacy becomes more problematic, which is probably why some folk are so keen to disregard the child in favour of the “right” to have that same child.

Generally intrigued, to everybody who is dead against surrogacy and who is angry at the parents (not the birth mother, but the parents after the transaction is finished)

I see you're angry at the fact that they are renting a womb to have a child, and it can be damaging for the baby being taken away from the birth mother. Do you carry that same angst as the birth mother? Who agreed to be a surrogate whether for financial gain or not, the birth mother has signed consent forms and has legally gone ahead with the surrogacy. I see mentioned on here that there is never an excuse for a surrogacy pregnancy to have a baby. Would you say the same thing to a 'poor' woman doing it desperately to have some money to feed her own kids?

Or if a woman offered to be her friends surrogate for example due to infertility problems and there was no exploitation involved, would you be as angry as you are towards the parents requesting the surrogacy, to the birth mother? As she needed to say 'yes' for it to happen.

Basically, do you hold the same feelings / angst towards the birth mother, that you do of the parents using a surrogate? As both parties are equally responsible?

If you wouldn't be, why so?

Not being goady, just curious.

@Itsbytheby

Just, incidentally, you never really hear of financially well off ones. Or are rich people just meaner?

why dont rich people give more to charity if they have more money........ because they dont have to.

It's about ensuring that people can't buy control over other people's bodies simply because they are infertile and have money to throw at other people.

Y'know, like how we don't allow slavery any more.

I find it hard to believe that the Law Commission didn’t publish responses to its consultation or who the respondent were. Is it not on its website?

It is, however, more complicated than this. Epigenetics has a big role to play in the gestation of a foetus.

https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/making-babies/0/steps/15924