The Rumplestiltskin Law

[Barracker]

There is a consultation happening regarding surrogacy.

Here is a link to the Law Commission on the subject.

It's key aim is horrifying.
To sever all rights of a woman over the child she has created with her body, the moment she gives birth to it. Presumably, to sever her rights before she gives birth, in fact. To contractually grant someone else ownership of her body and the child within it.

"Creating a new surrogacy pathway that will allow, in many cases, the intended parents to be the legal parents of the child from the moment of birth."

I'm calling it what it is. The Rumplestiltskin Clause.

I'm taking your child, and there's nothing you can do about it. A deal is a deal. Your body is mine. Your human rights were forfeit when you signed the contract.

It's the stuff of nightmarish fairytales.
Rumplestiltskin was not the good guy.

#TheRumplestiltskinLaw

It seems to me the emotional arguments are coming from the pro- surrogacy posters. We have had the list of tragic situations which are supposed to be a justification.

On the anti side, for me anyway it is not particularly the emotional arguments (pregnancy can be life- threatening/ removing a baby from its mother) which sway me. They are valid points but for me it comes down to , as with prostitution, to the question of human dignity and buying or hiring the use of another person's body for sex or creating a made to order baby is a violation of human dignity. Allowing these activities diminishes the good of society as a whole.

I also agree with Lass. Excellent post Lass

Yes, excellent post Lass.

Also true of human trafficking and modern slavery.

Yes, excellent post Lass.

And if you want emotive language, how about 'surrobub', 'surro journey', or 'surromum'? I'd call it twee, but that would be to ignore the seriousness of reducing actual babies and actual mother to 'surro' this and that.

Great post Lass.

Then again maybe we haven't done enough feminist analysis of why women do use surrogates.
Remember, that for many years people truly believes prostitution was a choice. It was only after feminists interviewed prostitutes and did research that we began to understand that although economic oppression was usually the root cause there were many other factors involved. Why were middle class women becoming prostitutes? We had the happy hooker narrative. Then we scratched the surface and found that grooming and childhood abuse played a huge role. You can see Rebecca motts blog.

What kind of women are so terrified of losing their husbands that they go along with surrogacy? Is this something they would do without a husband's involvement? It strikes me as no. I've not heard of a single case of a single woman using a surrogate. I'd be happy to see links. There is always a man in the picture. There is definitely a lack of feminist research on this issue

As for why women actually become surrogates, I'm sure there's feminist research out there on this subject, although I haven't read any myself. It's clearly economic exploitation , we already know this. But I'm starting to wonder if there is also an aspect of self harm involved. The risk is potential death, and of course having your baby taken away. Women really are that financially desperate, we know this, but to also have such disregard for your health. I guess they just figure it's a better and safer bet than prostitution ( and there probably is statistically more chance of being killed as a prostitute)

I’ve not heard of a single case of a single woman using a surrogate

I’m not surprised - it was not legal in the UK for single IPs to use surrogates until January 2019. There are definitely single intended mothers out there, but up until now they have not had the opportunity to pursue a surrogacy journey in the UK. (I am unsure what the rules are in other jurisdictions.)

As for why women become surrogates ... It’s clearly economic exploitation

I’m sorry to say I think that this is a very ill informed view and missed a huge part of the picture. In the UK surrogates do not get paid - so there is no economic benefit to being a surrogate. We do this because we are fulfilling a dream of helping a couple who otherwise would not be able to have a family. Bribing a child into the world is a huge and wonderful thing, and something no woman should ever take lightly. Surrogacy has brought so much joy to my life speaking as a surrogate - there have been tears of joy and pride from my IPs, my husband, my parents, neighbours, friends... Whilst I accept that it’s not something everybody would want to do or indeed agree with, I do find it sad that it is painted as being such a universally negative thing when my experience is that it has brought joy hope and love to so many people.

@Anon992 We have also had prostitutes explaining in great detail why they love their job, that it's a choice etc. what happens a lot in pornography especially, is that it's only after the woman has left porn that she is able to process and speak about her trauma. Just because we have a surrogate on here saying how wonderful the experience was, doesn't mean that surrogacy is right

@Anon992 If it was such a great thing why aren't Swiss women becoming surrogates for fisherman's wives in Bangladesh? What we see instead is that impoverished women in India are becoming surrogates for wealthy westerners. Why don't female MPs become surrogates for women in council houses? Economics plays a huge factor in who does and who doesn't become a surrogate. And I've read about "gifting" surrogates, so maybe not in your case, but in many cases where it wasn't an overt paid transaction, the surrogate receives substantial monies as a "gift"

I also disagree that bringing a child into the world is a wonderful thing. Have you seen the state of the world? Some young women are even starting to wonder if bringing a child into the world in the state that it's in can be seen as child abuse.
But why are we talking about how wonderful it is ( it isn't) to bring a child into the world. That's not the topic of discussion. We're talking about whether it's ethical to use a woman's body in this way and most women would agree it's not.

Also, as this is an anonymous forum we have no evidence to suggest that Anon is in fact a surrogate mother. Their posts are suggestive of someone with a close affiliation to those pushing through these draconian roll backs on children’s and women’s rights.

With regards to ‘altruistic’ surrogacy. Here’s a paragraph which sums up some of the inherent falsehood in claiming that no payment is made and that therefore babies are not being bought and sold:

www.fairobserver.com/culture/surrogacy-legality-ethics-womens-rights-news-018210/

“Another legal fiction is the payment of money to the birth mother for “expenses” in a so-called altruistic surrogacy. Everyone knows it’s not for expenses, but for the delivery of a child to another person. If she doesn’t produce a child, or if the child dies, she doesn’t get the money. Surrogacy is about money from start to finish. In the US the intending parents pay approximately $150,000, divided between the birth mother ($20,000-$30,000), the egg donor ($5,000-$10,000), the doctor ($30,000), the lawyer ($10,000), the agency ($20,000), which still leaves $50,000 unaccounted for. However the cost can be cut in half in other countries such as Mexico, India and Thailand. (It is estimated that in India alone the annual income from surrogacy was worth anywhere between $50 million and $2.3 billion.)
Intermediaries exploit the misguided desires of the intending parents and the often-desperate economic need of the birth mother to pocket the difference. This structure makes a mockery of consent, medical ethics and the rule of law.”

Also, another excerpt from the article mentioned above regarding the agency of women to do as they see fit with their bodies - an extreme libertarian argument when the choice is that to abandon a baby and the choice to possibly die or have huge physical and emotional damage inflicted by said choice:

“Some agency feminists argue that we should have no such convention because women have the agency to choose whatever they want to do with their bodies to make the best decisions they can in the difficult situations they may be in. Decisions cannot be defined as involving agency if they are driven by coercion, violence or extreme poverty. Even though some women will claim they are happy to carry one, two or even three babies for someone else, that does not negate the argument.
Many slaves made the best of slavery too. Some even opposed abolition. Some earned enough money to buy themselves and their families out of slavery —a thought abhorrent today. Making do with what you have has always been a survival technique. It does not mean that the condition is acceptable because people find a way to survive. Human rights are not just about survival — it’s about human dignity and respect. We have a duty to speak out and say these conditions are not acceptable.”

@JoanOfQuarks I'm also starting to think that in the case of altruistic surrogacy there is an element of self-harm involved. Why, just why, would you put yourself at risk in this way, to make a baby you know you're not going to see or raise? I know women are indoctrinated to put others before themselves , and maybe this is being taken advantage of, but I do worry about a woman who does this to herself ( that's if we are to go down the "choice" route- for most it's a clear cut case of economic exploitation)

We do this because we are fulfilling a dream of helping a couple who otherwise would not be able to have a family.

I take it the 'IPs' are close friends or relatives of yours?

I ask because people, generally speaking, do not tend to make great sacrifices for strangers, even in life and death matters. And the desire - and at the end of the day that's all it is, a desire - to have your 'own' child certainly is not a life and death matter. Not to mention that, as another poster pointed out, rich women don't give the 'gift' of a baby to poor women. Why have all the baby farms (that's what they are) been in poor countries like India, Thailand or former Soviet republics rather than, say, Norway or Canada? If going through 9 months of pregnancy, and then giving birth to a child only to give it away is such an immense joy, that is?

Well first of all I find it deeply offensive that just because I am expressing - politely - a differing opinion to others, which is informed by both my personal experience and also by my legal background, that I may be a liar and not really a surrogate. I shall set this to one side as I am not able to offer proof on an Internet forum. But for what it’s worth - I AM a gestational altruistic surrogate based in the uk, I am currently 7 months pregnant with a surrogate baby for a couple who can’t carry their own child, I am a high earner, am highly educated (to post grad level) and view myself as a feminist.

I think once again the preceding posts have dived into the (strong and compelling) arguments against commercial surrogacy. I personally agree that international surrogacy involving disadvantaged women in poorer socioeconomic regions is wrong, for the reasons you have all set out above. However this doesn’t undermine my arguments in favour of altruistic surrogacy within the UK between informed consenting parties.

As to the assertion that most women would agree surrogacy is not ethical - do you have a source for this? - it’s quite a sweeping statement and this is very much a nuanced area - you will get differing answers depending on the way you phrase the question.

And as to why, why would I do this? For love. For love of my friends and the desire to see them as parents. To bring them and their families - brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents - happiness and joy. I am not a masochist or a self harmer - far from it!

Of course I will see the child again. We will be open with him/her about their origins and I will be part of their lives growing up - just not as their mother.

This is such a complex and emotive area - to get a true insight I think we need to be prepared to peel back the layers and see that what may seem initially abhorrent based on a commercial and exploitative model can be seen very differently in a different context of an altruistic and informed relationship.

Also, as this is an anonymous forum we have no evidence to suggest that Anon is in fact a surrogate mother. Their posts are suggestive of someone with a close affiliation to those pushing through these draconian roll backs on children’s and women’s rights.

Yup. A surrogate and a lawyer too?

I’m vehemently against moving to legalising commercial surrogacy. Paying to rent the body of a woman for a year of her life at personal risk to herself is no better than renting her vagina for a few minutes to wank into. The very fact that money is the only reward is the reason and the proof that it’s nothing more than exploitation. I don’t buy all that emotive joy of bringing a baby into the world claptrap, because if it’s a commercial arrangement then she wouldn’t otherwise be going through a potentially dangerous pregnancy and childbirth and there would be no baby at the end of it. I’ve been pregnant and given birth. Fortunately it was relatively straight forward and complication free for me but my body is still changed for ever. What possible right should one person have to inflict that on another? Tattooing or branding or otherwise marking or changing another’s body just because you wanted to would be assault at the very least, and the fact that you’d given them a wad of cash would make no difference in the eyes of the law. ’But she was skint your honour, and I did give her 500 quid, and she did see the joy it gave me when I branded her with the hot iron.’ That’s not really going to fly in a court of law, is it? Commercial surrogacy is no different imo. Women do not become pregnant for random strangers just for the hell of it, just like they don’t fuck any random man who asks them on the street, so that fact alone is absolute proof that commercial surrogacy is nothing more than a violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy and dignity for the benefit of people who believe that their money entitles them to purchase another human being. And for the comfortably off MC women who swear they’d love to carry a baby for a complete stranger, well good for you, but you’re not going to be the one considering renting out, risking death and complication and irreversibly changing your body in order to pay the rent or put food on the table, are you. You won’t die if you can’t become a surrogate, but you’re also not about to become a surrogate out of desperation either.

Also consider this: I’ll call her Paula. Paula is 33. She’s been trying for a baby with her husband Steve for 5 years but she’s found out that she’s infertile, and IVF isn’t an option because there’s little to no chance of its success. Paula and Steve have low paid jobs and their income is topped up by benefits each month. If this is about giving the opportunity to become parents to people who wouldn’t otherwise have it, then will commercial surrogacy be available to Paula and Steve? They can’t afford it on their own, and they would be claiming benefits for any potential baby, plus maternity benefits for maternity leave. Would Universal Credit even pay out for a child acquired by surrogacy? Have they even considered that questionn? I bet they haven’t, because it’s never been asked, because commercial surrogacy isn’t intended for the sorts of people who claim UC.You can bet your last pound that they’ll be considering their rules about paying out to surrogates though, if the law is changed, because UC claimants will be exactly the sorts of people forced into considering it.

It must be shit if you desperately want a child but can’t have one. I get that. I’m blind, I will be for the rest of my life and I wish more than anything that I wasn’t, but it’s tough shit, I am. That’s life.

The older I get the more I see the nuance in these issues. Children abandoned by birth parents, even if then placed in loving new families can have tremendous problems in later life as they come to terms with the decisions made by adults about them, around that time, and whilst the situation re. surrogacy isn't identical there is in some instances just to my mind a significant cross over to consider. And that's aside from the question of commodifying (poorer) women's bodies. Of course it's a kind thing to do if altruistic and of course no one wants to make life any harder for those struggling with infertility, but like I say it doesn't erase the fact that there are consequences to carefully consider.

We should definitely listen to the voices of those surrogate babies as they grow up as their perspective will be important.

Paula and Steve have low paid jobs and their income is topped up by benefits each month. If this is about giving the opportunity to become parents to people who wouldn’t otherwise have it, then will commercial surrogacy be available to Paula and Steve?

Or maybe a lawyer, university lecturer or architect will happily go on a 'surro journey' for her, what with it being such a great joy to undergo pregnancy and childbirth on behalf of another woman?

The thing is that even if the surrogate is truly altruistic and not coerced or paid via 'expenses', they're still putting their desire to 'do good' and the feelings of the commissioning parents before the rights of the child.

There is a lot of evidence that a significant number of children of sperm donors* and adoptees have a lot of issues with the way they were brought into the world / around their removal from their birth parents.

I'm going to post again the video Joan posted. This is the perspective of a surrogate child.
vimeo.com/125756487
Jessica Kearn feels rejected by her birth mother and the fact she went looking for her birth mother caused her commissioning mother to disown her , from what she said it seems to me the commissioning mother felt she 'owned' Jessica because she bought her and was not happy with her acting as an independent adult in adulthood. So Jessica now feels abandoned by both mothers. I wonder how many others don't speak out for fear of abandonment by their commissioning parents?

I think it could be reasonably argued that children of well-off altruistic surrogate mothers may feel even more rejected because it's not as if their birth mothers couldn't have afforded to have raised them. I mean in that case it's pretty clear that any consideration of the child comes last, it wasn't circumstance that led them to give the child up, they created the child with the express intention to give up the child.

This consultation does seem to miss out a rather large issue which is the human dignity of the children born, and the life- long impact on them. People are not possessions and surrogacy treats babies as if they were.

Personally I can't think of anything more cruel than to remove a newborn from it's birth mother at birth. If a mother dies in childbirth we see it as a complete tragedy - this is basically the same. However, that reason to ban surrogacy aside, the life-long interests of the child are NOT considered at all in this consultation. The babies are treated like possessions. This seems to breach their fundamental human rights.

*slate.com/human-interest/2010/06/new-study-shows-sperm-donor-kids-suffer.html

@Anon992 This is the feminist board. All feminists are against surrogacy, just like we're all against prostitution.

No you can't say "you don't get to define feminism" because I do. Feminism is a political movement based on theory. It's not whatever you want it to be. Or anything can be feminist and empowering. Well if you're a liberal feminist I suppose pole dancing and trans activism is empowering. But I'm a radical feminist , and our politics are very clear.

It may be true that women out there support surrogacy , but they're not feminists. You've come into our space. What are you trying to achieve?

Sorry link fail

slate.com/human-interest/2010/06/new-study-shows-sperm-donor-kids-suffer.html

vimeo.com/125756487

Thought experiment.

Say a very successful well-paid woman, say a CEO of a bank, had a child. Then decided that, rather than keeping the child, she would give them, at birth, as a gift to a poor infertile couple. Do we think this woman would be criticised or lauded? I suspect we'd have Daily Mail headlines of what a 'monster' and 'unnatural' woman she was to give up her child, especially as she could afford to keep it.

There is no difference between this and surrogacy except that surrogacy has a hugely well funded PR campaign behind it.

And of course most surrogates will be forced into it by poverty and having no choice.

The thing is that even if the surrogate is truly altruistic and not coerced or paid via 'expenses', they're still putting their desire to 'do good' and the feelings of the commissioning parents before the rights of the child

Thank you for expressing that. There is a touch of self aggrandisement about it isn't there?