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

Zutt If she didn't want the baby, why would there be a dilemma about adoption?

Because relinquishing for adoption (which is what we would be talking about in this case) brings with it the emotions of rejection . These days there is often ongoing contact of some sorts (direct or indirect) between adoptive parents and the birth parent(s).

I'm not particularly in favour of surrogacy, but the genetic link is important, so if you are going to allow surrogacy at all, I think recognising that is necessary.

Lorit - I'm adapted and my mum is definitely the woman who adopted me as soon as I was born (the woman who gave birth to me is my birth mother)

However I do agree with you that if the woman giving birth in this scenario is not view as a mother then she is just a womb for rent. Which I think is horrific

Barracker - #RumplestinskinsLaw - I like it!

This is one step away from forcing women to go through with birth, even if a risk to her health has been identified. It’s a slippery slope to ‘owning’ the baby after birth, to owning it while the woman is still carrying it. This can then lead into the ‘owners’ having a say over what the woman eats, whether she has a say in how/when she gives birth, etc.

www.reuters.com/article/us-india-women-surrogacy-factbox/fatcbox-which-countries-allow-commercial-surrogacy-idUSKBN1530FP

According to this article Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain prohibit all forms of surrogacy.

This strikes me as the best way to deal with. Don't legalise women and children as commodities. It's every bit as wrong as slavery.

Apparently Russia has the most permissive surrogacy rules. Somehow this doesn't surprise me one bit.

Because relinquishing for adoption (which is what we would be talking about in this case) brings with it the emotions of rejection . These days there is often ongoing contact of some sorts (direct or indirect) between adoptive parents and the birth parent(s).

Why are you assuming that there will be no feelings of rejection from a child born from surrogacy? Why shouldn't there be ongoing contact between a mother and the child she gave birth to, even in cases of surrogacy?

When I was adopted my birth mother had (I can't quite remember) a period of about six months to change her mind and my parents weren't my legal parents until then. I know this was incredibly hard for my parents (and probably too long a period) but I agree with the basic principle that the birth mother needs time to be sure that this is definitely the right decision for her and the baby.

I think this point still stands in his case even though the genetic material has been supplied by other parties.

It is after all just that genetic material. It is the hosting in the womb that changes it from genetic material into a baby. Our whole legal framework around abortion is based upon a differentiating between genetic material and a baby so put against that, this seems to me to be shifting the goalposts.

Ps I'm 'adopted' not 'adapted' (I'm not in the least adapted..)

And in my later post 'this' not 'his'

Anyway, since my posts are making little sense I'm going to go and ingest caffeine ...

Who is the 'real' mum.

Well that's the $6 billion question isn't it?

A) the mother whose DNA makes up 50% of the baby
B) the mother where the baby grew for 9 months and was impacted by choices made by the mother in that time
C) the mother who committed to care for the baby once born giving him/her the nurture and life experiences

I've never been pregnant. Maybe I can't understand this. But I don't see why either party should be able to unilaterally break the commitment they freely and knowingly undertook.

I don’t have experience of surrogacy but I do have a child via donor egg ivf (husband’s sperm). The donor could change her mind up to the point the embryo was transferred into me. She could still withdraw consent now about the use of spare embryos. She couldn’t change her mind while I was pregnant or turn up now and claim my son. The woman who is pregnant and gives birth is the mother.

If the intended parents are the legal parents, what if the anomaly scan revealed something like Down’s syndrome. Could they require the surrogate to have a termination even if she didn’t want to?

Maybe the rule should be that surrogate should be able to change her mind and keep the baby but the intended parents should not be able to change their minds, avoiding the risk of the surrogate being left with the baby.

Makes me even more against surrogacy than I was, I'm afraid.

In principle I wouldn't expect feelings of rejection coming from surrogacy, because the baby was created out of love, and gestated by the surrogate on behalf of the intended parents. So no rejection going on (especially in the case of non commercial surrogacy).

A relinquished baby is so different, because that baby is 50% the (birth) Mum's.

I feel really uneasy about surrogacy. (In fact I also feel pretty uneasy about donor eggs, and especially egg sharing). But if you are allowing it, then I don't think it is clear cut to say the surrogate holds all the rights & responsibilities.

I agree surrogacy is an ethical nightmare and shouldn't be legal. To deny the birth mother's rights at the moment of birth is just a matter of efficiency not ethics. The issue is how long the transfer process takes (about a year I think) I really don't see how making it instantaneous shows due regard for the seriousness of what is happening to all involved. It's just another transaction. It doesn't matter how much time is given preparing before the birth, there should still be a pause button afterwards.

It must be bad enough being unable to conceive - but just imagine having gone through all the emotional commitment and expense of finding a surrogate, maybe even providing your own eggs/sperm, being overjoyed to think you'll finally have the baby you've longed for, and then to have the surrogate mother say, "Nah, I think actually I'll keep your baby."

It must be appalling for the childless couple to know they have a child and have no chance to love it and care for it, no rights to decide how it's brought up or even to know what will happen to it.

I think, if you're willing to be a surrogate, you should understand that it's no more your baby than if you're a nanny caring for someone else's child while they're at work. If you can't accept that in advance and sign a document agreeing to hand the baby over once it's born, you shouldn't be a surrogate mother.

It must be bad enough being unable to conceive - but just imagine having gone through all the emotional commitment and expense of finding a surrogate, maybe even providing your own eggs/sperm, being overjoyed to think you'll finally have the baby you've longed for, and then to have the surrogate mother say, "Nah, I think actually I'll keep your baby."

See, that scenario just makes me more convinced that surrogacy shouldn’t be allowed, not that the law should be changed so that the pregnant woman has fewer legal rights.

Women and their uteruses should not be commodities available to rent.

I heard about this yesterday and was horrified. I’m sure many people have positive experiences of surrogacy, but that doesn’t take away from the issues being brought up here. The man (of course) talking about it on Radio 4 seemed surprised to be asked about what would happen if a woman changed her mind after signing away all legal rights before conception. The baby that she has carried and given birth to. Some questions that spring to my mind:

• what happens if she has health problems during the pregnancy? Do her rights trump the prospective parents’ legal right to the baby?

• what happens if she just decides she doesn’t want to go through with pregnancy and birth? Can she back out without being sued? Whose say is final: hers, the prospective parents’ or the court?

• what happens if when she has the baby, she wants to keep it/them? The baby’s DNA is irrelevant, as much as if it had been conceived via IVF from a donor egg and sperm in any other circumstance. Will the baby be literally ripped out of her arms?

The whole thing is disgraceful. If surrogacy continues to be legal, then all rights should lie with the mother and all risk should lie with the prospective parents. The mother is doing them an incalculably huge favour, which is hers to grant or withdraw as she feels fit without fear or legal or financial risk. Anything else reduces the woman to a womb for hire and the baby to a commodity.

By all means make the adoption process simpler after birth but it should not ever require the woman to give up rights over her body or her baby before birth.

For context, I'm infertile and can't have children. We tried for years, I was suicidal eventually; it was awful.

The problem is that no one has the right to children, and anyone who knows anything about development and attachment issues knows that babies shouldn't ever be separated from their birth mothers. Yes I know there are reasons they sometimes are, but they shouldn't be, and especially not deliberately by design.

I imagine it could be very easy for someone to agree to surrogacy (especially if they were desperate for money) and then develop a deep biological lifelong bond with that baby - or find something awful out about the people who want to take it.

Mothers should absolutely have the "right" to keep the child they give birth to. They should always be able to withdraw, even at the last nanosecond.

Why on earth can't we go the way of countries that are banning surrogacy completely?

I would recommend that those in favour of this actually read a US surrogacy contract: if the intended parents change their minds and request an abortion, the surrogate either has to have the abortion or pay back the full costs of the IVF and pregnancy (and think how much US healthcare costs). Likewise, if the baby is found to be disabled or it's a multiple pregnancy and the intended parents want a reduction, the surrogate has no choice. The women have absolutely no choice at all in anything throughout their pregnancies - no control over what they eat even as the intended parents get to specify that.

How does a surrogacy contract like that not clash with the UN Rights of the Child, or the Children's Act?

If your eggs and your DHs sperm had been used to create baby and the gestational mother refuses to honour the surrogacy deal surely the surrogate is stealing your baby because rightly or wrongly the surrogate has rented her womb out in this case and has no right to the child surely. I feel that for the same reason if the baby is unfortunately disabled in some way the donor parents are the rightful parents and have no right to say they don't now want the child.TBH I feel the whole issue of surrogacy is an emotional and legal minefield which better minds than mine have a hard time dealing with.

Babies are created by women. An embryo is nothing without a woman to create it - not 'host' or 'carry' it, but create it with her own body, or choose to cease creating it.

I suppose I'm full of catchphrases today, but as far as I'm concerned, we each have full and total sovereignty of EVERYTHING that is "within my skin". And our children, created by and from our bodies, are OURS. We each can relinquish our responsibility over our children, but noone can or should ever be able to compel us to. Ever.

Genetic material doesn't matter. If I receive a blood donation or an organ transplant, the donor cannot make a claim over their blood or kidney once it is within my body. Within my skin, it is now mine. 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.
None of us can claim ownership rights over another person's body, or anything within it.

And we cannot write laws that sever any woman's right over the baby she has created with her own body.

Surrogacy should be outlawed. Babies are not commodities, and women are not production facilities.

No child should be created with the aid of a medical establishment, and contract laws, with the original purpose of removing it from the body of its mother at birth, and giving or selling it to honour a contract.

Lysis That US contract sounds like the right are moved far too far towards the intended parents.

If we were banning surrogacy completely, would that stop it or take it underground? Would we also prevent babies being brought into the UK who were surrogated(?) abroad? Would you still prevent a family member eg sister acting as a surrogate?

I don't have the answers, I just don't think it is as clear cut as some posters are suggesting.

I always read these threads with the endless complicated scenarios that point out the Gordian knot created by surrogacy, and the pro-surrogacy voices that suggest these scenarios are why we need new legislation to accommodate all these possibilities.

I think we do need new legislation. That clearly and unequivocally closes the door on surrogacy and any notion that it should be legal or right to buy a baby and a woman to grow it in.

Banning it would be a clear-cut sign in the belief in women's and children's rights. As a cynic, I'd be amazed if it ever happened though!

Flora I wouldn't have a problem with that. My whole argument has been predicated on it being legal, not that I actually like it.

What floral said.

I'm against surrogacy, but:

if we changed our mind because the baby was born disabled why should she have the obligation to care for the baby or the dilemma of whether to place the baby for adoption, and not us?

This is surely easily dealt with in the contract - the commissioning parents (this phrases fills me with disgust) can be placed under a legal obligation to care/pay for the baby, without removing rights from the mother (the one who gestated and grew the baby). Or forcing her to view the baby she's creating as a commodity.

I think that if professional surrogates are saying that they want to be able to legally wash their hands of the baby before it's even born, then I also find that personally extremely disturbing.

Also, this whole 'not her baby' - she took 2 cells, and grew a child using them as the starting instructions. Every cell in that baby came from her body. Of course it's her baby.