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

I think I’ll listen to voices of those on this post with ACTUAL lived experience of surrogacy who are say that this consultation and its suggestions within would be beneficial to all involved in the process.

But hey, let’s continue talking about taking choices away from women when it comes to deciding about their own bodies and fertility, cause that’s what feminism is - oh wait(!)

Teen I do think it should be banned completely, including altruistic surrogacy - and I say that as someone suffering from infertility whose friend offered to be a surrogate!

I don't know what could be done about babies already born abroad: from memory there was a major problem when the Nepalese(?) government banned surrogacy and many poor women were left holding babies that they had no way to pay for. Preventing people from "commissioning" babies abroad would be a start, but I'm not sure how that could be done.

Not sure you're reading the same thread Pinky

"I'll only listen to people who are part of the problematic system to see what they think"

There is also the issue of mitochondrial DNA passed from the surrogate mother via the placenta. Science is yet to fully understand the entire complexities around genetics, pregnancy and birth.

Who is to say that as science advances a surrogate can stake a claim as a third DNA parent?

I agree with Floral, instead of building more and more complex legislation twisted to fit every scenario just respect the personhood of women and children and don't allow it to be legal to commodify them.

typo - can't stake a claim

I tend to leave stem to people who have actual knowledge or experience of the subject, not those who express over the top opinions which don’t appear to be formed from anything other than emotional reaction.

It’s called perspective lorit, I have mine and you have yours, I can accept that, which seems to be a novelty on this board.

Leave stem= listen

Pinky, what are you on about? Of course everyone has a say in society about women's and children's rights the discussion is not and cannot be limited to the people who are pro-surrogacy.

Don't delude yourself into thinking you're somehow being rational, you're not.

Yeah, I am kind of sympathetic to the observation that when there are all of these really difficult scenarios and details, not just technically but on principles, it may be an indication that this is not a good area for commercialisation or even unpaid contracts.

That's not an argument from principle obviously, but I think it can be a good approach with law making that if an activity simply can't be managed in a safe or fair or just way, it may be appropriate to disallow the whole activity.

For me, the main issue is that I think it amounts to buying infants.

I notice that the law commission say at the start of their summary document that the UK government do allow surrogacy, so the principle of whether surrogacy be allowed or not, is not in this consultation.

"There are many cases where a surrogate has carried a baby in no way gentically theirs but have refused to hand baby over to genetic parents at birth."

If a lot of surrogate mothers change their minds, that's surely an argument against changing the law to rip newborns from them. It suggests surrogacy can be a really problematic experience. It doesn't tell me that the law should be strengthened to make sure they can't keep their babies.

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.

Yes, me too.

How prescient Mary Warnock was back when she chaired the committee on embryology and assisted conception, when she argued against commercial surrogacy on the grounds that it was a form of slavery

How prescient the 19 year old me was too when expressing my objections to IVF in 1978.

Please can we go back to the principle of Chestertons fence. This rule of thumb says that you can make changes, but before you rip something down you need to first understand why it was put up like that.

This new proposal, which will be taken very seriously by government, is saying you can enforce handing over a baby in surrogacy (as agreed in writing before birth).... and the surrogate will only have 2-4 weeks to object to that.

Look at section 8.26- 8.32 in the full consultation document: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2019/06/Surrogacy-consultation-paper.pdf

We need to look carefully at the detail to see what is really being proposed. (Which is not really how public consultation on a fundamental rights issue should work- it should be made very easy for any member of the public to respond even to the complex and contentious parts- but that’s for another post)

How many of thousands of posts are there on MN from women who thought they were going to do one thing while they were pregnant, then they had the baby and realised they felt totally differently about doing that thing?

Also only 2-4 weeks to object?
Who of us felt in the first 14 days after giving birth that we were in a position to mount a big legal case against some other, (understandably very disappointed and angry) would-be parents? you must be absolutely joking.

How many thousands of women have posted on MN talking about birth injury, brain fog, exhaustion, looking after their other children alongside the baby being knackering, PND, post natal anxiety, and all these things lasting on for months or even years after birth? Female socialisation to be kind and put up with things, which lasts a bloody lifetime..

And please note, the proposal is not that the surrogate is actually asked by anyone whether she objects (because she has signed away). She must object after the birth in writing to the intended parents and whoever regulates this. And if she doesn’t do so the intended parents just sign saying they have no reason to believe that she objects. How are they in any position to judge this? They don’t even have to speak to her as part of doing this. I’m not suggesting they should do either- they are not judges or doctors or social workers- just that there is a massive conflict of interests in this question.

I believe in defending women’s consent to bodily autonomy. But that autonomy and freely-given informed consent requires women not to have had a huge amount of external pressure on them of other desperate people’s expectations and having a fortnight ago having had a massive physical experience like childbirth which for some women is extremely physically and emotionally devastating to cope with 14 days ago.

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.

Is it possible to reduce surrogacy to 'work'? How would the risks in pregnancy be covered by h&s. If a women suffered long term medical problems as a result of being pregnant would she be able to sue her employer?

The comparison with being a nanny is absurd.

Excellent points ChattyLion

imagine having gone through all the emotional commitment and expense of finding a surrogate

Christ this gave me the shivers. It's the language of contracts and ownership. "We've spent ages arranging this deal and now you back out!"

I suppose they could sue for the inconvenience. is this covered by the consultation

Well hats off to all those nannies who spend nine months growing a baby in their bodies and then push it out, at no small risk to their own health. I had no idea.

Flo

The more I read this, the more I feel that surrogacy is wrong & should be outlawed, not try to find more and more ways to deal with the myriad of complications. Women's bodies should not be for sale / rent & babies are not commodities.

If, on the premise of it being legal, then there is no way that the rights of the woman should be taken away, including the right to keep the baby should she so decide. Women must have full bodily autonomy otherwise where does it end? Slippery slope if it's anything else - should she be forced to go through with the pregnancy even if it's detrimental to her health? Would the surrogate parents have the right to tell her what to eat / do throughout the pregnancy, including abortion for any reason?

Really wish they would ban it altogether - women's bodies are not for rent & babies aren't commodities.

Brilliantly written Chatty.

Is there any way to actually comment on the proposals?