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

Interesting about the US Iced surprised that the health insurance companies aren't putting provisions in the healthcare about not being surrogates. Perhaps only a matter of time.

Yes good point. It would be difficult here now, as surrogacy isn't really regulated, but in the US, where it's subject to legal contracts, this should be possible.

I wonder if business groups are aware of this? It could potentially make sex discrimination worse too - we know women in their fertile years may not be hired / promoted due to employer fears they'll have a baby. How much more so if there's a chance they could be a surrogate several times over.

Which again, reinforces the fact that surrogates are overwhelmingly from the less well-off sections of society. Despite what we've heard above, I truly doubt many lawyers and board-sitters are undergoing 'surrogacy journies' with the enthusiastic support of their 'progressive' employers. It'll be poor women with little other means of making a living. What a shocker.

Well, Ineedacupofteadesperately, I don't know about your house, but given the state of my house and garden, the laundry, my work (how the bloody hell can it take me this long to write a few invoices?!), the kids' schedule and my lack of sleep, I really shouldn't be on Mumsnet at all. So I'm grateful to you and LassofFyvie for taking the time to both look into the proposals and exploring the ethical implications of surrogacy of any kind.

FWIW, if commercial surrogacy was to be regulated in this way, in my view the IP should be held responsible for any and all costs arising. So whatever fee they pay, there ought to be a calculation about a potential benefit reduction taken into account from the beginning to avoid low fee arrangements that cause the surrogate trouble (I have a few friends who receive benefits and because of the way that the system now works, temporary changes can have a disproportionate long-term impact). Equally so, I can't help thimking that the IP should pay the full maternity pay. Why should employers subside surrogacy?

I'm against commercial surrogacy but altruistic surrogacy can be beautiful. My friend offered to be a surrogate for me, I didn't take her up on it but we did talk about it for a while. We also talked about what if she felt attached to the baby, what if she felt regret, what if it caused her physical damage etc. I was much more concerned for her feelings and health than she was herself. I'm glad we discussed it. It showed me how loving she was. It's among my best memories. I'm sorry that so many on this thread think that surrogacy is the work of the devil, it doesn't have to be.

I'm sorry that so many on this thread think that surrogacy is the work of the devil, it doesn't have to be.

Well no, that's a tad melodramatic.

People just see surrogacy for the ethical minefield that it is. Obviously, commercial surrogacy is worse, but there are issues with altruistic surrogacy too.

For instance, you said that you and your friend discussed her feelings. How about the feelings of the child, who will grow up knowning that his or her mother gave them away, even if for 'altruistic' reasons? Or those of her existing children (I assume there are some?) who will see their mother is pregnant, but will be told that the baby will not be their little brother or sister? We just don't know enough about how children react in such situations, or whether it might cause long-term damage, to be able to blightly say that such arrangements are 'beautiful'.

@IcedPurple the child would have been told that I was the mother (because my eggs) but that they were grown in my friends body to keep them healthy. Neither of us think that childbirth is what makes you a mother, caring for the child does (I believe the same about adoption). We did know that the scent thing was important but we like seeing lots of each other anyway so figured we would gradually let the baby get used to both of us and then slowly build up to spend more and more time with me. Like when babies get introduced to dads, that works as well. We did talk about what to tell her children but weren't sure on that and left the discussion open because I then got pregnant through ivf.

Well no, that's a tad melodramatic.

So is wanting to ban all types of surrogacy. It can be a success.

It can be a success

A success for who? How are we measuring success?

Haven't RTFT but:
If a woman has a surrogate child using her own eggs and sells it to commissioning parents, can her own parents sue her for selling their grandchild?

And you can be sure noone enforces a kidney donor contract by pointing out, look, you signed here, tough luck, here comes the anaesthetic, say goodbye to that kidney you promised me.
What happens if they do try to enforce a kidney transplant contract using this as a precedent?

60 odd million PPI policies were sold, creating an entire compensation industry in recent years. But now people are suddenly too savvy to be exploited using an unfair contract? How many people click the box staying they read the terms and conditions when they haven't?

Poor women are going to be exploited by rich people. It should be banned. There's no right to a baby.
The right to parenthood argument is the same as the right to women's spaces argument. "If someone is really really really really really really sad you must give them what they want."

Neither of us think that childbirth is what makes you a mother, caring for the child does (I believe the same about adoption).

I'm not sure how the person who gestates and gives birth to a child is not the mother. She may relenquish legal rights to that child after birth, but she is most certainly the mother. The child could not exist without her.

Like when babies get introduced to dads, that works as well.

Dads don't replace mums in the early days and weeks of life though. In most situations we would consider seperating a newborn from its mother to be cruel unless done in extreme circunstances, but we're supposed to ignore that in the case of surrogacy.

So is wanting to ban all types of surrogacy. It can be a success.

Yes, but we don't just look at 'succesful' instances of something and leave it at that. Many people smoke heavily and live long and healthy lives, but we don't conclude for that reason that smoking is a good thing.

Plus, like I said, surrogacy is still quite new and there are no real studies of the impact it has on the most important people - the children - so I'm not sure we can say it's a 'success'. Unless by 'success' you mean the commissioning parents get the end product they wanted.

Unless by 'success' you mean the commissioning parents get the end product they wanted

I suspect that was precisely what was meant. It seems to be the running theme throughout this

I suspect that was precisely what was meant. It seems to be the running theme throughout this

Yes, combined with what the poster referred to above: "If someone is really really really really really really sad you must give them what they want."

Makes me think of the situation in the US, where there is no equivalent of the NHS and maternity leave is much less. This is why women with medical insurance are favoured as 'surromums' as the IPs don't have to subsidise their health care. This in turn means that military wives, who get health insurance as part of their husband's employment package, are targeted by surrogacy agencies (ugh) and may make up as many as 50% of all surrogates in the US. And since this health insurance is subsidised by the US taxpayer, what it in effect means is that, in a country with no universal health care, the taxpayer is helping to fund commercial surrogacy.
That's horrendous.

If commercial surrogacy comes in (hopefully not) then there will need to be consideration of impact on employers. I do not see why employers should subsidise paid surrogacy through maternity provisions.
Ok you know where I can see this going?

• surrogates now get mat pay
• companies argue mat leave is for physical recuperation, and bonding etc is not relevant
• agreed statutory eight week mat leave for recovery
• companies now argue eight weeks should be standard, how do you put a time limit on bonding?
• libfems who make a show of bouncing back from pregnancy agree eight weeks is empowering
• eight weeks becomes law
• lenders increase multiples on mortgages as women aren't taken out of earning wages for as long as they were, house prices rise again
• MRAs argue that bonding and family time shouldn't be subsidised by the government or by employers at all, and btw they only get two weeks' paternity leave anyway
• suggestion made to parliament that additional money could be saved if eight weeks is reduced to two, with ATOS contracted to do the health assessment at the end of the fortnight. If the mother was too badly injured to work, she could be apportioned more mat leave a week at a time

It's just all too depressingly easy to see how we will end up like the US with no rights for women at all. It's almost more difficult to see how to avoid it.

That's horrendous.

It is, isn't it?

People who may themselves have no health care are helping rich people to buy babies from poor women.

Yes, but we don't just look at 'succesful' instances of something and leave it at that. Many people smoke heavily and live long and healthy lives, but we don't conclude for that reason that smoking is a good thing.
Or prostitution, or climbing a mountain in flip flops, or putting your life savings on red, etc. Just because some people walk away unscathed doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Plus, like I said, surrogacy is still quite new and there are no real studies of the impact it has on the most important people - the children - so I'm not sure we can say it's a 'success'. Unless by 'success' you mean the commissioning parents get the end product they wanted.
A commissioned child is like a trans child is like a pageant child is like a vegan cat. It's clear who is making the choices and what their primary concern is. Imagine the pressure of having been bought to order by your parents, who might not even be biologically related to you.

The mat leave example I made is about separating out physical recovery from looking after a baby. About how the second part is no longer a given.
Americans have a prescription opioid problem partly because they return to work very soon after major surgery and have extremely strong painkillers to allow them to do so. They also have zero statutory maternity leave. Many states are "at will" states where you can be fired without notice, so there are women who go back to work the day after giving birth.
Separating the physical aspect of pregnancy from motherhood means the extreme lack of worker rights common in the US starts to look feasible here.

Additionally, why have any maternity leave at all? If two gay men can buy a child but are only entitled to two weeks' paternity (and unpaid parental leave) isn't that suddenly homophobic?
It'll be a race to the bottom, with no regard for women, children or worker's rights.
There are already major employers in the UK who offer no sick pay, and things like this happen: www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/people/witness-speaks-for-first-time-about-sports-direct-worker-giving-birth-in-toilet-at-shirebrook-warehouse-1-9571318

@FlyingOink

The more you examine surrogacy (even 'altruistic' surrogacy) the more it throws up serious ethical issues, for the mother, the IPs, society as a whole and, of course, for the children who asked for none of it.

Which is why I think the only sensible answer is to ban it entirely. Yes, infertility is sad, but you don't have a right to a baby and I think it's quite dangerous to see it as a problem which can - and must - be solved at almost any cost.

I want to point out similarities in surrogacy and women ( usually young, single, penniless) who decide to go through the pregnancy with the intention of having the baby adopted.
I saw a documentary about this type of adoption arrangement and people were circling like vultures around the birth mother. One spokeswoman for what I think was an adoption agency said, and I quote:

'The first couple of weeks are a very dangerous time, especially if the baby is being breastfed'

Dangerous? What on earth could she mean? And what she meant of course was that the birth mother was liable to change her mind and keep her baby after all, leading to disappointment for the adoption agency or the prospective parents.

To reframe a mother's decision to keep her baby after all as " a dangerous time" struck me as such an strange thing to say.

Yes, adoption in the US is often scarcely different from surrogacy. You can essentially buy a baby, quite common in the celebrity world.

Wasn't it revealed that David Miliband and his American wife paid to adopt at least one of their sons?

I agree surrogacy is focused on the outcome for the parents and not so much on the outcomes for the baby in question. It's one of those situations where just because we can doesn't mean we should, and that's not demonising anyone or saying surrogacy is terrible - it's just looking at things from all sides to cause the least harm to all those involved, parents and children, which some people seem unable to do without it being perceived as a massive personal attack, probably as if you're invested in it its not nice to have a perception that you're thoughtless or selfish - I get that, I wouldn't like it either, and of course altruistic surrogacy especially, is generally gone into in good faith,... But these questions are important.

Perhaps in time, or already - there will be research showing children from surrogates have exactly the same outcomes as children who's birth mother is an active parent - and that'll be terrific, no one wants these children to be at a disadvantage - I just am not sure there's a meaningful body of research available and we need to know the consequences in the long term.

I've just realised I've turned into that woman who ends up saying "won't someone think of the children" - I'm cool with that

Which is why I think the only sensible answer is to ban it entirely. Yes, infertility is sad, but you don't have a right to a baby and I think it's quite dangerous to see it as a problem which can - and must - be solved at almost any cost.
Agreed 100%
We shouldn't base laws and healthcare provision on people claiming to be really really really really really really sad.

I get called heartless but I don't think IVF should be available on the NHS at all. Neither should nose jobs or neovaginoplasty. The threats of terrible terrible sadness and possible suicide because of the terrible sadness are just that - threats. It's emotional blackmail.
We're so strongly conditioned to avoid being seen as mean or heartless that anyone who can put on an act of being really really really really really really sad gets whatever they want. It's a terrible message to put out.
Yes there are other debates to be had around fertility and reconstructive surgery and other elective procedures and not everyone wants to be stoical if there's something they can fix.
But sadness isn't justification for anything. Men kill their children and then commit suicide because of sadness. We still see their actions as selfish. Sadness can't be ringfenced and deemed out of bounds for discussion. It's just sadness.
What is the collective responsibility towards alleviating an individual's sadness? Give them money? Call them she? Sell them a baby? Graft on bigger tits?

I try to do the best by people but I don't feel in any way responsible for someone else's happiness. I wonder how we talked ourselves into this situation in the first place. Female socialisation?

@FlyingOink Loved your last post

@FlyingOink

Agreed. I think we should focus on improving medical solutions to infertility, making it easier for women to have children at a younger age (a lot of infertility is down to the woman's age), and perhaps more than anything, stop bringing up women to believe that childlessness is a great calamity which must be solved at any cost.

I'll admit it's easy for me to say all of this as I have never wanted children. But I'd like to think that even if I did and were unable to do so, I would not prioritise my mere wants over another woman's dignity.

IcedPurple
Yeah it's telling that your admission you don't want kids will be met with "but you don't understaaaaaaaand" and some insinuation that you are somehow a Vulcan unable to appreciate True Sadness(tm) or anything to do with families or children.

There are lots of things that could be done to improve things for women who want to have children. Affordable housing, affordable childcare, flexible further and higher education options, well paying jobs, etc etc and that's before we address any medical issues.
Of course I'm not saying that we stop trying to improve people's lives and we should all "get on with it", I just get sick of grown adults who are unable to see that the mere fact they really really really really really really want something doesn't mean they can just have/do it. Impulse control, delayed gratification, public opinion, personal resilience, they're all dirty words now.
I'd like a giant house, a new car and a beautiful loving sarcastic witty wife please. If you don't provide those things for me I'll be really really really really really really sad.

Funny how that seems ridiculous but a baby or a sex change or use of a prostituted woman or being able to flaunt one's kink in public are A-OK to just demand on threat of sadness.

There have been some brilliant posts on this thread. And some that are manipulative and disingenuous. Reading them all has certainly clarified my own views. I now believe surrogacy should be banned completely.

We might not be able to do anything about wealthy people buying babies from poor surrogates in poor countries, but at least if it was banned here it would be hard for the wealthy and celebs to portray it as cool and fashionable.