Mermaids 'power couple' Hannah & Jake Graf say surrogacy laws must be changed to force women to hand over babies

[QuietContraryMary]

Jake & Hannah have joined a surrogacy agency and want to rent a womb. Hannah says, however, the law should be changed to compel the rented woman to hand over the baby at birth.

www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/transgender-couple-ready-start-family-call-uk-surrogacy-law-141118630.html

File this along with the comments on the Pulse shooting under "TRAs have no empathy for other people, no compassion, and frankly don't appear to understand that other people matter at all".

Also please note the 4th recommendation:
Parental orders available...where neither partner has used their own gametes. Ie has no genetic relationship to the baby.

I've just realised why they are pushing for this one. With a generation of sterilised teens in the pipeline who will wake up to realise they have no hope of a genetic connection to any child the demand will be there.
Most teens going through puberty blockers etc won't have produced any gametes to store. Others won't have known about the possibility or will not have been able to afford to do so as it is not (yet) funded by the NHS.

I have no idea if either Jake or Hannah have anything usable in cold storage. But it will certainly be the case for others in the future.

My position is I am against surrogacy in all circumstances so my posts have nothing to do with availability of surrogacy for trans or gay couples. I feel the same about Kim Kardashian. Worse actually as she has two children she gave birth to, doesn't need a third and understands what pregnancy and labour mean but she still wanted another woman to do it for her.

I am just very concerned about the implications of the proposed changes to current laws around surrogacy. This particular recommendation is undoubtedly to ensure availability of babies for the generation of sterilised teens to come.

And as I said earlier "we are going to need a bigger boat" . Where the hell do they think all these willing surrogates are going to come from?

I don't really understand something...

What is the point of surrogacy if neither of the "intended parents" aren't genetically linked to the child. Surely this is then just purely adoption? If you aren't genetically connected, then why can't you 'just adopt' a baby that is already here because the woman has already either given birth or has made the decision to put the child up for adoption without the "inducement" of a surrogacy arrangement?

The only difference, that I can see, is that the "intended parents" don't want to have to pick from the currently available stock of available children, which I assume they consider to not be of their required standards, so they want to have a bit more choice and pick which woman they want to have to go through the life-changing ordeal.

The only difference, that I can see, is that the "intended parents" don't want to have to pick from the currently available stock of available children, which I assume they consider to not be of their required standards, so they want to have a bit more choice and pick which woman they want to have to go through the life-changing ordeal.

THIS.

It's as if they want the genetics of a woman who is a bit more pure.

Afterwards, the woman will become unpure like the other women whose children have been given to other people, but the Intended Parents will be done with the woman then, so that's not their problem. The woman will have to deal with the physical and mental health impacts afterwards by herself without bothering the Commissioners. She's served her purpose.

They imagine it makes the process more personal, since it gives them the illusion of control. They know its an illusion, thats why they are complaining about the risks and how unfair they are.

The problem is you can't control biological processes.

Intended parents like Jake and I, are worried the potential surrogate would get attached to the baby and then not want to give it over

So inconvenient when your handmaid starts acting like she has feelings!

They also want an actual tiny baby - which in this country at least is fairly rare for adopted children afaik.

Sonic the supply of babies for adoption is very small. Everyone wants a baby, not an older, damaged child with a sack load of baggage.
Creating an embryo with no genetic link means going through a catalogue of sperm and egg donors with all the physical and intel attributes you want the fairy godmother to bless your child with.

My problem is this isn't adoption is it? It's commissioning and buying a baby to order.
You can't buy (or sell) your newborn baby but it's ok to do it at the embryo stage?

Something I'm not at all clear on is to what extent parents of surrogate babies are screened. Adoptive parents go through a gruelling screening process. My suspicion is that commissioning parents of surrogate babies get off much lighter in that respect.

Whoops. Autocorrect fail. *intelligence attributes not intel attributes.

There was a terrible puff piece in today’s Wail about a gay couple who have twins via surrogacy with each man being a genetic dad.

I am against ALL surrogacy but what struck me was like the Drewitt-Barlows who the press use as poster-boys, this couple were declined as adopters.

There are going to be a lot of similar puff pieces this year. Another thing which needs pushback, otherwise as other posters have said we are going to see women coerced into surrogacy.

I bet there was a lot of thought before they settled on the words 'give over' in relation to the surrogate mother and baby.

----

Wasn't there a documentary following some TV presenter, the presenter was making crass jokes about the fact that the surrogate woman hadn't shaved before going into labour? TV cameras on the other side of a curtain as she gave birth. She was completely humiliated, as if she was hardly human, just a pod for gestating a longed-for baby...

Prospective parents are not screened at all. The British Surrogacy Centre did nothing.

Look at the Parent Makers on YouTube. You’ll see Barrie offering surrogacy to a women who had only just split from her abusive ex, was still battling custody for her children and was living in a 1-bed flat. Not making this up. Poor woman had been coerced into sterilisation by her ex, but clearly wasn’t in the right place to be having another baby.

Now that is interesting Caro. Much as I suspected. I wonder where to find more information about this (not the particular case, the principle and reality of how this is managed)?

Juells here you are:

www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/06/her-name-is-monroe-christine

Or are they counting on being able to have their own dna added to the ivf mix ?

Thanks Iused..

Found this as well
variety.com/2018/biz/news/flipping-out-bravo-trent-1202844060/

They imagine it makes the process more personal

Yes, but feeling like the process is more personal very, very much comes under the "nice to have" category which in no way whatsoever is balanced out by the extra harm caused to the other party (the surrogate), who has to go through a painful pregnancy and childbirth which they otherwise wouldn't choose to do.

Whereas women deciding to put their child up for adoption when pregnant, or tragically having their child removed after birth or in infancy - at least the harm is already done to the woman (and child, due to the removal from its mother) and it has happened for other unconnected reasons.

This particular recommendation is undoubtedly to ensure availability of babies for the generation of sterilised teens to come.

I don't suppose it's ever occurred to them to try to stop those teens from going down that route in the first place, has it?

How on earth did we get to a place where thinking your body is wrong and you need to modify it (which includes sterilisation) is 'normal' and even to be celebrated?

And how did we get to a place where people saying to those troubled teens 'you're perfect just as you are' are vilified as bigots?

What the hell happened? And why?

Intended parents like Jake and I, are worried the potential surrogate would get attached to the baby and then not want to give it over

I wonder, in their selfish desire for a baby, if they have even considered how cruel it is to create a child with the intention of taking it away from its mother as soon as it is born? This is incredibly cruel to both mother and baby. Do they consider either of them as actual human beings?

If such a law was ever passed I imagine this would result in many women who might have considered being a surrogate changing their mind. Be careful what you wish for Mermaids.

My problem is this isn't adoption is it? It's commissioning and buying a baby to order. You can't buy (or sell) your newborn baby but it's ok to do it at the embryo stage?

I had thought of commercial surrogacy as comparable to selling a kidney, but it's worse, isn't it? It is actually buying and selling human beings.

Yes, but feeling like the process is more personal very, very much comes under the "nice to have" category which in no way whatsoever is balanced out by the extra harm caused to the other party (the surrogate), who has to go through a painful pregnancy and childbirth which they otherwise wouldn't choose to do.

Isn't it also traumatic for the child to be removed from its mother so soon after birth?

In terms of checks, ethical agencies do provide couples with counsellors but it is very much of the affirmative nature. I spoke with a woman who had used the British Surrogacy Centre and another, reputable fertility clinic and the contrast between her experiences there was staggering.

We think of surrogacy as being straightforward but anyone who has been through IVF knows full well that the first attempt may not be successful. Interestingly when this happens, the intended patents are in such a rush they immediately look for another surrogate because the woman obviously needs time to heal physically and emotionally and often decides not to go through it again.

But if trans women are women and trans men are men they can make their own baby right?!

Surrogacy I have many mixed feelings on. It does need laws tightening but not like in the US which is just lining lawyers pockets. And yes any surrogacy law should favour the surrogate, if someone is prepared to do this they should hold the cards. I know that can be torture for the intended parents but I can't see another way. And yes I agree it is all getting very Gilead which scares me. And Dustin Lance Black has been discussed on another thread - he worries me.

Whilst on holiday, I once met a surrogate. She had just birthed a baby for a couple.

She told me she was on maternity leave from work as a Teacher. She told me Elton John had approached her, that she didn't want to birth a baby without it going to a Mother. It seems Elton was turned down by other surrogates in the UK because years later he had children in the USA.