Article on surrogacy in Sunday Times, Style Supplement

[DiamondGoldandSilver]

I have complained to the Sunday Times about an article in today’s Style supplement regarding a celebrity hairdresser planning to become a sole parent through surrogacy. See below my complaint. If you agree, I would invite you to lodge one too.

‘I was disappointed to read in today’s Sunday Times, Style supplement, an article entitled, ‘Celebrity Hairdresser going down surrogacy route alone’.

The article fails to examine the serious implications surrounding surrogacy, other than to dismiss concerns on the basis that those concerned should keep their opinions to themselves.

In fact, this is a women’s issue and women should not be told to ‘keep their opinions‘ to themselves. Frankly, this dismissal of women’s concerns is misogynistic and unacceptable. Women’s bodies should not be for rent, and I am troubled by any person why believes it is in a baby’s best interests to be deliberately removed from its mother at birth (other than of course in serious cases where it is unsafe for a baby to remain with its mother). The selfishness and entitlement within this article is mind blowing.

The Sunday Times recently has been very good at addressing the concerns of women regarding many issues, but in this particular instance the entirety uncritical journalism simply has not met its usual standards.’

Thanks OP. I'll take a look.

I will have a look too, thank you.

It is very difficult in this country already to have a surrogate birth, and for some couples this is their only chance of having a baby. They are not wombs to rent because you cannot pay someone to surrogate for you - you can only pay reasonable costs. There are virtually no babies for adoption and there can be genetic conditions that only become apparant later on. Some neighbours of ours tried for 10 years to have a child through IVF and every time it didn't work or she miscarried. Eventually, a friend offered to surrogate for them and they got their 'miracle' baby. Perhaps the ST article is a bit flippant, but people's anxiety over desperately wanting a child and not being able to have one is very real.

In this instance the article is about a single man wanting to have a baby through surrogacy. It’s all about what he wants, but the article doesn’t consider what is best for the baby, or the impact on the surrogate birth mother whose body would be used for the process. My concern about surrogacy is that it creates a market for women’s bodies to be used solely for baby production which benefits neither mother nor baby. Every woman’s body is put through some level of risk due to pregnancy. It is a good thing that surrogacy is difficult in the UK.

This particular article is written by a man and the perspective given is 100% male. If more or less says that people (ie women) should shut up in relation to this issue. Well, I won’t shut up.

While it is tragic and very sad that some couples can’t have a child through natural birth, that does not outweigh the harms that the practice and industry of surrogacy causes.

I read this article and was very upset. The comments in the article have been turned off so presumably the editor knows it is a controversial topic. The subject is dealt with so lightly however, with any valid concerns being totally dismissed. The man compares himself to being “like a pregnant woman” because he has to give up saunas, alcohol etc to get “sperm fit” and also has to avoid getting STDs (oh bless the trauma of this!). Surrogacy is referred at one point to being an “industry”. It’s all so upsetting. Why does the media collude in making babies for sale this glamorous lifestyle choice and not highlighting the issues. I found this piece so grotesque.

It's very sad for people who can't have a much-wanted child, nobody is denying the reality of their unhappiness, but that doesn't give them the right to buy another human being. There is no right to have a baby.

And those 'reasonable expenses' can be more than the average salary.

They are not buying anybody in this country - you can only pay for reasonable expenses.

People’s anxiety and desperation to have a child does not trump the fact that this is morally wrong and opens up a whole host of opportunities for children and mothers to be abused and taken advantage of.

www.thetimes.com/article/6e802b45-a516-41cf-bdef-9a729e3aabbb?shareToken=ab7b0ca917017768095196411bd5b3bf

You're buying the baby. Doesn't matter how cheap it is - receiving an item in return for a financial consideration is a purchase.

I agree the situation in other countries that allow fully commercial surrogacy is worse, but that doesn't make the UK system right.

[Edit to previous post: I've fact checked my 'more than the average salary' claim, which I posted from memory. Having looked it up, that was the price including clinic costs. Actual payment to the surrogate is more like £15-20k. But that doesn't alter the principle.]

And I see from the article he's also buying the eggs separately.

Was the Times the newspaper running the weekly column from a woman who, along with her husband, had ordered a baby via a surrogate? About 3 years ago.

I’ll never finger that Irish couple who swooped into Ukraine for their paid-for baby then fucked off, leaving the mother in the war-torn country. How they will explain that to the infant in years to come, I’ve no idea.

Also, the man in the article didn’t choose to go through the UK for a surrogate for ethical reasons. Instead, he’s chosen the UK because it’s cheaper than the US and Mexico. There is no indication in the article that he has the slightest bit of interest in the ethical implications and the potential impact on vulnerable women.

Still renting a womb.

The Times has always been pro surrogacy esp Style where that woman droned on about it for years, comments have been turned off on surrogacy articles for a bit now. It's quite odd as on women's rights they are usually very good, which is why I subscribe but they have a huge blind spot when it comes to surrogacy

I was just reading in The Sunday Times Style magazine of 27 August a feature about the 'founder of the fashionable homeware brand L'Objet' who had moved from New York to Lisbon and refurbished a grand apartment. While describing 'his adult abode', it mentioned in passing his '15-month-old son, Levi (born via a surrogate)..." That was all it said before returning to decor - no mention of a partner or spouse or other person involved. And indeed no mention of any other throughout the article. The impression was of a single man.