New feminist campaign "Stop Surrogacy Now"

[RabbitOfCaerbannog]

A new feminist campaign has been set up against the commodification of babies and women's wombs for rent - Stop Surrogacy Now. Looks like an important cause to get behind. From Stop Surrogacy Now's home page:

Surrogacy is the social practice where a woman is ‘used’ for her body, her fertility and reproductive capacity to grow and birth a baby without the intention of being a mother to that child and giving that baby away, or ‘gifting’ that child to ‘Intended Parents’.
We see Surrogacy is the sale of a child where any profit is made. No amount of pretending its ‘gestational service’ changes the reality. Commissioning parents want a baby not a service, the baby is the ‘end product’.
Surrogacy as a practice developed from the demand of wealthy, infertile people to have exclusive parenthood of a biological child.

1. exploiting women as baby making machines does not advance women’s rights
   
2. The child’s right to have a relationship with all its parents are disregarded
   
3. It perpetuates that same old structural injustice where poor/ vulnerable women are used for the benefit of the wealthy – the power imbalance in surrogacy is a key argument
   ‘Using a surrogate’ means replacing the only mother a child has ever known.
   “People who seek a surrogate have a very specific desire…it is not only a desire to raise a child, but also a demand that the mother be absent.” ~ Kajsa Ekis Ekman “Being and Being Bought”
   
   This is the website:
   
   stopsurrogacynowuk.org/2021/04/22/welcome-to-stop-surrogacy-now-uk/

[RabbitOfCaerbannog]

Would you like to respond to any of the evidence that suggests in a commercial marketplace it is women from disadvantaged backgrounds who are most likely to become surrogate mothers?

[KingdomScrolls]

@RabbitOfCaerbannog I absolutely do not agree with surrogacy as a commercial concept, for many of the reasons already discussed. My personal family example was really for those who were saying that surrogacy should be banned entirely.
I think there should be proper regulation, legal and medical support (including psychological of around altruistic surrogacy and I think the circumstances where that is appropriate are few and far between.

[ProofBy1nduction]

Any legislation that dictates what a woman can or cannot do is completely wrong.

Look at giving women who are in vulnerable at situations more choices, not less choices.

[PurgatoryOfPotholes]

Mmm. Are you in favour of legalising any and all current illegal drugs, or making it legal to sell organs, such as kidneys?

What about making it legal for women to drive without a seatbelt?

[RabbitOfCaerbannog]

Look at giving women who are in vulnerable at situations more choices, not less choices.

Let's flip that shall we? Let's give people who would make money out of exploiting vulnerable women more opportunities to do so:

[ProofBy1nduction]

Actually yes for your first point, as many unnecessary deaths would be prevented if drugs were regulated and people knew what they were taking.

Your other points are the same used to argue against access to abortion.

[ProofBy1nduction]

My point is stop telling women what to do. We don't need it.

We need to stop people who are exploiting us. They are the ones who need to change their behaviour.

[RabbitOfCaerbannog]

I think there should be proper regulation, legal and medical support (including psychological of around altruistic surrogacy and I think the circumstances where that is appropriate are few and far between.

I would agree with this within the current system of altruistic surrogacy we have in the UK. Any attempt to commercialise the system does not have women or babies best interests at heart. Infertility is devastating, but it shouldn't give you the automatic right to buy access to a woman's womb. I will keep repeating this - in a commercial marketplace where companies can sell space in women's wombs to produce babies disadvantaged women will be most likely to be recruited to the cause and be expected to put their health at risk to provide babies for wealthy customers.

[Maggiesfarm]

@RabbitOfCaerbannog

All of the boards on Mumsnet are public, so I don't see any issue with posters dropping in on them. There are other forums available for those who want more privacy. I think this is a bit of a derail from the issues at hand. Which haven't been addressed. There are some serious ethical issues with surrogacy becoming commercialised in the UK, so let's talk about whether that's appropriate...

It definitely is not appropriate. I do realise some people become surrogates with good motives; children are already here who were born of a surrogate mother and I hope they grow up happy and strong. However I do wish the whole business would cease altogether now, there are so many ethical questions surrounding it.

[Delphinium20]

@IamSparcatus

You always have an interesting perspective from the USA *@Delphinium20* I'm so pleased you are here on this little U.K. site!
Thank you.

Ahhh...thanks! I appreciate learning from you all.

[RabbitOfCaerbannog]

@Delphinium20

I've read many first account (primary sources) antebellum narratives about slavery and you can find examples of slave owners who love their slaves and report they treat them well, "like one of the family." Similarly, there exist some slave accounts that back up this narrative of mutual affection between owner and enslaved person. Some people (rarely Black people, but some Europeans in 16th century for example) even sold themselves into slavery for various reasons (one could consider this their "choice").

But these authentic accounts do not justify the owning of people as property.

Buying a baby and renting a woman's body to grow "your baby," is a concept unaligned with human rights and feminism. I can't be OK with it regardless of some situations with reported happy outcomes.

Irl, I interviewed a Black historical reenactment actor who often plays an enslaved man at a famous historical center in the US. He says he gets all kinds of comments including a type that falls into the "altruistic justification" category. Like, "the descendants of slaves should be happy they now live in the US as opposed to the west African country they came from or they may not even be alive today." Humans are adept at cognitive dissonance.

I missed this post Delphinium - it's a really interesting perspective.

[Delphinium20]

I don't really understand why more people don't have a problem with donor eggs being used in IVF, following on from the points raised in the OP.

The issue of egg donation became quite problematic to me when my teen daughter's was sent multiple advertisements to "give the gift of life," after doing searches for colleges. Smart, white girls planning to attend college are being groomed to undergo known and unknown risks to give away their eggs at a young age before having had had their children. This is in the US, but I don't want your UK daughters to be targeted for their body parts either, and with loosening restrictions on surrogacy and gamete donations, this could be a reality. I find egg donation, especially using young women, filled with ethical issues.

[Delphinium20]

Oh, and not just white girls...there is a market for all races, but the demand for blonde, blue-eyed women is a thing...

[Delphinium20]

[quote KingdomScrolls]@RabbitOfCaerbannog I absolutely do not agree with surrogacy as a commercial concept, for many of the reasons already discussed. My personal family example was really for those who were saying that surrogacy should be banned entirely.
I think there should be proper regulation, legal and medical support (including psychological of around altruistic surrogacy and I think the circumstances where that is appropriate are few and far between.[/quote]
I have a more understanding of this type of arrangement-while I have seen many examples of where surrogacy for family created many problems, in the case like the sisters you mentioned, it can be argued that a ban for them seems unfair...especially because sisters may breastfeed for niece/nephew and if living close, the baby/mother bond wouldn't need to be immediately severed. ...yet these are exceptions not the rule of family surrogacy.

I'm on the fence when I hear stories like this. My other side of this fence is thinking of the father in this situation. He is a potential "interested party" that can easily wish to police the sister's behaviors...so counseling/contract would be very important.

[IcedPurple]

Any legislation that dictates what a woman can or cannot do is completely wrong.

What do you mean by this? By definition, legislation tells us what we can and cannot do. Are you saying it should only apply to men and women can do what they like?

If you're claiming the 'I can do what I like with my own body' argument, then no, you can't. You can't take certain drugs, you can't have a late term abortion, you can't sell your kidney and much else besides. Nobody, male and female, has complete autonomy over their body.

Then of course, there's the baby who is created with the express intention of being separated from the only mother it has ever known at birth.

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

Any legislation that dictates what a woman can or cannot do is completely wrong.

Don't be silly. It's perfectly reasonable to have legislation so exploiting poor people to give up more than they can afford for money is illegal. This applies to organ sales, selling yourself into slavery.

[Maggiesfarm]

If there was legislation to ban surrogacy altogether, we would just have to accept it. It's not only about a woman and her body, it also concerns a man, a baby and (usually), a couple who hope to bring up the child. If surrogacy didn't exist as a concept people would find other routes to fulfilment.

[TheCrowening]

I’m infertile. A close friend of mine offered to carry a child for me. I thanked her for caring about me and being willing to do such a thing, but said absolutely no. It would have been an utterly unselfish thing for her to do, but an utterly selfish request from me. I believe surrogacy should be banned in any circumstance.

[Maggiesfarm]

That is so good, TheCrowening. I wish everyone felt as you do. Your friend sounds like a really kind person but you were right to turn down her offer.

I hope you have a long, healthy and above all, happy life. Good luck!

[MissBarbary]

@ProofBy1nduction

Trust women. We are not idiots. We don't need anyone to tell us what we can or cannot do with our bodies.

What a silly comment. There's plenty of legislation telling women and men what they can't do with their bodies. You can't sell an organ for example.

Several countries have banned all surrogacy - Italy, Spain, France and Germany for example.

[MissBarbary]

@TheCrowening

I’m infertile. A close friend of mine offered to carry a child for me. I thanked her for caring about me and being willing to do such a thing, but said absolutely no. It would have been an utterly unselfish thing for her to do, but an utterly selfish request from me. I believe surrogacy should be banned in any circumstance.

Just seconding what Maggie said-

[WeRoarSometimes]

I've had a mad mad fortnight with work and sorry to have missed the posts on this.
I was at a work safeguarding event last week and had a session where questions could be asked anonymously (paper slips in a box).

'How can current safeguarding regulation be updated to reflect the increase in so-called altruistic surrogacy where young mothers are involved in carrying babies for wealthy couples?

'How can we ensure the safeguarding concerns for unborn children and vulnerable pregnant women are addressed with the Law Commission?'

This sparked a discussion about safeguarding of surrogate mothers. The talk is related to protecting emotional/physical health and preventing coercion into exploitative behaviour.
Several professionals in local authority roles (including London boroughs) mention that the Law Commission has sought no input whatsoever about the concerns of surrogate mums or the babies born to them.

The current media narrative is so focused on the 'be kind' /'do something amazing for a family' that safeguarding is not being discussed by any of the vested interests.

[VoluminousVagina]

This sparked a discussion about safeguarding of surrogate mothers. The talk is related to protecting emotional/physical health and preventing coercion into exploitative behaviour.
Several professionals in local authority roles (including London boroughs) mention that the Law Commission has sought no input whatsoever about the concerns of surrogate mums or the babies born to them.

I think this is absolutely necessary. As with many other things that involved women, we are stumbling along into a situation where no one has stood back and looked closely at the real issues (until now) and effects on women and the children.

It has been allowed to grow with little scrutiny or proper consideration on the right thing to do.

I think I have been guilty of assuming that the people in charge (of all sorts of organisations) are actually thinking objectively and effectively about the important issues and making sure that at a very basic level, the people involved are safe.

Sadly it seems they are not.

[peanutbutterjimjams]

So much promotion of surrogacy in media at the moment.

Currently listening to Naga on radio 5live talk to a polyamorous American 'Throuple' talk about how the three men acquired babies through surrogates.

One of them calls himself a feminist because he notices that women are so helpful in birthing his children and random women helping with strollers in the street.

They promote surrogacy a lot on Naga's show.
Very positive puff pieces.

[WeRoarSometimes]

I believe the safeguarding issues are so important and have somehow been disregarded in lieu of the wishes/feelings of the commissioning parents.

I also feel those wishing for commercial surrogacy to be adapted as based on the US models are only considering the changes in law, that would suit their own purpose.

There is no corresponding regulation being proposed to address the increase safeguarding need that would accompany an increase in surrogacy arrangements.

Currrently the NHS will only be involved with the pregnant mother via her ante-natal care. Surrogate mums are likely to be engaged in all aspects of their ante-natal care, it's probably a requirement of the arrangement with the commissioning parents that they do so.
There is no mechanism for an automatic referral to children's services if the pregnant woman reports she is acting as a surrogate mum during her ante-natal care.
So local authority teams are blind in effect until after the birth of a baby at a time when parental orders are being considered by the courts.

If surrogate mums are not risking their health and there really are no safeguarding concerns, I wonder why those lobbying for surrogacy are so aghast at safeguarding concerns even being mentioned when advocating for relaxation of laws relating to surrogacy arrangements.