Jigsaw mentioning surrogacy to Year 5

[ShoppingWomble]

Hi all, longterm lurker here, in awe of your work!

I’ve asked my kids’ primary school for their RSE resources and been looking through some lesson plans from Jigsaw. On their teacher’s notes for the lesson on conception it says:

“There is an expectation that teachers will mention in this lesson that, whilst sexual intercourse is the way that the sperm fertilises the egg in most cases, there are occasions when this might not be possible e.g. for medical reasons or in same sex relationships. Teachers will need to explain as much as they discern appropriate according to the nature of the situation/questions asked and age/stage of the group, that when sexual intercourse is not a possible means of conception, doctors may help people have a baby by perhaps egg donation, artificial insemination, surrogacy or IVF (in-vitro fertilisation).”

This is for Year 5 (age 9-10) so probably the first time they’ve been taught about sex and conception.

AIBU to think that mentioning surrogacy at this point is a bit much?
Especially when it’s listed before IVF as a means of responding to infertility? And when commercial surrogacy is illegal? No mention of adoption or fostering.

Is this “political”? ie against the new government guidelines?

I haven’t even seen their lessons on gender identity yet (what I was really asking the school for). Don’t know whether to mention the surrogacy thing as well or if it’s a minor issue that takes the focus off the real issues about genderism.

Anyone else read any Jigsaw stuff?

It isn’t a fertility treatment. The whole point is that the surrogate mother doesn’t have fertility issues.

Surrogacy is a legal arrangement and status. It does not refer to a medical procedure different to that used by a woman who isn’t a surrogate.

Any child who is the result of a surrogacy arrangement is either going to have been told about it in a way the parents think is appropriate or isn’t going to have been told at all. Hearing about it in primary school isn’t going to help them.

*Hearing about it in primary school isn’t going to help them.
*
That's right Stripes, same applies to adoption (though it is completely different from surrogacy). The classroom is not the place.

The Law Commission propose a minimum age of 18 for surrogacy with no maximum number of times a woman can be a surrogate mother.
I find this creep into schools promoting surrogacy as "a valid way to start a family" very concerning.
Combined with the demand for "fertility equality" ... who is going to provide the service of being a professional breeder? Delivering babies to order for anyone who feels they have a right to one?

This is wholly inappropriate for this age group in my opinion.

@Stripesnomore

It isn’t a fertility treatment. The whole point is that the surrogate mother doesn’t have fertility issues.

Surrogacy is a legal arrangement and status. It does not refer to a medical procedure different to that used by a woman who isn’t a surrogate.

That's a much better answer than mine!

Even though traditional surrogacy has been practiced for thousands of years in cases where a wife could not bear children, it was indeed never a fertility treatment for the birth mother.

So it most definitely does not belong into a Year 5 class on conception, whether through sexual intercourse, artificial insemination or IVF.

Thank you for making this clear!

Even though traditional surrogacy has been practiced for thousands of years in cases where a wife could not bear children, it was indeed never a fertility treatment for the birth mother.

I'm not really sure why these ancient arrangements are referred to as surrogacy, or "traditional" surrogacy.

In the case oft quoted from the Bible of Abraham, Sarah and her maid Hagar - she was a slave - some compare modern surrogacy to slavery so I suppose there is that relevance.

In times before contraception (or treatment for infertility) most single women who became pregnant would probably have been only too happy to give up the child to the man, to be raised in his family, if that was a viable option.

Really these arrangements are nearer to adoption. I would say the same of current arrangements where the surrogate mother is also the genetic mother. This is simply an agreement to sell hand over a planned baby to the father and whatever partner (if any) that he may have. Quite why calling such an arrangement surrogacy means all the normal precautions and policies relating to adoption are bypassed I do not understand.

Surrogacy is not a way of getting a woman pregnant. It does not be,one on that list. And actually neither do all the other bits, not for year 5. All children that age need to know is that a spermatozoon fertilises an egg, usually via sexual intercourse. I mean if you're going to talk about u f, why not talk about IUI and ICSI? Children that age don't need to know.

@Stripesnomore

It isn’t a fertility treatment. The whole point is that the surrogate mother doesn’t have fertility issues.

Surrogacy is a legal arrangement and status. It does not refer to a medical procedure different to that used by a woman who isn’t a surrogate.

^This 100%

There are a lot of ethical considerations with surrogacy.

At the moment there is a push to move to a more USA style situation.

The human right to family life is being misused to say that there is a right to a baby, which is not what that human right means.

Even IVF is not uncontroversial.

I think these topics need more context and debate than just oh some couples use a surrogate (and that's aok just a fact).

It's a secondary school topic I think.

I love the way my iPad corrected sperm to spermatozoon, a word I don't believe I've ever typed.

Apart from being controversial, surrogacy belongs in the same box as adoption as it's a way of making a family if you cannot or will not conceive yourself. It isn't assisted conception.

@Clymene

I love the way my iPad corrected sperm to spermatozoon, a word I don't believe I've ever typed.

Apart from being controversial, surrogacy belongs in the same box as adoption as it's a way of making a family if you cannot or will not conceive yourself. It isn't assisted conception.

I can see what you intended here (adoption and surrogacy are not infertility treatments), but I worry about adding adoption into any bucket with surrogacy. Adoption is a legal way to give a home to child who cannot be raised by biological parents. Surrogacy is the use of a woman's body to give birth for someone who commissioned a child.

I was asked out of the blue by my year 4 at the time how lesbians have babies so think it does all need to be factually explained around that she I would want any explanation of surrogacy to be heavily caveated though

@MsTSwift

I was asked out of the blue by my year 4 at the time how lesbians have babies so think it does all need to be factually explained around that she I would want any explanation of surrogacy to be heavily caveated though

But you don't need to mention surrogacy st all. Most lesbians don't use surrogates. Assisted conception - whether using donor gametes or not - isn't surrogacy.

This blurring of the lines is deliberate and insidious.

@Delphinium20 - yes good point. Actually I think they should mention adoption and not surrogacy.

I think it’s good to mention it. Also For older kids (like 13+) a good opportunity to let kids discuss possible ethical issues with surrogacy, ivf, adoption etc. can be difficult conversations but important kids learn to deal with Difficult issues. Pretending they don’t exist is not a good move.

I do agree it should not be talked about as exactly equivalent to natural pregnancy or adoption. Should be something like “some Children are born via surrogacy wherein a woman agrees to get pregnant and carry the child for intended parent(s)

13+ yes.

Also confused by the lesbian comment. Semen is not in short supply, to be blunt.

Thing about surrogacy is that it's an ethical minefield. Older, yes. With full conversation of pros and cons.

Not primary.