Surrogacy Law Reform - from Object Now

[OhHolyJesus]

I'm so pleased to see Object taking this on.

"OBJECT believe the Law Commissions’ consultation was unjustly and unjustifiably biased in favour of surrogacy and unfit for purpose because it ignored its consequences for women and children. Any resulting legislation will therefore be unsound.
Prohibition or restriction of surrogacy was not considered by the Law Commissions. They ‘do not think that this position is tenable or achievable’2 (page 12), yet surrogacy is totally banned in many countries worldwide, including France, Germany and Spain. It isn’t explained why prohibition ‘wouldn’t work’ in the UK, but tellingly the assertion is immediately followed by ‘[restriction of surrogacy] is not what most stakeholders, or Government, have said that they would want’. Without further explanation or evidence that prohibition of surrogacy is not achievable, it appears that the Law Commissions’ role has been to ‘independently’ give the Government what it had already indicated it wanted. In this article I unpick why and how the legitimacy of surrogacy has been placed beyond question."

https://objectnow.org/sneaking-surrogacy-into-law/

I agree. I thought it was very unbalanced and didn’t even try to put basic protections in for women - eg it recommended that a woman could be a surrogate from the age of 18 and that there should be no restriction on the number of pregnancies a surrogate can undertake. I’m against it but I think if it were to be more extensively regulated in this country, there should be a minimum age of 25, a maximum of two pregnancies and a requirement that the surrogate mother should have had a child before (so that she understands the implications of pregnancy). The last requirement could potentially be waived if the surrogate is closely related to one of the commissioning couples (eg if someone wanted to carry a baby for her sister).

I agree about the consultation, though it's something I've noticed about other consultations (eg. the GRA reform one) too.

I agree with the previous poster about proposed restrictions, but I don't think this should be waived for relations. The intended 'recipient' being a close relative doesn't confer upon the woman any greater understanding. I don't think the relation makes it at all like going through an own pregnancy without knowing fully all the risks beforehand and if anything, seriously negative experiences would likely lead to serious damage to the pre-existing family relationship (actually, I think expecting a relative to carry a child for you is likely to indicate a not ideal attitude to them) whereas with 'business' surrogacy, you're not expected to spend your life continuing to have close contact with the 'commissioners' as family.

But yes, as pointed out at the time, there are even limitations on how many times you can breed a bitch, but not a human woman.

Surrogacy is about buying babies....legalised trafficking.. which otherwise would be a crime. Using women’s bodies to satisfy others urges.wants.. desires is nothing new. It’s slavery ....porn... buying women for sex....surrogacy. In the 21st century women we are told no longer exist unless persons want to wank....buy sex....buy babies, then suddenly women .. human females, become a commodity.
Be Kind! Eff that!

"Such bias confirmation loops give well-funded groups huge influence over policy, excluding the wider public from the process of law reform. In this case the people excluded are women, whom surrogacy affects more than any other group. The result is unfair laws."

The above quote from the article sums up so much policy that just ignores half the population. It's chilling, but not shocking.

Surrogacy exploits women and is often the thinly disguised sale of children .

How very true.

I completely agree you should have to have been pregnant before in order to be a surrogate. You really couldn't give informed consent otherwise.

@Pota2

I agree. I thought it was very unbalanced and didn’t even try to put basic protections in for women - eg it recommended that a woman could be a surrogate from the age of 18 and that there should be no restriction on the number of pregnancies a surrogate can undertake. I’m against it but I think if it were to be more extensively regulated in this country, there should be a minimum age of 25, a maximum of two pregnancies and a requirement that the surrogate mother should have had a child before (so that she understands the implications of pregnancy). The last requirement could potentially be waived if the surrogate is closely related to one of the commissioning couples (eg if someone wanted to carry a baby for her sister).

See, you’re far too sensible in your suggestions