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

“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.”

Yes this.

We're all just vessels now.

Jesus Christ, if giving birth doesn't make you the mum, what does?

I'm just saying if I found out my mum was a surrogate and not my genetic mum, I don't give a shit if she gave birth to me, she stole me.

sure they can't keep their babies.

Not their babies.

Maybe we need to have an honest discussion about who are the parents of children. Is it the egg/sperm donor, the women who gives birth, or the people who pay for the IVF treatment.

Do people have a right to know who their parents are?

lorit, yes absolutely. This is a completely public thing, anyone can respond to it. Just go here:

www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/surrogacy/

If you scroll down the page to the ‘next steps’ section it gives you their contact details for you to send them your comments.

The page is open now to take comments and it closes in September.

I’ve produced two documentary films on surrogacy and two on egg “donation”. I’m based in California traveling to world speaking out against these medically risky/dangerous practices. No amount of regulations will protect women who serve as surrogates or egg providers. The medical literature is showing good data on how a gestational surrogacy pregnancy is much higher risk than a natural pregnancy.

The medical literature is showing good data on how a gestational surrogacy pregnancy is much higher risk than a natural pregnancy.

I hope that is taken into account in the consultation process.

We had a US surrogate die. She was carrying twins for a couple from Spain (surrogacy is illegal there). The twins died too. No regulation would have saved those three lives.

Of course their babies Kapeka.
Created by them, in their bodies, by their bodies.
The concept that any third parties could claim ownership to the baby inside a pregnant woman is obscene. We are living in the Handmaid's Tale already. Women are not vessels, and not farm animals, not breeding stock, not incubators.
We should never have allowed a situation where any pregnant woman could ever be perceived to be a vessel, commissioned to produce a child as product for a third party.

Women own our bodies. The babies we create with them are not the property of third parties.

Surrogacy should be illegal. End of.

I empathise with those who are unable to become pregnant or give birth to children. However, renting a womb is never acceptable.

I used to debate with my mother when quite young, the morality of fairy tales. Rumplestilskin was the top of the list of how cruel a man can be. My mum agreed with me and still does that he was a controlling man who gave the queen more and more impossible options to overcome. However, we do love that she got the better of him in the end.

What I would like to know is this. Is public consultation different from a referendum?

This has to stop.

If she didn't want the baby, why would there be a dilemma about adoption?
Disabled babies and children are not often wanted in adoptions. It takes someone very very special to adopt a disabled child knowing that for the rest of your life/childs life, you have to care for them.The very real possibility of the child dying young and the even worse option (to me) of the adult dying and leaving a disabled child with no one. No idea how the child will be looked after. Will they be put in a childrens home, will it be a nice home, will they be moved around, will family want to look after them. Will anyone care at all.

If you cant guess I put a whole lot of thought into this years ago when I thought I would adopt.

I’m not sure how seriously you are asking comparing it to a referendum (and I know not all refs are the same so I couldn't answer that) but the link I posted above shows how they say it will work.

The Law commission will digest the responses it gets from this public consultation, they then report on those plus make their own recommendations to government (in a publicly available report), govt lawyers will draft up new legislation based on the recommendations which will go to Parliament to debate. MPs and I assume the Lords too will then vote on that, making new law in this area. That’s the usual order of things.. but in this age of politics

Surrogacy should be illegal. End of.

I found it quite a complicated consultation paper. I started it and gave up. And I'm someone who has completely many consultations as part of my work.

Chatty

In this age of politics, I'm not sure how the public can indeed give a partisan view in this 'public consultation'.

I agree with Lass. It's a complicated consultation paper.

Jennifer That is interesting. Have you links to your documentaries?

Agreed, it’s not OK to only give very long and complex methods for the public to respond to matters of public interest. It deters a lot of people from responding.

The rumplestiltkin analogy is perfect actually.

The woman in that fairy tale is very much meant to be where are sympathies lie, isn't she?
I wonder if there is anyone who disagrees with that?
Because, when you think about it they had a very clear agreement. She agreed to give rumplestiltkin a baby in return for a whole barn full of gold (and the marriage to royalty that came with it). Then she changed her mind. She found a loop hole and exploited it through subterfuge. She didn't even repay the gold!

What is it that makes her the heroine, instead of a sneaky fickle baby thief? Is it just her genetic link to the baby? Would the fairy tale be better if she was forced to stick to the bargain and hand the child over?

It was the King who made her weave straw into gold. The fact she married him and had a baby with him is another matter. Why, oh why would you marry such a man. And why would her father make her go through such an ordeal?

However, Rumplestilsin did the weaving. Was he to be pitied? No. He asked too many demands of her, including her first born. Sure he saved her from the awful fate that awaited her, but he misunderstood her love for her child. And for that he paid the price.

Once Upon A Time has messed up all the stories in my head

Thank you for the link Chatty, I'm going to do that.

Treefloof. I understand that. I was responding to the idea that there is rarely any emotional attachment between the mother and the baby. If a mother can hand a baby over to commissioning parents without any feelings of uncertainty, why wouldn't they be able to do the same with social services?

A contract between a women and commissioning parents doesn't guarantee the care the child receives throughout her life.

It's also not just about what's best for the mother. Babies are attached from their time in the womb; they're instinctively ready to respond to their mother's voice, scent and body, which has also bonded and readied itself to feed and care for them. It's biological programming to give someone the best start in life.

In surrogacy they get purposefully removed and handed to someone else at the moment of birth. It's a horrific gamble with attachment disorders and someone's future emotional life, let alone the woman who gave birth to them.

So if the baby belongs to the ‘commisioning parents’ pre-birth, what will happen if the pregnancy goes wrong? What if the mother needs an abortion to save her own life? Or an early delivery leading to a poor outcome for the baby? Can she then be sued for not completing the contract or even destruction of their property?