Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Janice Turner on Surrogacy

86 replies

Igneococcus · 30/08/2026 07:04

I can't see Janice Turner's comment about surrogacy in yesterday's Times shared anywhere. Sharetokens don't work for me at the moment and I can't get archive to work either. I hope someone else can. It's a very depressing read.

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/why-allow-mother-of-all-abuse-8kz9sk572

Verifying Device

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/why-allow-mother-of-all-abuse-8kz9sk572

OP posts:
Armorlux · 31/08/2026 15:02

IwantToRetire · 30/08/2026 23:22

Is there an organised lobby or letter writing campaign?

On September 7, MPs will debate abolishing the last vestige of humanity accorded these women by the UK: the right to change their mind. After appearing on This Morning, fashion entrepreneur Adam Frisby and his partner Jamie Corbett, who had a daughter via an American surrogate, raised over 100,000 signatures for a government petition calling for a surrogate mother’s rights to be removed at birth.

Currently, whether a baby is bought abroad or born after an altruistic surrogacy arrangement in Britain, commissioning parents must apply for a parental order to ensure the surrogate genuinely consented and to allot a social worker to assess the child’s welfare. Checks are far less rigorous than for adoption: these orders are almost always granted. Even so the surrogate’s name appears on the original birth certificate as “mother” and she can assert her rights to the baby for six months after it is born.

We have the late moral philosopher Mary Warnock to thank for preventing surrogates here from being reduced to Handmaid’s Tale vessels. As author of the landmark 1984 report on reproductive ethics, which established the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), she wrote: “Perhaps what I am saying, is motherhood is somehow sacred, as other aspects of nature may be; and if babies become commodities, we shall have lost something irreplaceable.”

I wrote to my MP some time ago about this. Eventually I got a copy and paste waffly response back along "be kind" lines plus "how could anyone possibly object when some people can't get a baby any other way" kind of thing.

I doubt he even read my letter as he's the idlest MP, and it was probably one of his acolytes replying. So he'll vote for it without the slightest consideration of the issues.

I do admire Janice Turner and the way she digs deep into an issue and then manages to express it so well in just a few column inches. Obviously I admire her particular stance on this.

In years to come,the prevalence of DNA testing will be such that no one will be able to avoid the, sometimes, uncomfortable truths about a child's genetic origins. The child will grow up and may ask awkward questions.

Whatisthisdamnednonsense · 31/08/2026 16:06

PollyNomial · 31/08/2026 11:46

Do explain how saying how the parents have and discharge their responsibilities to the child is not focusing on the needs and rights of the child.

Taking a newborn baby away from its mother forever immediately after birth is most definitely “not focusing on the needs and rights of the child”. Even kittens and puppies get a few weeks with their mothers after birth.

NibliaBiblia · 31/08/2026 18:28

Armorlux · 31/08/2026 15:02

I wrote to my MP some time ago about this. Eventually I got a copy and paste waffly response back along "be kind" lines plus "how could anyone possibly object when some people can't get a baby any other way" kind of thing.

I doubt he even read my letter as he's the idlest MP, and it was probably one of his acolytes replying. So he'll vote for it without the slightest consideration of the issues.

I do admire Janice Turner and the way she digs deep into an issue and then manages to express it so well in just a few column inches. Obviously I admire her particular stance on this.

In years to come,the prevalence of DNA testing will be such that no one will be able to avoid the, sometimes, uncomfortable truths about a child's genetic origins. The child will grow up and may ask awkward questions.

I've just done so.

socialdilemmawhattodo · 31/08/2026 20:37

Helleofabore · 31/08/2026 05:11

And yet the surrogate will always have a genetic link to the child. Cells from foetuses remain within the mother for her life through out different parts of her body.

And it was her body components that were directly used to build the foetus. For instance, Calcium from her bones built the skeleton of that child.

There will always be a link between those two people.

Interesting. Very strong statements. I am the mother of a donated-egg conceived child, now an adult. It is only in very recent years that there has been public discussion that not only did I provide the environment for the baby, but that some of my genetic material might have been transferred. I wasnt a surrogate, but provided the safe, secure environment, for the foetus, then baby. Sorry can't remember the technical term. I keep meaning to research more. Anyway, the general availability of DNA now makes much of the decision making 20-30 years ago superfluous.

socialdilemmawhattodo · 31/08/2026 20:45

Igneococcus · 31/08/2026 07:20

I wonder if there is any data on the longterm effect of these fetal cells on women who carried a baby that they are completely unrelated to, with a different HLA system.

Good question. But definitely need to look at the reasons why women are carrying babies they are not related to. Mine was early menopause. I was flooding in my mid-20s. Cosmo is discussing how to have a great sex life, not how to look out for early menopause. It was not discussed anywhere. By the time I met a guy and married him I was 35 and my egg count was NIL. So a consequence for me is osteoporosis. My GPs missed totally early menopause, I haven't ever been on HRT. But there has never been follow up or academic interest in the impact of carrying a non-related child. A good research project.

YosoyEduardo · 31/08/2026 21:19

@Paybill You are entitled to feel, with hindsight, that you needed more support; but that doesn't necessarily mean the adoptive parents were responsible for providing it, or that they did something morally wrong by accepting the child. Your decision to conceptualise the pregnancy as “surrogacy” seems to have been a coping mechanism, but you can't impose the obligations of a genuine surrogacy arrangement onto people who weren't actually in one.

SuperLemonCrush · 31/08/2026 22:43

Paybill · 30/08/2026 08:26

It’s a good article. I can be sympathetic to be altruistic surrogacy between family and friends but anything else is gruesome. No one who cares about the mother would want to buy the service. The very role of organised crime is evidence of its unequal power dynamics. We will never see many wealthy women offering this to random strangers.

I had an unwanted pregnancy - in Ireland and as a Catholic so I decided to treat it as surrogacy. It wasn’t my baby, deserved a better start, met the excited parents to be and they got the baby at the end. My understanding of the situation has changed over the years hut one constant is my incredulity at their willingness to exploit me. To be happy to meet me, take my photos, my baby and to never once offer support instead. Obviously I understand their need for a child, that they have been good parents and that adoptive parents are both fabulous and are meeting their own needs but I could never, in their case, remove my judgement of them for looking at a capable but young and poor woman/girl and not wanting to support rather than to take. They were not the only ones which represents the devaluing of women and motherhood.

I am sorry this happened to you, and thank you for telling us your story 😢

PollyNomial · Yesterday 08:20

Whatisthisdamnednonsense · 31/08/2026 16:06

Taking a newborn baby away from its mother forever immediately after birth is most definitely “not focusing on the needs and rights of the child”. Even kittens and puppies get a few weeks with their mothers after birth.

This practice is reasonably common for babies whose mothers are drug addicts.

MrsOvertonsWindow · Yesterday 08:32

PollyNomial · Yesterday 08:20

This practice is reasonably common for babies whose mothers are drug addicts.

That's safeguarding the baby where the mother is likely to be a risk and has actively harmed them by taking drugs through pregnancy - drugs that the baby is born addicted to.
Using drug addicted babies to justify wealthy people trading in babies for their own wishes only demonstrates that there are no good ethical arguments for surrogacy.

PollyNomial · Yesterday 08:38

MrsOvertonsWindow · Yesterday 08:32

That's safeguarding the baby where the mother is likely to be a risk and has actively harmed them by taking drugs through pregnancy - drugs that the baby is born addicted to.
Using drug addicted babies to justify wealthy people trading in babies for their own wishes only demonstrates that there are no good ethical arguments for surrogacy.

I didn't cite that practice in favour of surrogacy, just to be challenge that it is always in the best interests of the child to remain with its parents from birth.

Whatisthisdamnednonsense · Yesterday 08:41

PollyNomial · Yesterday 08:20

This practice is reasonably common for babies whose mothers are drug addicts.

Totally disingenuous and I think you know it.

Igneococcus · Yesterday 08:50

Anyway, the general availability of DNA now makes much of the decision making 20-30 years ago superfluous.

I don't understand what you mean with this @socialdilemmawhattodo
DNA has been around since before there were actual cells, so a good 4 billion years and RNA even longer but I suppose that is not what you mean. Do you think that the exchange of some genetic material between a mother and the genetically unrelated child she carries significantly changes the degree the two are related (genetically)?

OP posts:
Arran2024 · Yesterday 10:05

PollyNomial · Yesterday 08:20

This practice is reasonably common for babies whose mothers are drug addicts.

But even then the baby and mother will see each other, under close supervision, a couple of times a week. This is specifically because of the view that it is damaging to babies to withhold their birth mother. I think about 6 months is the minimum period before an adoption order is made - up till then, mother and baby will be meeting regularly at contact centres unless the mother refuses to take part.

MrsOvertonsWindow · Yesterday 10:49

PollyNomial · Yesterday 08:38

I didn't cite that practice in favour of surrogacy, just to be challenge that it is always in the best interests of the child to remain with its parents from birth.

Of course it's always better for children to remain with birth parents. Children in the care of the state do terribly on all life measures. However, sometimes it's necessary to remove a child for their own safety and wellbeing. There are always consequences for the child with national data showing that these children are immensely vulnerable for all sorts of reasons.

There's a current trope pushed by queer theorists and others who weaponise children in support of their own niche agendas that families don't matter and can easily be replaced. Our national data about outcomes for children shows that to be untrue.

NotBadConsidering · Yesterday 10:58

This was in the news this week:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-27/qld-mother-births-biologically-unrelated-twins/107083918

Pudmyboy · Yesterday 11:22

Long time ago I saw this online and to me it sums up attitudes to the woman carrying the baby:

Janice Turner on Surrogacy
Manyanamanyana · Yesterday 11:28

Igneococcus · 31/08/2026 07:20

I wonder if there is any data on the longterm effect of these fetal cells on women who carried a baby that they are completely unrelated to, with a different HLA system.

Do you mean has someone considered, and someone else funded research that might undermine the whole"surrogacy is awesome" argument? Ummm...

PollyNomial · Yesterday 13:36

MrsOvertonsWindow · Yesterday 10:49

Of course it's always better for children to remain with birth parents. Children in the care of the state do terribly on all life measures. However, sometimes it's necessary to remove a child for their own safety and wellbeing. There are always consequences for the child with national data showing that these children are immensely vulnerable for all sorts of reasons.

There's a current trope pushed by queer theorists and others who weaponise children in support of their own niche agendas that families don't matter and can easily be replaced. Our national data about outcomes for children shows that to be untrue.

So if a child has to be removed for their safety and wellbeing, you are acknowledging that it isn't always better for them to be with their birth parents. Not sure why you were disagreeing with me.

iwishitwouldstartraining · Yesterday 13:44

PollyNomial · Yesterday 13:36

So if a child has to be removed for their safety and wellbeing, you are acknowledging that it isn't always better for them to be with their birth parents. Not sure why you were disagreeing with me.

It's not comparable though is it.

There will be specific reasons for the baby to be removed and they will be weighed against the harm done by removal.

Nobody is saying 'never mind, the baby won't know any different, we'll just pretend the mother never existed.'

iwishitwouldstartraining · Yesterday 13:45

MrsOvertonsWindow · Yesterday 10:49

Of course it's always better for children to remain with birth parents. Children in the care of the state do terribly on all life measures. However, sometimes it's necessary to remove a child for their own safety and wellbeing. There are always consequences for the child with national data showing that these children are immensely vulnerable for all sorts of reasons.

There's a current trope pushed by queer theorists and others who weaponise children in support of their own niche agendas that families don't matter and can easily be replaced. Our national data about outcomes for children shows that to be untrue.

There's a current trope pushed by queer theorists and others who weaponise children in support of their own niche agendas that families don't matter and can easily be replaced.

Strong overtones of the days when babies were whisked away from 'unfit' mothers and children weren't always told that they were adopted.

Beowulfa · Yesterday 13:52

PollyNomial · Yesterday 13:36

So if a child has to be removed for their safety and wellbeing, you are acknowledging that it isn't always better for them to be with their birth parents. Not sure why you were disagreeing with me.

In these cases, removal at birth is the "least worst" option, and this decision will not have been made lightly, and the reasons will be documented by qualified professionals. Children adopted in the UK are now given full information about their birth parents and adoptive parents know this when signing up. Because it's acknowledged that lying to children about their background is harmful.

All in all, the complete opposite of surrogacy.

ShhhYouDontKnowMe · Yesterday 14:38

It’s also not a decision that’s taken without the involvement of the courts both at initial removal and at the point the removal is made permanent. I don’t know what involvement courts have in surrogacy?

Mistachio · Yesterday 14:52

I’m old fashioned in that I think the ideal is a heterosexual couple bringing up children. However for adoption, if it’s a choice between a child being brought up in a children’s home or being raised by a gay couple, obviously the latter would be preferable. My gay son agrees, before anyone leaps at me screaming homophobe.

Surrogacy should be banned for anyone.

AmIReallyTheGrownup · Yesterday 16:04

ShhhYouDontKnowMe · Yesterday 14:38

It’s also not a decision that’s taken without the involvement of the courts both at initial removal and at the point the removal is made permanent. I don’t know what involvement courts have in surrogacy?

In the UK at least, you need to apply to the Family Court for a parental order if you have used a surrogate in order to have legal parenthood. The birth mother is recognised as the mother until this is granted.

NibliaBiblia · Yesterday 18:29

AmIReallyTheGrownup · Yesterday 16:04

In the UK at least, you need to apply to the Family Court for a parental order if you have used a surrogate in order to have legal parenthood. The birth mother is recognised as the mother until this is granted.

But no parental order has ever been refused on the grounds of excessive "expenses". Even ignoring the fact that UK citizens are permitted to purchase babies abroad, commercial surrogacy is tolerated and effectively legalized here.