Times article on campaign against surrogacy

[nythbran2]

https://www.thetimes.com/article/cc24f6fa-6454-4b12-9e90-53a5c104c9df?shareToken=74b76f3588679451c828f88909446a0c
Lots of stats on the increasing number of men buying babies. Comments largely disgusted by the practice.

Thanks OP. Good to see the Times finally tackling this. They've a number of journalists who've previously purchased babies so they've been simperingly awful about this aspect of human trafficking.

Interesting, good to see that in print. In the article a lawyer bemoans ‘a dearth of domestic surrogates’. Oh dear ladies, so we need to get our uterus out for the lads?

I think there are so many people who don’t think much about what surrogacy really means and only think how wonderful that a woman could be so generous to another woman desperate for a baby. Total altruism if you like. Hands up, I was one of those women in my ignorance but having thought more, read more, and seen more (as in the apparent normalisation of it via celebrities etc), my view has completely changed. Raising factual awareness right now is so important

I also had a vague be-kind view on this until I actually had children. I got sepsis during childbirth with dc1 (after a horrendous pregnancy).

The incredible pain and work of pregnancy and childbirth, is nature's safeguarding. After going through all that pain and effort, mothers are invested in protecting the child via the labour cost. If you outsource that, and remove the baby from the birthing mother, then you're removing the first natural protector of the baby.

It's not something I could understand till I went through it. When I reread the paragraph I just wrote, it doesn't do justice to that really visceral feeling of protection I felt after I nearly died bringing dc1 into the world.

This was the case for me too. It was only after I'd had my own children and read up about the 4th trimester etc that I actually applied some critical thinking. A bit ashamed actually that it never occurred to me beforehand. My DD1 needed NICU and I was so worried about our bond and the effect on her by being separated so soon after birth - i cannot understand why anyone would do this voluntarily.

Edit to add - sorry that you were so ill after birth.

The wording of that unintentionally reminds me of domestic servants. But actually the mentality is exactly that - economically superior males seeing women as domestic servants.

It's all very Victorian b

In the comments - mostly excellent - there's one man claiming that it's all fine because he knows a young woman who acted as surrogate for a member of her family. I doubt he knows a surrogate at all, and if he does know of a family, strongly suspect it's the purchasers.

Another commenter extends the view that we are 'more evolved' than the animals who sensibly take care of their own babies. Think you've just disproved your own point, friend.

It's another Be Kind idea that's actually only kind to one side. Over time there's arisen the idea that everyone should have what they want and biology and nature should be no impediment, as long as you have money to pay.

Wow, the comments are astonishing and shows why they never usually allow comments on anything around surrogacy. Of course it’s immoral, revolting and should be illegal and no one should be buying babies, especially not single men, but if you ban it for everyone that’s dealt with. Is there a UK political party which advocates banning it?

I never had children so don’t have that first hand perspective, but that’s no excuse, I just needed to become more aware as I just hadn’t thought about it enough and especially from the mother and baby perspective. I am sorry what you went through when you had your son.

I can't see the comments - maybe they've been switched off?

I'm totally against commercial surrogacy -I don't know what I think about women carrying babies for their sisters and that kind of thing, but clearly buying a baby is just plain wrong.

When you factor in that surrogate mothers may be forced into doing it because of poverty, it becomes even more wrong.

However, the focus of the article on single men is puzzling:
if you're against the buying and selling of babies on principle, I don't see how 'Single men are “effectively buying babies” from women in poverty, is any worse than single women buying babies, or couples with infertility problems “effectively buying babies” from women in poverty.'

Why 'especially not single men'? If it's wrong, it's wrong.

According to the article between '2019 and 2025 there were 130 applications in England from single males to become the legal parents of surrogate babies born abroad.'

130 applications over 6 years is 130 applications too many, but it's not exactly an epidemic, is it, and why is it worse than anybody else buying babies from abroad?

The rich and powerful side.

The exploited are invisible and silent.