Why is the Guardian promoting surrogacy?

[ThedaBara]

Have seen 3 or 4 articles in the Guardian this week about how easy and positive surrogacy is and how the government should change laws to make it easier for people to do in the UK. They are one of the news sites without comments under their articles so I'm curious what might have prompted this.
One of the pieces had a chart showing where most surrogacies take place, and top of it was the US, where the price was 250,000, followed by a lot of developing countries.
The UK law requires the biological parents to apply for parental rights, which is apparently annoying and time consuming. Am really shocked by the biased reporting on this

And older women who can't get pregnant. We subscribe to The Times and they have featured several of their female journalists and their surrogacy stories.

Yes. And I think some of their gay male journalists have also traded in babies.

I really want to see the article where is a GP/ barrister / professor / dentist/ headteacher who loves being pregnant and wants to give other women the chance to become mums and the intended recipient is on a zero hours contract claiming UC
Then, and only then, will I believe in the altruism

This is so pro surrogacy it's embarrassing journslism . Maybe tomorrow they will cover the ethical issues?

I was struggling after eight rounds of IVF – then a midwife became my surrogate https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2026/jul/21/struggling-eight-rounds-ivf-midwife-surrogate?CMP=sharebtnurl8

What toast said..⬆️

We, as a society, could fund more research into causes of infertility and educate younger people about their options, we could also invest in parental support and education to ensure that the thousands of children in this country who have already been born are looked after properly. But no, we need to make sure rich people can buy a baby, like a handbag or a designer dog or something.

Or even further, a Jenner/Kardashian-type has a baby for poor infertile Olga who has struggled to get pregnant in Kyiv.

I think also changing the messaging in schools that if you have sex you will get pregnant and you will die
It leads to false expectations about the ease of conception
Also a change in mentality that having children isn’t a right or entitlement.

They are lobbying the new PM.

Another reason is of course that there is a lot of money in baby farming and an increasingly large lobbying effort to grab that cash.

Radio 4 had Cash Cow (clever title) as their Book of the Week last week. Was very interesting.

An entertaining case in the High Court last year laid out the reasons why buyers want the law changed so birth parents don’t feature.

The parent buyers - gay couple - wanted to bring their acquired son up without mentioning he had a mother. They said to suggest the child had a biological mother was homophobia.

The local London council agreed with them. The boy’s mother, a previously close friend of 20 years, wanted to rely on the agreement they’d made pre-birth to maintain a relationship. The council sued her for gay hate and tried to remove her rights.

The council and 2Dad lost.

Maternal status and visits were enforced by the judge.

The idea that the Guardian is far left is risible. They’re bog standard centrist dad. Hardly calling for the proletariat to own the means of production. Might affect the old SIPP and the kids’ trust fund.

This is what an actual far left paper has to say about surrogacy.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/selling-babies-should-be-regarded-scandal

Exactly. The Guardian is liberal, not left wing.

Far left? You jest. They’re pretty much where the Daily Telegraph was 30 years ago.

The bbc ran a very positive surrogacy news item today on R4

Cash Cow was a huge disappointment. Alev Scott came to the conclusion, after all her research and selling her own breastmilk, that women should be able to charge for their services and should be able to be paid more.

From selling breastmilk, eggs and babies it was clear that women are a resource and as long as the price is right it’s all A OK.

If this is not met with balance from an alternative view then the BBC or The Guardian (3 pro surrogacy articles since Sunday), are effectively endorsing it.

With a new PM and law reform on the table they support parental rights to the buyers, which means mothers won’t actually be mother under the law, at birth.

Interesting to read the different opinions on what The Guardian or position is. Considering TRAs call it a “transphobic rag” for having the temerity to publish articles by people like Susanna Rustin and Hannah Barnes, are they doing a good job or a bad job because nobody seems happy?

Rhymes with Tittle Mowin' Phones?

First comment nails it.

Also, they rely on the US audience for their funding. I expect they have been bought by the commercial baby trade.

Fuck.

Of course.

The ultimate fantasy for some very sick people is owning/buying another human being.

It's been legitimised.

While slavery is often condemned by the very same people pushing surrogacy.

Both the Guardian and the BBC are completely off their organisational trolleys, especially the Guardian; the whole tone of these articles reek of consumerism and entitlement. That said, it seems to be the mindset of the individuals featured in the articles. Chicken or egg?

A balanced piece of journalism could easily report on the phenomenon of buying babies without promoting it.