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

Here are some stories from people who were sperm donor conceived Peakpants

anonymousus.org/?s=&cat=4*
*
Also there's a big difference between IVF/fertility assistance and surrogacy - using a random woman for her reproductive services.

You need to search categories for Donor conceived.

Thanks for the link- I will read the stories. Oh and of course I realise there is a huge difference between IVF and surrogacy. It’s just the way that it’s often flippantly said that these people must simply accept that they cannot have children when many heterosexual couples refuse to accept the same thing. That suggests that perhaps it’s not something that is easily accepted.

I am conflicted with the stories of donor conceived children. I know couples who have conceived this way and their children are happy and well adjusted. There are also countless stories of children who have issues with their biological parents (myself included). It’s not that simple. Biological link really doesn’t automatically equal good parent so I think it’s easy to look at the donor stories and condemn it without considering the context of the many millions of adult children who have no or limited relationships with their biological children.

I realise that sperm donation is not the same as surrogacy though.

There is a certain element of hypocrisy though in telling gay couples to deal with the fact that they cannot have children naturally when many heterosexual couples would never accept this for themselves and would have IVF, often paid for by the state. It’s certainly hard to blame some couples for doing everything they can to become parents

I'm old enough to remember Louise Brown - the first "test tube" baby. It may possibly be the only time my opinion on human sexuality and family life coincided with that of the Vatican's.

I was very uncomfortable then at the idea of everyone who wants a baby must get one- no matter how unatural or expensive the procedure involved was. I'm still of the same view. That is a very unpopular view but well life can be unfair, sometimes some things just have to be borne.

Sorry that was meant to say biological parents of course

Lass I agree to an extent. I do think though that if we say to same sex couples that they must accept that they cannot have a family, we need to ask why we don’t say the same to the heterosexual couples who have round upon round of IVF.

How do people feel about sperm donation and a child growing up not knowing the donor parent? Just interested.

I think the child must have a right to know who the donor is and that there was a donor. Ditto egg donation.

Neither procedure is quite the same as surrogacy though. Sperm donation is risk free physically for the man although obviously there are psychological factors. Egg donation is NOT risk free for the woman. A proportion of eggs donated are the side effects of IVF - some clinics offer a service whereby ‘spare’ eggs are used or women can undergo an extra harvesting to offset cost - that is something I think is also wrong (does that happen in the uk or are all egg donations altruistic?)

Yes I take your point PeakPants the genie is out of the bottle. However I don't think that prevents us saying there will be an outright ban on commercial surrogacy or even all surrogacy. That ban applies to gay and straight couples.

Such a ban would have the same effect on male gay couples as it has one heterosexual couples. In both cases the couple does not have a partner who has a functioning womb.

I think the mother and baby bond is hugely important. But that’s not the same thing as saying mothers must stay home & look after their babies and have as many as possible.

That said I do wish that women could have the realistic option to spend more time with their children as toddlers/pre-schoolers and not lose out financially or career-wise. That’s a whole other thread.

It’s only hypocrisy to say that gay couples shouldn’t have biological children and avail themselves of IVF, if you are doing it yourself. It’s leaving yourself open to charges of homophobia.

But the biological fact remains that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, whether au natural or in a testube and I think we ignore this at our peril.

Nobody has the right to commodity either another human being’s body or to buy and sell children.

There is a reason why commercial organ donation is banned. Though one wonders for how long in this climate?

Bowl I believe egg "sharing" is a thing in the uk to reduce costs.
One of the issues donors must consider is that one of their donated eggs may go on to become a live baby for the recipient whilst they themselves may never achieve a viable pregnancy resulting in a "take home" baby.

Thanks i used ... it’s a bit of an ethical minefield isn’t it?

"There is a certain element of hypocrisy though in telling gay couples to deal with the fact that they cannot have children naturally when many heterosexual couples would never accept this for themselves and would have IVF,"

Lesbians can have babies if they can get some sperm from somewhere and let's face it, it's hardly a rare thing to come by (pun not intended!". (Although I hear there are issues with this at the moment > for another thread > point that follows stands).

This is not discrimination against gay people - it's a biological fact that women are the ones who grow the babies. The fact that two men need a woman to make a baby and her input is waaaayy more thnan a quick wank is just a fact of life - in the orgininal sense!

Gay men are welcome to have babies with women who are prepared to do so because they want to (not for cash).

I'm not sure about the gestational carrier thing, this seems to involve greater risks for the woman due to teh way it's done, and also really does reduce her to the status of flesh-bag for growing a baby in. It's a very male way of viewing things - that if the egg is not hers then it's nothing to do with her, even as it shares her blood nutrients immune system, is wrapped in her heartbeat hearing her voice etc etc. A very funtional view of something that almost certainly has more to it than just a "bag" >> it's the type of reductive view of our biological functions that belies a deep misogyny. Hardly a new thing, this.

The idea that rich gay men must be provided with poor women to grow their babies (at not insignificant physical and emotional risk) is not a progresive equalities idea, it's a deeply misogynist one.

Paid surrogacy simply doesn't fit with the children act in the U.K.
there is no way the law will be changed to remove the automatic PR of the birth mother, or the 6 weeks relinquishment rule.
There is no way that pre birth contracts could ever be enforceable under the children act.
That's such a major, groundbreaking and successful law that it simply won't and can't be messed with in this way.
Nothing can come of this consultation.

I do think though that if we say to same sex couples that they must accept that they cannot have a family, we need to ask why we don’t say the same to the heterosexual couples who have round upon round of IVF

Completely unrelated issues! 'We' don't tell two men they can't have a biological offspring, nature does. Any female can try to get pregnant via any medical means she can pay for - what does that have to do with the fact that men don't carry babies?

Plenty of lesbian couples have babies through donor sperm or co parenting with men. I know of several gay men who are fathers sharing care with female friends (usually lesbian but not always)
As ever, the answer lies in human connection and relationships, not throwing money at economically disadvantaged women.

That's such a major, groundbreaking and successful law that it simply won't and can't be messed with in this way.

I’d love to believe they won’t. But look what’s happening to women’s sex based protections - all quietly repealed and rolled into the equality act. And now the equality act is under threat.

I don’t think we can be complacent on this.

Men tend to have a way of gettign what they want, TBH.

As ever, the answer lies in human connection and relationships, not throwing money at economically disadvantaged women.

Nicely put Notaman

Sorry NotaNotMan

That's ok I'm not a man either

Honestly - even if there were political will to mess with the children act it's so embedded that I think it would be impossible. It would affect care proceedings, adoption, everything. It's a piece of legislation that has remained largely unaltered for 30 years and has been rigourously tested time and again.

Do you know what I find most frightening IRL is the amount of women I know who agree with surrogacy and even believe its a nice thing to do for your gay male friends!!!!

I am shocked when I have this discussion (as I am re trans people) that the mainstream view seems to be so at odds with the feminist view, and again, in opposing all surrogacy, as I believe it commodifies women's bodies in the same way as prostitution, I am in a minority.

Also, the promotion of surrogacy as a lifestyle choice by vacuous Hollywood celebrities like SJP and Nicole Kidman really annoys me - would they be as quick to promote the fact that they paid for prostitutes to sleep with their husband? No, of course not, but perhaps we only need to wait a decade or two.

It really seems to be the dismantling of women's hard won rights by using bodily autonomy as a means to control us once again.

I'm massively against commercial surrogacy but I'm not convinced that so called 'altruistic' surrogacy in the UK is much better tbh. I've seen posters on MN (both surrogates and parents through surrogacy) sharing their stories as an example of so called success story but where it was clear there were significant MH issues involved with the surrogates. The complete lack of assessment or oversight means there is still opportunity for exploitation.

Anybody who thinks the UK law on surrogacy is okay as it stands should read the following court judgement- this is a perfectly legal surrogacy arrangement in the UK but makes very upsetting reading.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/34.html

I don't understand how surrogacy is sold as an altruistic act when a child has basically been commissioned. I don't see gifting a person as completely positive and selfless behaviour.

www.facebook.com/184599864915751/posts/2415953168447065/

Read the comments on this and weep

Expenses can also run up to 15k for 'altruistic' surrogacy. That could seem like a very attractive proposition for women in poverty.