Law Commission consulting on paid surrogacy in the UK

[PimmsnLemonade]

Sorry, I've no share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/surrogate-mothers-could-be-allowed-to-charge-cash-gfktl290j

Sorry but I think she let slip more than she intended. One supply source of babies has dried up to be replaced by surrogacy.

If we are going to go armchair psychologist then do allow me to pull up my wingback and set down a suspiciously-shaped cigar.

In terms of what is being let slip, might I suggest that you are struggling to reconcile your preconceptions about people who use surrogates to have children with the reality of someone who has done so? Finding this person to be not as cartoonishly villainous as you would perversely hope has led you to seize upon any imagined slight encoded within their choice of words, which you have then twisted into a means by which your preconceptions can be soothed, rather than attempting any personal reflection and growth.

In short, it is easier to reach than to grasp.

One person not being "cartoonishly villainous" does not make paid surrogacy fine. Some slave owners apparently were quite kind to their slaves.

No I am not struggling with my preconceptions of what the users of a surrogate might be like. What they might be like as individuals is irrelevant to the ethics of surrogacy.

However the poster failed miserably in making me think any better of paid surrogacy by her ill thought out choice of words.

Some slave owners apparently were quite kind to their slaves.

Are you seriously minimising the absolute and unrelenting horrors of slavery by making glib, superficial comparisons to paid, voluntary work? Have you any idea how offensive that is?

I worry not only about women being used as walking wombs, but also about the possibility of picking some of the baby's traits.

Want a white baby? Would you like to increase the odds of having a baby with blue eyes? How about some good genes, no history of cancer in this woman's family! Want a sporty child? This womb belongs to a former athlete!

And then there are all the medical aspects, of course. How many times could a woman carry a baby safely? Should there be a break between pregnancies, and if so, how long? If complications in labour render the "bearer" sterile, should she be compensated by the buyers? If it's a risky pregnancy, and an abortion is necessary to save the woman's life, who gets to decide?

Such a minefield!

Are you seriously minimising the absolute and unrelenting horrors of slavery by making glib, superficial comparisons to paid, voluntary work? Have you any idea how offensive that is?

Oh give over. I wasn't impressed by your pretentious attempts at analysis. You introduced the concept of bad users and good users of surrogacy. The point is irrelevant in the context of surrogacy as a whole. So , not glib or superficial, merely pointing out the glaring flaw in your argument.

I worry not only about women being used as walking wombs, but also about the possibility of picking some of the baby's traits.

Isn't that a separate risk, associated more with modified IVF than inherent to surrogacy?

I am completely against commercial surrogacy for all the reasons previous posters have so eloquently outlined but mainly because I think surrogacy fails the children born of it. It does not put the babies needs first, rather it puts the wants of adults (the want to have a child) first. It is the selling of babies.

I was infertile for many years, suffered many miscarriages and was told by a fertility doctor that I'd never have my own baby (he was wrong) and I felt under pressure to go down ever more ethically dubious roads by the fertility industry. It's relentless, this is the next treatment option, then this, then donor eggs, then go abroad, then surrogacy. There is never any pause for reflection of whether what is happening is right and any consideration for the children that will be born - the newborn is considered to be the end product.

I know how raw that wanting a child is. But the child's rights should come first. No-one has a right to a child. Children are not property. They grow up to be their own people and to have their own thoughts and feelings. I do wonder how the babies born of surrogacy will feel about the adults involved with their birth and the nature of it when they grow up. If you read relationships there are lots of people who are no contact with their parents over issues far less complex and upsetting than surrogacy.

@Ineedacupofteadesperately You wrote that so perfectly, thank you.

Perfectly put Ineedacupoftea

Has anyone noticed this series in the Times? This woman writes about her experiences of surrogacy.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/weekend/surrogacy-and-me-hey-doctor-please-dont-frighten-our-angel-hqsmtwfrx

The more I read, the less convinced I am about any of the surrogacy process.

And this in the guardian today - apparently informed consent will prevent any abuse of vulnerable women. Why on earth didn't we think of that before . No thought given to the children involved either.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/04/surrogacy-money-law-women-payments-fair?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

The article talks at great length about wanting to properly pay women for surrogacy.

But the truth of the changes required by commissioning parents is in this paragraph:

UK law currently makes surrogacy an informal enterprise with a legal process that takes place entirely after the event. What we need is regulation at the start, through written agreements, counselling, screening and preparation, and independent legal advice for all sides. This will guard against exploitation far more successfully than law which gives no structure until the baby has been born and then ineffectively seeks to restrict payments which have already been made.

The real difference between surrogacy in the UK and the US is the contract. At the moment, women can change their mind after birth, in the US they are locked into a contract at conception.

This is not about protecting children and vulnerable women, it's about protecting commissioning parents.

I don’t like the Times series on paid- for egg donation and surrogacy: the journalist seems to give very little consideration to the potential thoughts and feelings of the future DC.