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/

That sounds like some back peddling! You called me hideously incompetent and said there was no potential of abuse in that case, so please do explain.

You may be confining yourself to the UK, I am not. Each country is not separate to the issues at hand.

If you don't think surrogates have been and are paid in the UK, you are dreaming.

I think you should be ashamed of yourself, frankly. She's not naive, she just doesn't agree with you. That doesn't give you the right to decide you're a more mature woman and behave coercively or as acting general manager of the universe. It takes all kinds of women and everyone has the right to an opinion. You're not the kind of feminist we want if that's not your attitude.

You're not the kind of feminist we want if that's not your attitude

😂😂😂 who is we? Men?

@Markasread Expenses can run up that high if loss of earnings, bedrest, childcare are involved. No one's twisting anything saying that.

The expenses are directly related to the pregnancy though. Covering childcare for medical appointments or covering lost earnings from bedrest doesn’t put the surrogate any further ahead financially.
It’s not a cheque to spend on designer bags or holidays.
Its covering the expenses the woman already had but that the pregnancy stops her from meeting, or where the pregnancy directly has it’s own expenses.

I think you might be thinking of someone else, unless you're paraphrasing wildly.

Why are you dodging the question? It's much more relevant to the thread.

Ok, I was just making the point that that sum of money does change hands but yes, it is genuine compensation.

Try again.

Men and handmaidens obviously 😬 We should be clapping and cooing while they're commissioning, buying and selling newborns.

Excellent name by the way!!

Oh I see. The word 'that's' referred to your first description of the case rather than your second rhetorical question. There's no question to answer as I agree that he was a risk, as has been plain to you for a while now.

Now let's get down to it. Why don't you want legislation that would prevent this man starting the process of surrogacy? Under the new proposal he'd have to be cleared before this baby was brought into existence. Under the old legislation he probably wouldn't get a PO but baby would have been in his care for a while by then (possibly would have been picked up by sometime linked to the hospital but equally not). Why don't you want that?

Thank you 🍻

Actually no. I'm a woman. Just as much as you. And a feminist. Just as much as you. However I don't think other women need me to tell them what to do with their bodies and explain the implications of what they do with their bodies. We have men for that.

Interesting that you slip into jeering and fake emojis to diminish another woman's voice. Tells me a lot.

No, no, no, don’t try and squirm out of it, you very clearly said there was no potential for abuse in this case and that my take was hideously incompetent. Do you want to apologise for that, or do you stand by it? If you stand by it, please explain why there was no risk and why my take (which was posting a link to the story) hideously incompetent.

Ahh, one of those liberal feminists that make wild claims like “sex work is empowering”? That sort of male approved faux feminist?

She is very naive, as are you.

I'm not the kind of feminist you want? Who are you and when did you decide what kinds of feminists you want? Was there a meeting? What kind am I? What happens next?
So many questions.

BTW, not all opinions are equal. I don't have to listen to or entertain or respect the unexamined, or ill informed ones.

I was thinking that earlier!

And agree what kind of 'feminist' believes that a gestating mother is no more than an incubator and that babies can be bought and sold?

Sex work is work? Eh?

"God forbid" your child isn't LGBTQ+ or infertile

Tell us more about the happy hookers and how being trapped in a baby farm is a good and valid choice.

Tell us how the teenagers trafficked, raped, and used as surrogates multiple times should be left alone to be in charge of their own bodies.

https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/surrogacy-biomarkets-india-troubling-stories-2021-act

Sorry, hideously incompetent was someone else, yours was ‘horrendously incomplete’ about posting a link to an article.

I'm telling the truth I'm afraid. I can't imagine why you'd think my comment referred to your second question as it makes no sense whatever to think he wasn't a risk. Your description was full of omissions - such as the fact that the child had a twin. It was about much more than his record of child abuse, heinous as that was.

However, it's becoming increasingly clear to me and doubtless others reading that you don't want to talk about the new legislation and how it relates to this case. Why is that? Don't you care about how it would help children in this position in the future?

Why wouldn't you want this new legislation to exist that would prevent him going through the new application process for a PO, which would mean that he was flagged him up to fertility clinics as an illegal applicant before the child is conceived?

See my response above.

Are you suggesting that events in India should be used as a reason to silence and patronise women in the UK? Really???

Do you think you know better? You don't.

Why not focus on giving women more opportunities and equality. Then you might not have to tell them what to do.