Imagine dear reader, what would happen were someone to discover that I, a Catholic with a moderately high profile, someone who advocates the beauty and sanctity of the Christian meaning of marriage, was actually in a consensually open relationship? What if a third party with whom I’d had sex, while ostensibly in a committed relationship, wanted to sell their story to the tabloid press?
Like the vast majority of the British public, I wouldn’t have the funds to pursue any sort of legal action or injuction to protect my family’s privacy and would have to suck up the embarassment, but just say I did manage to get to court. Would a sympathetic judge rule that the privacy of my five children is paramount and that despite it being accepted that I would have sexual encounters from time to time, the image which I portray to the public of my husband and myself of being in a committed relationship, is essentially correct?
Would they buffalo? There would be none of this “commitment does not entail monogamy” guff, they would rightly rule that there is a public interest, given that I have participated in public debate on the nature of marriage. If I were to be found to be in a clandestine open relationship, or to have had extra-marital affairs, then my hypocrisy ought to be exposed. If I am worried about the effect on my children, then perhaps I ought not to have engaged in sexual activities outside of a relationship while at the same time as attempting to maintain a certain public image and accepting media invitations while promoting the good of marriage.
So why is the case of PJS any different? Because my friends, if this blogger is correct then he is a rich and famous celebrity, who just happens to be in a same-sex relationship. This is important because the conduct of these individuals, cuts straight to the core of the debate about marriage, and they were held up as an exemplary model of gay families. If these were private individuals thrust into the temporary spotlight, through no fault of their own, then arguably there would be a much better case for allowing their privacy.
But this is not the case with PJS and his partner. They have repeatedly put themselves into the media, including in 2014, inviting the whole world to their wedding via Instagram, posting intimate photos of the event, together with the hashtag ‘share the love’, with no disclaimer that their love was not monogamous. Prior to that they had been in a civil partnership since 2005.
I don’t give two hoots about the specifics of what PJS got up to, apart from noting that it all appears rather squalid. When the entire issue of same-sex marriage was debated in Parliament it was assumed that gay marriages would be conducted under the same auspices as heterosexual marriage and have the same level of commitment. As it turned out, the legislation was so tricky to enact, gay men and women actually enter into a different version of marriage to that of straight couples. Fidelity is not a legal requirement – gay men and women are unable to use adultery as grounds for divorce.
Perhaps this is why the High Court has ruled that their infidelity is of little consequence to the overall image of commitment and loyalty which they attempt to cultivate amongst the public? This is a relationship which has acquired two children using the means of surrogacy. We don’t know whether or not their two sons are still maintaining contact with their mother, but what if the couple do split up as has been suggested by some outlets? The case of poor Rocco Ritchie demonstrates how difficult life is for children of divorced celebrity couples? What stability will they have, split between two warring male households, one of which is headed by a man soon to hit his seventies?
It’s not clear whether or not PJS and his celebrity partner were in an open relationship when they acquired their first son via surrogacy in 2010, but the alleged infidelity took place in 2011, with the next son coming along in 2013. Neither of the boys are listed as having a mother on their birth certificate. There is most definitely a public interest in debating whether or not a couple in an open relationship should be able to acquire children through surrogacy, and obliterate the name of the mother, who is deemed an irrelevance. In the case of two gay males in an open relationship, is two people who love them the basis of all child welfare, as is so often claimed? Is ‘love’ really all that matters? Are open relationships, whether gay or straight, the best environment in which to bring up children?
This is a couple who are often cited as being a wonderful example of surrogacy and gay parenting, and yet the public are not permitted to know that their relationship is not what one might reasonably expect. There is an implicit acknowledgement and understanding that married couples will be faithful to each other, a sacrifice commonly accepted by the public, as being in the best interests of the children. Open marriages no matter, who they are carried out by, contradict this principle.
What it means to be married, is of crucial importance to society as is the welfare of children. And yet in their wisdom, the High Court judges have decided, that we, the plebiscite are not allowed to know, that the relationship is not all that we might reasonably assume – that this couple have not, in fact, chosen to forsake all others. The judgement says “to publish will not advance the public debate or provide support for any of the competing opinions which are in circulation.” In other words, lets silence this debate before it’s even started, or identified what it’s all about because we don’t like what other people may have to say and furthermore, we don’t think opinions contrary to ours have any validity.
This couple chose to use their relationship and their profile to attempt to alter public policy. As a gay male friend of mine noted, this injunction feels like a gag to protect appalling social policy and dreadful decisions from public scrutiny.
We all have a right to a private life. But if you make your private life part of the public debate on marriage, hold up your relationship and family as being one which should be emulated and affect public policy, then if your relationship turns out to be founded on a questionable premise, the the rest of us do have a right to know, especially when the new definition of marriage affects not only our own marriages, but impacts upon religious freedom, education policies and is lauded as being a British value, with anyone who disagrees being branded a potential extremist threat.
It blows my mind that the judges have arbitrarily ruled that fidelity or monogamy can no longer be safely assumed to be an essential part of any committed relationship and that no-one is allowed to discuss the implications of this couple and their effect on public policy and debate, on pain of jail. What does it say about free speech in our society when a rich and famous member of the Establishment is able to use the state to force a person to stay silent about their sexual encounter with you, on pain of imprisonment? What is happening when the Speaker of the House of Commons is able to arbitrarily restrict Parliamentary Privilege and when Joe Public risk being put into jail if they dare to link to and discuss the wider implications of information easily available in another part of the United Kingdom.
Being a parent is more than mere biology, is a phrase oft-bandied about in the culture wars surrounding same-sex marriage and parenting and it’s an assertion which has more than a grain of truth in it. Tragic cases of abuse and neglect demonstrate that being a biological mother or father does not guarantee immunity from whatever factors drive one to inflict deliberate cruelty upon a child, nor will biology automatically prevent neglect. Neither are adoptive parents an inferior species or lesser parents because they do not have the biological link with their children.
Biology is not what makes a good parent, but neither can its existence be denied, which is what drives most adoptees to want to seek out further information about their birth parents, in a universal human quest to come to terms with identity and heritage. Who am I and where do I come from, are fundamental questions for most of us at some point when searching to find our own individual place in the world.
From a parenting perspective, while the biological imperative is not everything, it should not be ignored or thought to be of little consequence. Both biology and blood ties go a long way to ensuring that a child has a far better chance of thriving thanks to the instinctive bond that exists between parent and child. Even where one parent has a severe psychological impairment which may affect bonding, the importance of particularly mothers and children staying together is thought to be so important, that every effort is made to treat the cause of the ailment while ensuring the child’s safety, in order that a secure parental bond may be established. A condition such as post-natal depression can severely affect bonding between mother and child, meaning that on some occasions the father has to step in and perform much of the maternal role, but nonetheless professionals involved in case-management will not remove the child of an incapacitated mother, preferring to reinforce and extend the existing tie between mum and her baby, providing encouragement and support.
The biological imperative means that every baby has an intuitive need for their mother; within the first hour of birth, the baby is able to distinguish 50 individual markers which single her out. A mother is literally a baby’s world, she has been all they have known for the past 40 weeks, she is known intimately to the baby and the realisation that they are separate entities is estimated to occur at around the nine month mark. If placed upon their mothers chest at birth, a baby will intuitively inch up towards her breast and root around, searching for milk. Standard guidelines in every single maternity unit is that a baby ought to be placed naked skin to naked skin against the mother’s chest as soon as possible after birth.
This biological imperative extends beyond the delivery room. While every contact the mother has with the baby consolidates that pre-existing bond and baby’s sense of security, it is also what keeps the mother sane and functioning when the demands of tending to baby stretch her physical and emotional endurance to the limit. It’s biology which helps a woman to exercise self-restraint when her infant has been howling non stop for 24 hours, it’s biology which sees a woman blearily rouse and feed her baby in the early hours of the morning, it’s maternal instinct which is thought to prevent breast-feeding mothers from rolling over and squashing their babies if they choose to co-sleep (though guidelines should be adhered to) and it is maternal instinct which drives a woman to be able to decipher the various cries of her baby. It is maternal instinct, which prevents most women from snapping and doing something terrible to their baby, when their physical and emotional reserves are at their lowest ebb, having to function on minimal or no sleep. It is maternal instinct which rewards a woman when her baby allows her a smile or snuggles in close to her. It is maternal instinct which will reduce a mother to a quivering wreck if she cannot satisfy the insistant increasingly anguished mewls of her newborn.
There isn’t a single day goes by without yet more proof or research confirming what we already know. Only this week, I came across a piece explaining why mothers literally find the scent of their babies heads addictive, there’s a reason why I am constantly sniffing my newborn’s head. It stimulates the pleasure centres in my brain in a way which releases more dopamine than eating a favourite food, sex, alcohol or drugs!
And the biological imperative is not merely confined to mothers. Another feature this week identified paternal post-natal depression as being widely under-diagnosed and un-treated. One contributing factor is thought to be women who subconsciously act as maternal gate-keepers, not allowing men to co-parent by sharing in the responsibilities of childcare, such as feeding and changing of the nappies. It was admitted that fathers do not enjoy the bio-chemical headstart of mothers and thus the bonding process can take longer.
Without wishing to dismiss the issue of paternal post-natal depression, I suspect the issue has far more to do with modern societal and cultural expectations, than over-zealous women. If a woman breastfeeds her child, there is little a father can do to assist with the process aside from ensuring his partner is comfortable and has enough to drink. While a woman ought to allow the father opportunities to carry out tasks like nappy changing and bathing in order to encourage bonding, both parties need to accept that the baby will have a strong preference for their mother the majority of the time and it’s best just to suck it up, remembering that this phase shall too soon pass. We shouldn’t forget that women have the same mothering and protective instinct towards their offspring as every other mammal. We tend to leave animals just to get on with things with minimal intervention, so if a woman wants to retreat into her cave with her newborn for a few weeks, she ought to be left to get on with it, without the pressure of having to ping instantly back into shape or worry about whether or not she’s doing enough to stave off her husband’s potential post-natal depression. Frankly the man has to accept that while not as directly involved in the hands-on care of the child as the mother, his role in supporting her whether by helping with housework, caring for other children, or doing what he needs to do to keep the pair safe and secure is every bit as vital.
Paternal biological imperative obviously fuels the desire to be hands on and involved, but it can also be manifested in other ways and accounts for why surrogacy cases can be quite so messy. Speaking at an event in Tralee last week in advance of the Irish referendum on same-sex marriage last week, John Waters discussed the case of a friend of his, a gay father who agreed to act as a sperm donor to a pair of lesbians. Once the child was born he found it absolutely impossible to stick to his previous agreement and stay out of the life of his child. It was clear that he had not known precisely what it was he had been consenting to, once the child was born, he felt compelled to be involved in their life as a father figure. Eventually a judge agreed and defined the terms on which he was to be allowed regular contact, but sadly the women absconded to a different and faraway country before arrangements could be legally formalised, leaving him bereft and dependent on annual visits.
Similarly in another case this week, a woman lied to her ex partner about having aborted his baby and set up an elaborate surrogacy pretence in order that she could financially profit from giving the child to a gay friend of hers. The woman is now facing imprisonment and the biological father has taken rightful custody of his child, despite the fact that they split up when the woman was three months pregnant. Speaking of the effect of this appalling deception upon this child, the biological father said that he didn’t think that there was any sentence high enough to justify what they have done to her. The judge commended the father in these terms “I can’t fail to be impressed by the vigour and stamina that has been required of you to get matters this far; the complaints you’ve made and the letters you have had to write to get people to take this seriously as a criminal complaint.”
Biological imperative and paternal responsibility drove that father to ensure that his child was being properly cared for and the law inherently accepted that his blood ties made him a more appropriate figure with her best interests in mind, than either her biological mother or putative father, both of whom had treated her as little more than a commodity. When falsely informed that the mother had miscarried the child, he mourned for her, despite the fact that he was not in a relationship with her and such was his innate desire to be a father to his child, he undertook a lengthy and draining process while in the throes of a new relationship to a woman who has now become his wife and who will also share in the raising of the child.
What the above case demonstrates is that sometimes paternal biological imperative often, in extreme circumstances has to replace maternal care, but why is this used as proof that all a baby needs is human love and care irrespective of provider. One has to be delusional or in willful denial of anthropology and the science of human development to claim that babies are neutral when it comes to needing their mothers. Where someone takes over the maternal role, the baby has to learn to adapt and will experience trauma and potentially attachment issues.
So why then, is it women, often mothers themselves, who are so keen to deny the compulsions of this biological imperative? That’s what I intend to explore in part 2.
The white-hot incandescent anger induced by the case of the mother whose baby was removed from her by two men, has been replaced by an overwhelming grief and sadness.
Reflecting on the matter further, there are other disturbing factors which have come to light which ought to be brought to wider attention. Unfortunately, the mother is gagged from being able to talk about which is in itself a worrying development. She ought to be able to tell her story, given this is a matter of enormous public interest, without facing jail. Lib Dem candidate for Birmingham Yardley John Hemming, a campaigner for openness in the courts, said:
‘How will it benefit the child to gag the mother? It benefits the court because it stops her from criticising the court.
‘For people to understand and trust the workings of the courts they need to know what is going on.’
Similarly the Tory candidate and former MP for Esher has said that it is a cardinal principle of British justice that it is not just done, but also seen to be done.
One of the many disturbing factors of this case is that the mother was criticised by judge Allison Russell, for her conduct in court. It wasn’t only the need for interruptions to express milk (obviously the judge has never experienced the unpleasantness and pain of spontaneous erruption, full breasts can be extremely painful – talking or thinking about a loved child can often stimulate an embarrassing and uncontrolled reaction) but what piqued the judge was that the mother interrupted the proceedings to make comments or question statements or representations far more often than the men, whose behaviour was cool, controlled and utterly reasonable.
Firstly there seems to be an issue of misogyny in that the mother was attacked for being ‘emotional’, which is hardly surprising when one considers what was at stake for her here. What leapt off the page for me when reading the judgement, was her utter desperation not to be separated from her vulnerable young baby. It was like a mother polar bear attempting to defend and protect her cubs and ward off any attackers, a typical mammalian reaction.
Secondly, unlike the two men, the mother had no lawyer or legal counsel and was representing herself. Had she been properly represented, she would no doubt have been briefed and advised of how to conduct herself and present her case before the judge, to be honest she seems like a client whom the lawyer would advise to keep as quiet as possible, but the judge doesn’t seem to have taken this inequality into account when critiquing the mother. And because the woman represented herself in the family court, the judge noted that she seemed articulate, passionate, engaged, able to account for herself and not therefore any sort of victim.
The law firm representing the two men was Natalie Gamble Associates. The leading experts in the field when it comes to family law, drawing up surrogacy agreements and self-described champions of assisted reproduction and fertility law. Every time a similar surrogacy mess rears its head in the mainstream media, up pops Natalie Gamble claiming how this is proof that commercial surrogacy needs to be ‘regulated’, i.e. legalised in the UK. Unsurprising coming from a firm whose sole source of revenue and profit is derived from surrogacy or fertility issues, but one can hardly claim she’s impartial on the matter.
So here we have a legally unrepresented mother fighting not to lose custody of her child, versus a firm of hot-shot lawyers and the judge negatively contrasts her demeanour with that of the two men in her conclusions about the woman’s character and passes an order banning the woman from ever being able to talk about it.
I am not defending all of the mother’s actions, from what has been reported it seems as though she did her best to frustrate contact with the baby’s biological father, which is unacceptable. If indeed she did tell lies about the male couple, this is not to be commended, however these were the painfully transparent actions of a mother who was desperate and therefore fighting tooth and nail, not to lose her baby daughter.
One of the things that she was attacked for was unnecessary visits to the hospital and doctor when her child did not require treatment. The judge concluded that this was to smear the men, but on one occasion the child was diagnosed as having a viral infection; on another, the baby was found to be fine, but the mother was worried that she may have dehydration, just having come back from an overnight visit, where of course she would have been unable to have been breastfed.
One might draw one’s own reasonable conclusions as to whether these visits were wise or even necessary, but then again, how many of us have taken our children to the GP or even to the hospital because of an urgent niggle, only to be reassured that everything is fine? I know I certainly have and have always been told by the professionals to trust instinct and that’s better to be safe than sorry.
Another issue is that she posted numerous threads on Mumsnet in which she repeatedly changed her story on several occasions, which had then to be removed when the administrators realised that she was going through the courts and the story might hit the press. She had alleged history with regards to telling untruths about her ex-husband in order to frustrate his contact with their children.
So the woman is clearly not a saint; she needs some sort of external involvment, not least counselling in order to ensure that her children are not deprived of the opportunity to build a strong relationship with their father. The same goes with the father of her baby, clearly some sort of intervention needed to be had to ensure that a relationship could develop.
As to whether or not she is guilty of the greatest thought crime of the twenty-first century ‘homophobia’, I’d say this is unlikely given her original friendship with a gay man and agreement to enter into a surrogacy arrangement. It’s difficult to ascertain precisely what happened, but it seems as though initially she had contributed a large sum of her own money into the deposit on a house where all three of them were going to live together and she would take a role in the raising of the child. There were even emails about the baby sleeping in the mother’s room with her in a cot. But then something happened and the relationship, especially with the father’s partner, soured.
It does then cast the judge’s decision that the baby should go the the male couple, because that is where she was always intended to be, her ‘natural family’, into doubt.
The mother’s registering of the birth, choosing a name for the baby and baptising the child are all things which she was legally entitled to do as the baby’s mother.
The male couple obviously had their legal options lined up, claiming that they were being utterly reasonable and had been forced into taking action, despite the fact the mother had broken no laws. Another horrific facet of this sorry tale is how the mother was forced to have regular meetings with a lactation midwife in order to plan how she could stop breastfeeding by the time the baby had reached 9 months, with the aim that the baby could commence overnight visits.
The problem with this, as any breastfeeding mother knows, is that with demand-led feeding it goes on for as long as both the baby asks it and the mother is content to feed. Breastfeeding is entirely between mother and child; though the child is non-verbal they are still able to communicate their need for the breast to their mother. It is absolutely not for anyone, let alone state agents to determine how long a mother ought to be feeding, in order that her baby may be prepared for handover and get used to sleeping alone in strange unfamiliar surroundings without the scent or comforting presence of their mother.
I was reminded of the dreadful cases of pregnant women in Nigeria or other Islamic countries, sentenced to death for alleged adultery with the execution stayed until the child has been weaned from the breast. No wonder the mother was as keen to delay taking the child off the breast for as long as possible; I know I would too, and equally I would not let my children stay overnight at anyone else’s house until they were at least beyond the age of 3. This is exactly what is advocated by child psychologists; to split their time between two houses and sets of parents is confusing and unsettling for children.
What leaps off the page is, is a mother desperate enough to go to silly lengths to keep her baby and whose fear of having her child removed led her to some rash actions, which ultimately counted against her.
The story seems to have touched several personal nerves for me, perhaps because I adopt similar parenting styles so critiqued by the judge and used as justification for removal of the child. I breastfeed, I wear my babies in a sling, I co-sleep, I am predominantly a stay-at-home mother. Over the years I too have been accused of being an unfit parent on the grounds of projected moral deficiency, I’ve had trolls and stalkers attempt to tell me that I am not fit to raise my children and am causing them harm, either by neglect (thanks to being able to type quickly and turn out long considered blogposts ) or thanks to my religious and social beliefs. I too, have been branded harmful and the welfare of my children been called into question by random internet strangers. It isn’t too hard to envisage a socially conservative woman finding herself at the centre of similar proceedings, with her children deemed to be ‘at risk’ from homophobia or indoctrination, if her parents do not hold liberal conformist views.
And there’s one final and as yet undiscussed aspect to this whole sorry mess. We are constantly informed that women need more representation in politics, in business and on the judiciary. Here we see a female judge who has chosen to pursue a career instead of a family attacking and unnecessarily removing the child from the care of a woman, because she is completely unable to empathise with another woman, or understand the rationale behind her mothering. She has imposed her own vision of what motherhood ought to look like (one completely devoid of evidence) onto another woman and punished her and her child, for falling short. Is this really the sort of female representation that we should be aspiring towards?
It is clear that no harm was being caused to the baby. It was arbitrarily decided that the baby girl would fare better in the care of two men based on the subjective negative impression that the judge formed of the woman, for being ‘emotional’, too involved, too ‘homophobic’ and that the baby would have a better, healthier and more balanced future with two men.
It’s an awful mess and while I want to scream at the injustice of it all, I also want to weep for a little child, removed from the comfort, warmth and welcome of her mother’s breast and bed and instead placed into, no doubt a beautifully attractive and immaculate wooden cot, in a room all of her own, in a house without a woman.
I’ve written about this case at length on a piece pending publication on Conservative Woman, so I’ll keep my comments here brief. Basically a woman who conceived her own child on behalf of two gay men, one of whom was her friend, reneged on the agreement and decided to keep her own child.
The child has now been removed from the mother at around the age of 15 months and handed into the care of the two men to raise. The judge, a dour childless old boot by the name of Allison Russell, has displayed zero insight into the benefits for mother and baby alike, along with a complete lack of understanding of the logistics and difficulties of expressing milk.
She has decided that the mother’s desire to breastfeed was manipulative. designed to keep the baby away from their father and thus ‘harmful’ and attacked the mother in the judgement for wearing a baby in a sling, for co-sleeping and crucially for having no plans to return to work.
A fifteen month infant is not capable of speech, may not even be walking, cannot feed itself without help and yet, the judge has decided, it needs to learn to be independent and not solely reliant on the comfort of its mother. Wake up baby, it’s time to face the big wide world, you need to learn your place is to fulfil the needs and demands of adults and develop at a timetable to suit them, not your own. 15 months? It’s time you were spending 40 hours a week in a noisy room full of strange children and busy adults instead of enjoying the reassuring comfort and routine of home. Your mother has no business indulging you. She ought to be ought working to pay for your upkeep.
Over the weekend, in a moment that melted the world’s hearts, Prince William took the 21 month old baby George to visit his newborn sister, and setting down the child to walk on the pavement, George instantly signalled his displeasure and reached up his pudgy arms for his dad to give him a carry. According to Judge Russell, His Royal Highness is doing it all wrong, a child’s need for closeness with a parent is all about the fact that the parent has enmeshed the child in an inward looking environment which is all about serving the adult’s needs. If the judge is to be believed, breastfeeding, baby-carrying, co-sleeping, hey all that shebang is mere parental selfishness, designed to serve their neediness, requiring absolutely no self-sacrifice and of being no possible benefit to the child, whatever the evidence to the contrary.
Let’s be clear here. A woman has been attacked and vilified for fulfilling innate maternal desires. No good will has been imputed towards her, it is claimed that her breastfeeding is nothing but self-interested manipulation and the way she was raising her child does not meet with the approval of a childless judge. Even her need to take frequent breaks for expressing milk was attacked, the judge not understanding that the human female is not the equivalent of a dairy cow. Expressing even the tiniest bit of milk can take a long time for many women, and it is recommended that in order to stimulate production a woman is calm, comfortable and relaxed, i.e. not clock-watching under pressure in the lavatory of public courtroom, where the fate of one’s child is in the balance. Neither did the judge understand that the woman’s inability to express milk when her child was solely breastfeeding, was outside of her control. The milk didn’t suddenly ‘magically’ appear when the child began weaning, the mother was not withholding her ability, but simply that she had excess supply. Child starts solid food, takes less milk, the body takes time to catch up and will therefore produce a surplus. It’s not rocket science.
Whatever the behaviour of the woman, which might well have left a lot to be desired, it seems clear that she was prepared to go to desperate measures to keep her baby. Of course the child had a right to contact with her father, however, as leading child psychologist Penelope Leach notes, under the age of 4, children ought not to have sleepovers away from their main care-giver, the constant to-ing and fro-ing is bad for their psychological development, causing instability and anxiety. Of course a baby who has been exclusively breastfed and is used to sleeping with the comfort of her mother is going to be distressed by a night away in the solitary confinement of a cot in the house of two strange, if benign men.
This woman has had her child removed (and one cannot begin to image the turmoil, trauma and anxiety experienced by the baby) because she refused to parent her in order to facilitate the desires and needs of two men.
This is case which cries out to high heaven for justice. The feminists ought to be all over this like a cheap suit. Where is this woman’s autonomy, why is her mothering under attack when its acknowledged that the child is at no risk of harm? Heck, even heroin-addicted mothers are allowed to parent their babies under supervision. Since when does breastfeeding and if the judge is to believed, casting aspersions about the father’s behaviour in attempt to keep the child, justify the removal. When you look at the allegations made by the mother, though unpleasant, they aren’t homophobic, rather they raise questions about the nature of the relationship between the two men and whether it was a suitable environment for a child. It seems to have been the judge who drew the correlation between what the woman was alleging about this couple and deciding it implicitly applied to every gay couple.
Removing a child for the supposed moral deficiency of the mother, is precisely the outdated attitude displayed by the mother-and-baby institutions of yesteryear. Catholics continue to be attacked by those supporting same-sex parenting for the way some religious sisters behaved in giving away their babies to richer, more stable couples and not allowing the child to bond with the mother, which caused years of heartbreak for so many and yet this is exactly what is being advocated here. “How dare you bond with a baby which doesn’t belong to you and which you have no right to parent, even if you have given birth to her.”
Commercial surrogacy is still illegal in the UK – why on earth are the courts attempting to accommodate this. Surely a better message would have been to allow the mother to keep her child, which would have been in both of their best interests, with frequent contact, ordered for the father?
When are the feminists going to wake up to the fact that just because men are gay, it doesn’t make them any the less capable of using women as exploitable objects to serve their own gratification, than straight ones. The exploitation may not be sexual, but expecting women to be passive breeders, grateful for the cash they receive in return for relinquishing their bodily autonomy and motherhood and attacking them if they do not fulfil the demands of the contract to the letter, is every bit as abusive and harmful. This is the inevitable consequence of gender blurring and claiming that the roles of mother and father are interchangeable. Women and babies are hurt, treated as consumer goods to be traded for the whims of men and backed up by the highest court in the land.
Ever-mindful of the ninth commandment along with the precept of spreading light not heat, I’ve been giving some serious thought and prayer as to whether or not to write more about the Drewitt-Barlow couple, since discovering some rather unsavoury facts about them and being urged to go public by various friends.
What concerned me about the abuse that they threw my way the other night, is that despite having had no contact with them for two years the accusations that Barrie flung at me had a somewhat familiar ring, almost as if someone was feeding him via DM – in particular I found it fascinating that he decided to begin tweeting Joe Kelly, the editor at the Universe in an attempt to get me sacked.
Why would this former self-identifying ‘practicing Church of England member’, Essex celebrity and LGBT activist within the space of a few minutes know exactly whom to contact? It very much tallies in with a pattern of behaviour experienced by another gay man who has frantically contacted any organisation with whom I might be connected, urging them to drop me. Barrie Drewitt-Barlow boasts that he is a member of the ‘mafia’, a promotional poster for his new series uses that as the strapline and the Facebook page for their new series, The Parent Makers, contains the following boast:
“Certain things can only happen, when the right people are involved. When Barrie speaks, people in the IVF world listen, if they don’t hes been known to half their business with just a few cutting comments” Julia & Harry, Ipswich, Intended Parents, with twins on the way!
“Its not WHAT you know, its WHO you know, THE PARENT MAKERS really are like a Mafia!
One of the reasons I have wondered whether or not to exercise prudence is because Barrie Drewitt-Barlow seems to have a volatile temper, judging by the way he liberally scatters horrific abuse on Twitter, needing only a hair-trigger to set him off, and also by his petulant displays of temper, showcased on his TV show. Back in 2006, Drewitt-Barlow was fined £90, which his partner described as a ‘slap on the wrist’ for making death threats towards parents who believed they had been defrauded by a private school they had set up in Spain. Just at the beginning of this month, he emailed someone who admittedly used some inflammatory and provocative language, emphasising his rich privileged lifestyle and boasting that ‘my vast wealth and contacts will crush anyone’. Having used my photograph to allege that I am a racist and another man’s photo to allege that he is a pedophile, Drewitt-Barlow laughs that he has the money to afford a legal battle. Clearly, this man feels as though he is immune from and above the law.
It’s not difficult to come to the conclusion that Barrie-Drewitt Barlow displays several narcissistic tendencies along with several chips on his shoulder, a look through his twitter feed shows a pattern of self-promotion, boasts and abuse, the key themes being attacking anyone whom he believes is inferior by virtue of their looks, breeding or social class. For someone concerned with helping people to become parents through surrogacy, he displays a disturbing eugenic mindset, even going so far as to attack a photograph of a young toddler as being ‘gross’ and destined for a career working in McDonalds.
One could easily laugh off this vain, self-indulgent man with delusions of grandeur were it not for the fact that there are 5 young children involved and that he represents the face of gay parenting in the UK.
This review written about a previous series, My Weird and Wonderful Family, makes the point that there is no law about ‘f-ing your kids up’, Larkin-style, notes that Barrie loves his kids, but highlights his focus upon physical appearance.
When asked how they chose their donors, Barry said: ‘We originally went for a combination of looks and intelligence’, before looking pointedly at his slightly chubby daughter and adding, ‘but this time we’ll go for looks alone’
One has to wonder how healthy an environment this is for a young teenage girl growing up without a mother and four male siblings, or indeed for any of his children. Viewed in this context, along with his social media output, Barrie’s yelling at his son for not being a ‘gorgeous, designer child’ seems less and less amusing.
In this interview with Joanna Moorhead in the Guardian, Tony states how important it is that their children are themselves, that they shouldn’t have to live a lie, being themselves is the most important thing of all.
An admirable sentiment, but one has to wonder how this is commensurate with their withholding the information regarding their genetic parentage from their children. Stating that “I’ve got Daddy’s nose and Dad’s eyes” is surely a blatant piece of self-deception. Furthermore Orlando’s defensive response to his father’s taunting, “I AM designer and I AM gorgeous’ but defiantly rejecting any concern about his curly hair, confirms that has been conditioned that his sense of worth is based around the superficial.
Every single parent attempts to model their child into their version or interpretation of a responsible human being, if I were foolhardy enough to allow the cameras into my home, there would be many mutterings about religious indoctrination from the liberal cognoscenti, and the perceived imposition of religious views upon our children. If I was filmed impatiently telling my child that they ought to be more prayerful or respectful when they careered around the bedroom during bedtime prayers, that this is a time to be silent and talk to God, there would be an outcry from various quarters and allegations of emotional abuse.
“At the school Christmas party, he stole the part of the Fairy Godmother from one of the kids, and felt up the headmaster. Barrie is a gaudy monster plucked from the dark recesses of a Tennessee Williams play, as acted by Lily Savage or Bette Davis.”
In my previous post I mused over the control that would-be parents exercise over a woman’s body, Barrie has confirmed this by insisting that his children are born by cesarian section which carries more risks for the mother than a natural delivery, because ‘childbirth is like something out of Freddy Kreuger.’ Furthermore the mothers have little to no contact with their children (I have seen her yes, said Aspen in a dull monotone , not wishing to elaborate further, on TV this week)- potentially leaving their daughter to navigate the minefield of female puberty and menstrual cycles with no close female relative and a dad who believes that the whole business pertaining to natural female reproduction is all rather ghastly. One wonders what his son who was naturally conceived before Barrie realised he was gay, and kept a secret from him for some years, makes of it all – does he feel a keen sense of genetic inferiority?
As I said, I am aware that there are 5 vulnerable children involved here, so I don’t want to say too much about my perceptions of the situation, however by constantly hauling their children around TV studios and inviting the TV cameras into their homes, whether that be for a style make-over programme of their daughter’s bedroom, or for several reality series, the Drewitt-Barlows are inviting people to form an opinion. The children are being turned into celebrities, given a label that will follow them their whole life and having their privacy invaded without being able to give their informed consent. Barrie openly discusses their daughter’s sexuality and muses over which child of theirs is most likely to be gay, concluding that it will probably be their two year old son, the public projection of a niche adult sexuality onto a small infant being of questionable taste.
One has to ask how fair this is upon the children themselves: most established celebrities have agreements with the press to pixellate out their children’s faces and do their best to bring them up out of the glare of the spotlight. One might have thought that this was the most sensible option for a couple who are keen to trailblaze for the cause of gay parenting. especially when you have gone on record to state that you fear your children are at risk from kidnap and media intrusion. One might also question the wisdom of disclosing that your children attended the same school as another potential kidnap target, Brooklyn Beckham, who was also their friend.
On Barrie’s facebook page he talks about the haters and protestors who he has been warned will attend his marriage blessing to Tony, leading him to up security and eliciting expressions of sympathy with them against the hateful bigots.
Alan Craig, an evangelical Christian and grass-roots campaigner, describes the situation somewhat differently, explaining how their PR agent had emailed him with the following blurb. “We… actively invite protesters to turn up and be interviewed” “Clearly the event was to be an exercise in spin, hype and mirrors.”, he noted, although he still took the opportunity to turn up and peacefully propose his point of view.
This couple are never quick to allege homophobia and how difficult it is to be gay, Barrie quoted it as justification for his abusive Twitter rant, they have cited it for the reason why they moved their children to a private school (although one notes that the flexi-boarding facilities must come in handy in terms of their frequent trips to the States and Australia promoting the surrogacy business), and put in a complaint to the border agency about their homophobic treatment, when agency officials, puzzled by the documentation, questioned the feasibility of both of the men being biological fathers to all of the children.
A few months ago, they called the police after an elderly man in the Maldon branch of Tescos called them ‘a couple of queer boys’. The insult is not to be applauded, but one might have thought that this pair who proudly talk of their background growing up on “Manchester’s roughest council estate” had grown a thicker skin?
On the one hand Barrie constantly talks about homophobia and having to fight for the right to drink in gay bars, how life is impossible for them as gay dads (not the best advert for gay couples considering becoming parents), yet on the other, he describes his early life as follows: “As a teenager, Barrie was outrageous, growing up through the 80’s in the city centre of Manchester , Barrie was able to express himself in the way he wanted too. Being gay was never an issue for him and he was, as they say, loud and proud!” In this clip (in which incidentally they joke with their children about who is the most loved parent and who they would live with in the case of divorce) Barrie says that he was able to express his sexuality from the age of 13.
The reason I am devoting time to this issue is because the Drewitt-Barlows are being held up by the mainstream media and press as exemplary gay parents and talk about leading the way in terms of changing public attitudes to gay parenting. A 2010 survey in the now defunct Pink Paper, discusses how they have changed attitudes. They have over 137,000 Twitter followers, their own TV series and get sympathetic plugs in the Independent and Daily Mail about ‘ethical surrogacy’. Just the other day, standing in for Lorraine Kelly, Kate Garroway gushed over them and stated how great it was that attitudes towards same-sex parenting and surrogacy have changed, and various LGBT activists fawn over them and encourage their vital work. “Beware the surrogacy cowboys” shout the headlines!
Rivka Edelman from English Manif pour Tous puts her own take on who might be being misled here. Surrogacy advocates baulk at the notion that this is all about designer babies, accessories, babies for sale or children as commodities, but when Barrie comes out with quotes such as “you get what you pay for” such as he did when speaking to Julie Bindel, it doesn’t incline one to sympathy.
Both on his Twitter feed and in this clip, Barrie talks about how this is only a process for the rich – partly because they use California, one of the few places in the world where commercial surrogacy is legal, although they continue to lobby for it in the UK. They are happy to pay thousands to genetically select the sex of their next baby, already having the name picked out, and advise clients who are looking to select particular physical attributes for their child. It’s hard to think of children as being anything other than a rich couples’ accessory, when clients stride in demanding a checklist.
Barrie claims to be a ‘clinical social worker’, a highly specialised role which requires a specific set of qualifications and experience. It is concerning that someone with an alleged professed interest in child welfare, is happy to behave in such an abusive fashion to other people. Throwing violent temper tantrums, smashing up cakes, throwing things at his partner and storming out of a restaurant when he hasn’t got his own way, doesn’t demonstrate that he is able to exercise self-control nor does it model good behaviour for his children. Nor is verbally abusing an employee, by getting close up in their face and swearing at them, the behaviour one would like to experience from one’s boss. It’s not really surprising that his PA called for me to be urinated upon – which Barrie then endorsed.
Given that the Drewitt-Barlows were refused permission to adopt and state a sketchy knowledge of the process, (here on the Lorraine show they say that an adoption panel is made up of a vicar, a policeman and a housewife who are typically prejudiced) and Barrie has been accused of lying about his qualifications as a nurse, what grounds does he use to justify the title of ‘clinical social worker’?
In the case of the Drewitt Barlow’s application to adopt, they claim that the panel recommended that they spent some time helping out with children with special needs as they did not have experience with children, before being approved to adopt. Barrie and Tony then went on a cruise around the Med to think about it, whereupon the idea of surrogacy popped into place. They felt that the panel were treating them as ‘second class citizens’ only fit to look after ‘third class citizens’ instead of a healthy child. My understanding of adoption panels is that their decisions are not binding and they come to their conclusions based upon the reports and suggestions of social workers. Furthermore they are not random individuals but have specific experience and knowledge in this area. The Drewitt-Barlows were not refused permission to adopt, but asked to get more experience, which seems reasonable.
When I first became aware of them, living in the next-door village, my reaction was not one of homophobia, but the image jarred. Two men, looking after babies? How would they know what to do? What if they dropped the baby? Shouldn’t there be a mother. My own experience of motherhood has taught me that men are of course more than capable of looking after babies, but that mother and baby enjoy a unique and special bond. The image of two men and a baby may no longer be so disconcerting (at the time we were influenced by media films, such as Jack and Sarah, Three men and a baby which portrayed men and childcare in a pretty sexist fashion) but it isn’t unreasonable or homophobic to want some evidence of experience in childcare for two men seeking to take sole custody of a child.
Surely a social worker would know this? What kind of ‘social work’ does Barrie do? From what’s been offered to the public it seems to be little more than running a CRB and credit check as well as briefing people on what to expect on their ‘journey’.
Despite the accusations of bigotry, I am not opposed to gay couples being approved as foster carers or adopters, so long as they are able to pass the relevant checks and vetting. Any couple who wishes to put themselves through the sacrifice involved in adopting a child who will, in all likelihood have some issues or problems, should be applauded for their altruism and commitment. Ideally a child ought to have a loving mum and dad, we know that life doesn’t always work out that way for them, but rather than this being framed around the issue of ‘gay rights’ children’s rights always ought to be put first. If a gay couple can provide a loving, stable home for a child and can be matched with a suitable child (and being in a same sex home doesn’t conflict with a child’s culture) and the alternative is languishing in a care home, then we should not be blinded by ideology. That said, the Catholic care homes should not have been forced to close. Their criteria that children should always have the complementarity of both sexes parenting is entirely reasonable.
We know that there are gay parents out there doing a worthy and admirable job. Any sensible and reasonable advocates of same-sex parenting ought to kick this pair into touch as the face of gay parents in the media.
They scream at accusations of exploitation and yet their very language when referring to a potential donor, “we won’t use her again”, betrays this notion. Barrie endorses abortion and others’ rights over a woman’s body stating that prospective parents have a right to abort, recommending clauses are inserted into the legal documentation compelling the gestational mother to abort should the baby be diagnosed as having a disability.
When Barrie is filmed fantasising about being massaged by a pair of male masseurs, moaning in delight, spending several nights going out wining and dining, getting drunk with z-list celebs, writhing round with pole-dancers and talking about kissing other men, it plays into every single negative stereotype about gay men and relationships and whether this really is a situation which should be encouraged. I wonder what would happen to low-income heterosexual couple who were found to have posted photographs of their children on swingers’ websites, one of whom appeared to manifest an anger-management problem?
Still perhaps I should not be protesting so much, this TV series showing the process and mindsets of the men who wish to promote surrogacy and gay equality could prove every to be social conservative’s dream.
One might imagine that I am a seasoned veteran when it comes to invective and yet there was something about the abuse that Barrie threw at me which really unsettled my peace of mind. I was not alone, others wrote to me expressing similar spiritual disquiet and offering prayer. Most significant was an email from a gay man who had always been loosely supportive of surrogacy but said that having witnessed this behaviour, it had really hammered home the true nature of the business. Like me, he was so disturbed by what he had witnessed, that he had trouble sleeping. Others on my Facebook have urged that the various media reports ought to be assembled and disseminated.
I don’t want to spend too much time on this, but in the light of the Question Time online Twitter storm and bullying that came my way, it was suggested that I find a way of logging all the incidents/abuse that come my way as a result of defending the prospect that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life.
The columnist who arguably was responsible for drawing a lot of heat my way is one Benjamin Cohen who according to his biography was formerly of Channel 4 news and is now the founder of Pink News, a columnist for the Evening Standard and Gay Times. So it’s fair to note that in terms of impact and and influence, in engaging with me he is punching well below his weight. He has almost 17,000 Twitter followers and platforms in the national media. I have 2,000 followers or thereabouts and am not a regular contributor to mainstream media, aside from when I am invited on at the request of a producer or editor to explain a Catholic or socially conservative position. I don’t know whether or not my weekly Universe column counts.
In any event he has decided that I am worthy of his attention and began to follow me on Twitter following the Question Time affair. On several occasions yesterday he did that passive aggressive trick of using a full stop before my Twitter handle, before going on to misrepresent my position.
My crime – being friends with a transgender woman. Actually his ire is mainly directed onto her, for being friends with such a hateful person such as myself and because she takes a pro-life position, her view being shaped by the fact that she was adopted. Furthermore she disagrees with the concepts of surrogacy and IVF, not on religious grounds, but accepting the science that human life begins at conception. Worst still she believes that surrogacy exploits women and that every child deserves the chance of a loving mother and father.
So at time of blogging, I’ve had another non-stop 18 hours of unsolicited and unprovoked online aggression from the gay Twitterati and their supporters. Benjamin Cohen went from attacking a woman for her friendship with me, to inexplicably claiming to all his followers that I think that his lovely niece should not exist, after randomly attacking my position on IVF. He’s then gone on to justify his position that my gay friends should shun me because no one should be friends with someone who wants to deny them their rights; he would not be friends with anyone who would deny him his rights as a gay man or indeed as a Jew.
There’s a lot to unpick here, but I’ll try to address the points briefly.
1) – It is bigoted to try to undermine or dictate friendships of which you do not approve. It is more than possible to be friends with someone who takes an entirely opposite ideological point of view to yourself, accepting that they do so in good faith. I am friends with many LGBT Christians and progressive Anglicans who believe entirely different things to me on the subject of marriage and ordination of women to the priesthood, but that does not hinder our friendship or closeness.
2) Godwin’s law time. Believing that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman does not equate to facism or Nazism. Marriage is not a universal human right. If it were then brothers and sisters could get married or any two people who declared a love between each other, regardless of blood ties or age. The only ostracism or turning one group into ‘untouchables’ or second-class citizens is coming from the LGBT lobby and their supporters who wish to take to the internet to undermine friendships and defend their proposition that no-one should be friends with me, or indeed anyone who takes a similar position. We must be isolated, ostracised and hated. Which is why Benjamin Cohen has repeatedly ridiculed and misrepresented my position to all his followers, to ensure that they turn their hatred and derision on me. He’s already posted a video of Lynette Burrows comparing me to her, after he debated her at the Oxford Union, saying that my language is similar to hers. This is disingenuous in that Lynette not only used sexually inappropriate language she also made some wild and unsubstantiated and provocative claims. My language and tone has been infinitely more measured. If you look at my online activity I do not go about soliciting attacks on LGBT advocates or inciting my followers to have a go at gay marriage supporters. The aggression here has been solely one-sided. I’ve had 18 hours of being compared to Nazis and specious arguments.
3) Objection to IVF does not mean that I wish babies who have been brought into this world out of existence. Furthermore my objections to it are across the board – regardless of sexuality. I object to IVF on a number of ethical grounds. The amount of sheer wastage of embryos involved in the process, as Lord Alton has noted, is on an industrial scale. I also believe that it is inefficient as a treatment. The success rates are shockingly low for a process which is emotionally and physically costly. Clinics exploit the desperation and misery of women as Professor Sir Robert Winston, one of the original pioneers agrees. I also have some scientific concern about the process, which seems to be born out by health outcomes. Children born from IVF have a greater risk of health complications and treatment cycles can prove harmful, for example it doubles the rate of non-fatal ovarian cancer in women. I don’t have a problem with the children who are conceived, rather the way in which people have gone about conceiving them. IVF is a sticking plaster, a gruelling way of circumnavigating infertility without addressing the underlying causes and in common with all issues concerning human life, a technique developed out of compassion has been exploited and distorted as being a human right.
From a Catholic point of view, I object because children have the right to be conceived from the natural embrace of their mother and father; to use IVF separates the unitive and procreative elements of sexual intercourse, which is contrary to Catholic teaching. IVF turns the child into a commodity to be made in a laboratory and makes doctors, technicians and even the sales and finance staff in the clinic, part of the conception process.
4) Surrogacy. As above, the surrogacy process once agains treats children as a commodity. The surrogacy industry exploits women as being nothing more than wombs for rent and disregards the importance of the gestational link between mother and child, which a recent study demonstrates, could be even more important than splitting the genetic link as provided by donor eggs and sperm. Basically studies are beginning to confirm the psychosomatic upset caused to mother and child alike when a child is cut off from the emotional and physical bond built up between them and their mother. We know that when a woman is subjected to high levels of stress in her pregnancy that this can have an adverse affect on the health of her unborn child. We also know that there is already a bond between an unborn child and their gestational mother, one that is not merely imaginary but assisted by hormone production. Any mother of a newborn will rave about the effects of Oxytocin, the happiness hormone, which is produced in pregnancy but also designed to be reinforced post birth, by eye-gazing, skin to skin contact and breast-feeding. As the mother of four, it’s something I have experienced repeatedly, all of my children would instantly be quietened by the simple act of my picking them up as babies, while my husband would look on in bewildered awe. I remember placing my babies next to me in my hospital bed lifting them out of fish tank provided; just lying next to me would comfort and silence a bout of crying.
this oxytocin link not only facilitates key physiological processes in the baby’s development, but also helps the mother to recover after delivery. It promotes bonding patterns between the mother and neonate and creates desire for further contact. In fact, the powerful imprinting for mother and baby from the oxytocin release during breastfeeding occurs chiefly “so that mother and baby will be able to find and recognize each other in the hours and days after birth.” Most importantly, studies show “the resulting high or low level of oxytocin will control the permanent organization of the stress-handling portion of the baby’s brain—promoting lasting ‘securely attached’ or ‘insecure’ characteristics in the adolescent and the adult.”
All of this essential maternal-child melding and mother-to-baby recognition is proactively disrupted when the surrogate mother hands her baby over to its sociological parents. We can only guess how long the resulting love-vacuum is felt, consciously by the surrogate mother and subconsciously by the baby. Nor can we know when failure to experience this gestational link might morph into a panoply of insecure behavior on the part of the surrogate child/adolescent/adult: anti-socialism, aggression, difficulty forming lasting bonds with a mate, mental illness, and poor handling of stress.
According to a study conducted by Dr Susan Golombok of Cambridge University published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in 2013, children born with the help of a surrogate may have more adjustment problems – at least by the age of 7 – than those born to their mother via donated eggs and sperm. 
Second, this study showed that, if the sociological mother exhibited maternal distress when the surrogate child was 3 years old (particularly over whether to tell the child about his surrogate birth), this distress was predictive of adjustment problems for the 7-year-olds who, after being told of their surrogate birth, “conceivably…felt less secure when faced with their mother’s emotional problems.”
Another Golombok study  in 2011 revealed that the absence of a 7-year-old child’s genetic or gestational link to his sociological mother caused the mother’s interaction with her surrogate child (and vice versa) to be less warm and less mutually responsive and cooperative.
Denying that babies need their gestational mothers is damaging for mothers and babies alike. It treats babies as little more than consumer objects and women as commodities for hire. You don’t need to be a religious bigot to condemn the misery and exploitation of women engendered in countries where commercial surrogacy is rife.
5) Sperm Donation. Same with egg donation. Anything that treats another human being as a commodity to be exploited and denies the right of the child to their natural parent is morally abhorrent. Here’s the testimony of one woman conceived by sperm donation.
All children deserve a loving mother and father. In a world which demands that we have equal numbers of women in the workplace, politics and the media, why then is the prospect that all children deserve the equality of a man and a woman parenting them deemed to be so outré?
Countless studies hold up the model of children being raised in a loving long-term stable relationship between their biological parents as being the gold standard. Every single piece of research which aims to justify surrogacy or same-gendered parents concedes this by attempting to demonstrate equality of outcomes.
Same-sex parenting and surrogacy are still a relatively new modern phenomenon. Every single study is flawed in its objectivity, methodology and focus. David Benkof, a gay Jew like Benjamin Cohen, analyses the difficulties here. These experiences may not be representative but interviews with children brought up by same sex parents make harrowing reading.
No-one is arguing that sexuality renders you a bad parent, the argument is that children fare best being brought up in relationships with their biological mothers and fathers and that every child has an innate desire or instinct to know their identity, to know who and where they are from. This is innately accepted when children are being placed for adoption. I wonder whether in 30 years time we’ll see a glut of adults actively seeking out not only their biological parents, but also their gestational mothers?
The response from the LGBT community is to attempt to use academia and the language of pseudo-science and equality to justify their desire for children. Studies are trotted out in an attempt to prove that children are not harmed, supported by contentious gender theory which attempts to blur the differences between men and women to qualify the proposition that mothers and fathers are irrelevant. All that is needed is loving, caring ‘parents’. Because they ‘need’ to use surrogacy and sperm donation in order to have children, then to state that the rights of the children come first is deemed ignorant, hateful and worthy of derision. LGBT people have to reclaim their high-ground and narrative as perennial victims, excluded from the specious ‘human right’ of parenting through no fault of their own. They literally have no other choice but to use the body of another. That so much justification is needed, is precisely why I have termed this ‘Jurassic Park’ politics – too busy thinking about whether or not they could, to worry about whether or not they should. To state the importance of biological parents, to want to nurture and respect the family and above all place value on human life, from the very moment of conception is not born out of any hatred or wish to marginalise. What is more important, the rights of everyone to have a child whenever they want one, or the rights of a child to have their loving mum or dad? Who are we to wilfully deny or deprive a child of that for our own selfish ends and desires?
The term phobia is bandied about a lot and people recognise that a lot of objection is based on fear. While I’m not scared of people’s private decisions regarding their sexuality, actually the notion that children do not need their loving mothers and fathers does terrify me. The notion that a woman’s body can be commoditised or used as a vehicle to provide someone else with a child, does scare me, as does the idea that it’s okay to take children away from their mothers and that the gestational link is unimportant. This profoundly damages women, along with their babies and men too. It treats human beings and human life as nothing more as a consumer product. It does not encourage errant fathers to take responsibility for their offspring for starters. If a child doesn’t really need a mother and a father, then what’s to stop the state from taking children into care to raise according to their norms of child-rearing? If a child doesn’t need it’s mum and dad, then what’s to stop a child being removed from a parent who has the wrong views or ideology and given to a more loving and ‘tolerant’ set of parents?
This might seem rather far-fetched, but I am worried about a world which wants to tell my four girls that they are not automatically the best mothers for any children that they might have. Their job is merely to produce children, but they should not be guaranteed the right to raise them. It would be the same were I to have little boys, I’d worry about their being reduced to mere sperm donors.
That people are smugly favouring Ben Cohen’s tweet about not being a second class-citizen due to his sexuality or Judaism, when I did not suggest this reprehensible idea and wishing that ‘people like you did not exist’ because I believe that no-one has a right to deliberately deprive a child of the chance of being brought up by their mum and dad, really frightens me. As does a mainstream media commentator happily describing me as a fascist or comparing my view to anti-semitism and getting his friends (including a BBC London Radio presenter) to agree and endorse that point of view.
I’m also concerned by the bullying of my friend, who is being treated as a traitor to the LGBT cause and threatened with exposés in the gay press, simply because she does not conform to the narrow-minded proscribed ‘rights’ agenda, which dictates that all people must think the same. They are also irritated that she has not only been nominated by several people to win an award for LGBT diversity and engagement, but that she wishes to pursue a political career, which is why they are going after her with such enthusiasm. A trans-woman who accepts the sanctity of life and the rights of children to be brought up by a loving mums and dads in a position of political influence? That must not be allowed.
A gay man can be a great father, but he cannot be a mother. A lesbian can be a lovely mother, but she can’t be a father. Why is a statement that a baby particularly needs their mother, that all children need both their parents deemed to be so radical, offensive and deemed to be up there with Nazi policy’s of mass extermination?
We live in a world in which the following statements can be uttered as truths without so much of a hint of irony.
This isn’t religious persecution, but illustrates my previous point about Dominic Grieve and fundamentalism. No one is having a go at me because I am Catholic, although they might use my faith to demonstrate alleged irrationality or claim that it’s proof that I want to oppress. Catholicism is an easier target than addressing the very real ethical objections, as is personal attack and smear.
Far easier to attack me as a fundamentalist, a person who wishes to repress minorities and stop them from exercising their spurious rights to children, than to tackle the issue of whether children ought to have a mum and a dad and whether or not life is an exploitable commodity.
Scary times indeed.
Update: Ben Cohen believes that this post falsely accuses him of calling me a Nazi and a fascist. He has requested my address on Twitter to pass on to his solicitor and has given me until midnight to retract.
Ben did not explicitly call me a fascist or Nazi but his tweets which made reference to his Judaism, did in my opinion imply that my views were comparable; one of his friends replied to me asking whether or not I would be friends with a fascist in the context of my friendship with a transgendered woman. Another of his followers compared my stance with racism. Someone else said that I would have been manning a machine gun in the tower at the entrance to a concentration camp in ’40’s Germany.
Combined with the fact that after my Question Time appearance one of his followers wished that I would ‘die soon and hopefully your Nazi family will follow shortly’ I interpreted these references to being compared with fascists and Nazis.
But following his threat of legal action and demands for my address, I am happy to make clear that Benjamin Cohen himself did not explicitly call me a fascist or Nazi.
To reiterate, this whole conversation was begun when Ben interjected into a brief non-related remark I made stating that both social conservatives and progressive LGBT advocates would do well to mix outside of their tribal bubbles and engage with and listen to each other.
People are still rumbling on that it’s my fault for advocating extreme views.
Sometimes the avalanche and seemingly relentless of hate and threats makes me physically shake with fear and retch.
Tonight my husband commented that people want to get me, if they could they would lock me up and throw away the key, showing no mercy. It’s unnerving to say the least.
There has been a welter of criticism following Archbishop Vincent Nicols’ Christmas homily in which he denounced the forthcoming Government plans to introduce so-called ‘gay marriage’, thereby permanently redefining marriage without the democratic consent of the country. Those of us who are married are about to have their status altered to that of civil partnership without our permission. The state has now decided that it is the supreme arbiter of what constitutes a marriage – namely romantic love and a presumption of commitment only.
Catholic Voices deftly dealt with the Archbishop’s vociferous critics here, both Megan Hodder and Ben Trovato offer sound defences of marriage and Fr Ray Blake in fine barnstorming form offers some ideas as to how Catholics can supplement their support of marriage, aside from fulfilling our moral obligation by lobbying our local MPs.
I won’t revisit the arguments previously made on this blog, but there is a missing dimension to the debate, one that is close to my heart and should concern feminists or those who claim to care about the plight of women and children, and that is motherhood.
I am a mother. I nurtured my children in my womb, they were comforted by my unique heartbeat, the unique intonations of my voice, my unique smell; in short I was, and am, their world. I birthed my children, I fed them from my breasts, I sang to them, when they are tired, unhappy, hurt or in need of comforting, it is uniquely me they want – no-one else, no matter how loved, will do.
That is not to detract from or denigrate their father, whom they are lucky to have, who bathes them, who reads to them, who plays with them, who also soothes them, but when the chips are down, instinctively and intuitively it is mummy they want. Despite the fact that Robin is an extremely involved and hands-on father, there is something visceral, something priomordial about a biological mother’s care, that simply cannot be replicated. I can hear my babies cry and just ‘know’ what is wrong and how to sort their problem, soothe their pain, whilst my husband looks on in bewildered awe. It is with good reason that medics pay close attention to the mother and trust maternal instincts when treating a sick child. If one could only bottle the essences that constitute motherhood, those hardwired responses to one’s own offspring and the emotions that flow naturally between mother and child, one would be rich as Croesus. Mothers rarely need to be shown how to love, even if they do sometimes need some external guidance.
A few years ago, when the 3 year old was a baby, Robin used to tease me for “that weird thing you do pulling faces at her”, thinking that it was one of my many idiosyncrasies. Not long afterwards, he went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land and on his return, recounted how he had seen a Muslim woman in the airport lounge in a niqab behaving in an identical way and pulling the same exaggerated faces. “It was peculiar’, he said, “there was this woman, she looked nothing like you, she had a different colour hair, a different colour skin, she was a different cultural background, was wearing different dress, spoke a different language and yet when I saw her playing with her baby all I could see was you. The mannerisms, the way you hold our baby, the way you pull those faces, exaggerate your speech and intone when you sing, it could have been your carbon copy. I realised that it was obviously something that women instinctively do, this is how they play with their babies. It’s inbuilt and intuitive”. A practical demonstration, if any were needed that the basic skills of mothering are so primordial, so instinctive that they transcend all boundaries and though men can undoubtedly learn and develop such skills, the way women instinctively mother their children is not an ingrained response that naturally occurs in men. This morning, our twenty month old climbed into bed in the early hours and cuddled Robin, as I was feeding the baby. Upon placing the baby back in her bedside cot, the toddler spied her opportunity, climbed over, muttered “mummy” and hugged me tight before falling into blissful slumber. There are no words adequate to describe the contented and satisfied grin on her face as she snuggled in. It was mummy she needed.
So what has this to do with ‘gay marriage’? Put simply, I am not a “Progenitor A”. I am a mother and I will fight to the death to defend not only my children and their best interests, but my right to be identified as a mother. My husband is not simply “progenitor B”, but their father, to which he brings an entirely separate set of attributes.
What “gay marriage” does is undermine and rip away all notions of natural parenthood and paves the way for children to be cared for and brought up by anyone who is deemed to be in a loving romantic relationship.
By stating that romantic love or attachment is the only requirement for marriage, children are then treated as the optional extra. Whilst that may work for some couples, in a world where a misunderstood notion of equality overrides all other considerations, a gay couple is seen as equally worthy and deserving of a child, regardless of that’s child’s rights to be brought up and loved by both of its biological parents. The act of childrearing becomes rooted in selfishness and the desires of the couple in question.
It is an act of supreme selfishness, cruelty and exploitation for a couple to pay a woman to bear a child, to nuture that child in her womb, even if it is not her biological child, to then rip that child away from her, for a sum of money. There can be no excuse for treating women’s bodies and babies as human commodities. Commercial surrogacy consists of trading upon desperation, human misery and is dependent on the commodification of women. Feminists who align themselves with gay-rights activists need to search their conscience.
Once you make all relationships the same, once you strip away the complementarity of male and female, once you define solely romantic love as being the determining factor in a marriage, then you pave the way for babies to be taken away from their mothers and give implicit approval to trading upon human misery. As a woman who has known the highs and lows of pregnancy, who has experienced the agony and ecstasy of childbirth four times, who knows that biological love has the capacity to conquer all, even the most inauspicious of beginnings, the thought of children being deprived of their mothers, sickens me and chills my blood. I guess one could describe it as a type of homophobia because the act of producing children in laboratories and removing them from the women who birthed them, depriving them of a mother to pass them into the care of two men, no matter how rich or well-meaning, does induce fear and concern for women and their children. It is an unnatural thing to financially coerce a woman to produce a child to order, for the benefit of someone else. As a mother, I cannot think of a worse thing to do to another woman than to deprive her of her baby. It is beyond one’s worst imaginings.
We are already seeing the dreadful consequences of children bred to order, and the impact this is having upon women. Two men artificially producing a biological child that belongs to one of them is seen as socially acceptable and desirable, and in order to accommodate their whims, not only are women being commodified and exploited and children deprived of their inherent rights, but also the law is needing to be constantly revised and updated. Which is why countries like Spain, are dispensing with the traditional titles of mother and father, to be replaced by Progenitors A and B. I am not a progenitor, I am not simply a faceless biological producer of a factory-produced child to order, but I am a mother and a woman whose children were produced in love. And what happens if or when Progenitor A and Progenitor B split up? Child then has to divide its time between two same sex households and potentially acquires two more same-sex step-parents and that is deemed to be in its best interests? Or what is there to stop the State from allocating extra Progenitors such C or D to a child, deciding what actually constitutes a Progenitor, or stripping a biological parent of Progenitor status? If all a child needs is a loving parent of any gender, why are we seeing fatherless children ask for a dad in heartbreaking letters to Santa?
Children do not simply need a parent, but the complementarity of a mother and father. To state that the sexes are interchangeable, strips and deprives women of a key part of their gender, treats them as little more than mechanical breeding machines and denies the unique and wonderful ability of a woman to mother her own child. Study after study demonstrates how babies feed from the stimuli of their mother, right from the moment that they are conceived and study after study demonstrates that though other types of family can and often do an excellent job in terms of raising healthy and well-balanced children, the traditional mother/father in a committed relationship is the ideal.
We change marriage to being solely about a notion of romantic love between two people of any gender, then we further weaken an institution already damaged by divorce laws that constitute an adulterer’s charter. When we say that a marriage is about reaffirming a romantic love or attachment, then there is little incentive to keep the relationship afloat during the rocky times. When marriages or relationships with children break down, it is almost always invariably, though not always, the women who remain the primary carers and who suffer the most.
And this is, though not the only reason by any means, is certainly one of the driving forces behind the fact that I intent to fight this forced change to the definition of my marriage, tooth and nail. Fundamentally same-sex marriage is anti-children, anti-women and anti-mothers.
I will not allow the Government to strip women such as my four girls, of their biological rights to be mothers, without the fight of my life. I am a mother and by definition the best thing that there is for my children. I will not let my motherhood be taken away from me, or from any woman.
I was spammed today on Twitter, by an account called Gaydads, purporting to belong to Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, one half of the UK’s first gay couple to become fathers in the UK.
Without wishing to make too much of it, here’s their opening shot, along with their responses to questions as to the ethics of paying vulnerable women to donate eggs, and/or go through pregnancy and give up their newborn child. I would suggest that they need to employ a social media manager, given that they are currently hawking themselves and their children through the media, in order to drum up publicity for their new business which aims to exploit vulnerable cash-strapped women in America help predominantly homosexual couples circumnavigate the UK surrogacy laws by going abroad.
They are obviously threatened enough to have done their research and found out where I hail from to use as “ammunition” as opposed to engage with any actual arguments. If in doubt, chuck a few ad homs about, in an attempt to make yourselves feel morally superior. I wouldn’t usually bother blogging such silliness, however I think it’s worth noting the quality of the debate, and the personalities behind a deeply dubious business.
I’ve blogged before about the inherent difficulties with surrogacy, namely that it entails the destruction of human life if in-vitro fertilisation is used, but of equal concern, is the exploitation of women and the treating of children as commodities to be bought and sold.
Here’s a few snippets from their website. I’ve added my own comments in red:
Everyone has the basic human right to be able to have a child, really, do they? I can’t find that anywhere in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, nor is it in the European Convention on Human Rights. Wishful thinking based on subjective opinion – perish the thought!!
not everyone deserves to be a parent! – only those who are good-looking and possess class and/or money, preferably a lot of it to pay for our services, should have children.
There is no doubt about it; foreign surrogacy arrangements ARE attractive, which is why hundreds of couples every year go to America and other destinations to find a surrogate and egg donor. The laws on surrogacy are very encouraging for us to travel abroad and get our babies handed over to us without too much fuss at all. – no pesky restrictive laws surrounding the expenses that need to be paid and lax legislation allowing the obliteration of the mother from the birth certificate – we can pretend that she never existed! Plus, added bonus – we’ll push gestational surrogacy at you, more pennies for us and allegedly less of an emotional link for the mother with the baby inside her. Win, win!!
It is also worth noting that once your baby is born in the USA, we can also petition the courts to have both the intended parents names put on the birth certificate. There will be NO mention of the pregnancy being a surrogate pregnancy whatsoever. Please also note that this is NOT meant to deceive, it is a positive way forward for you to be recognised as the parents of your baby. – spin worthy of Alistair Campbell or Mandy. Superb piece of re-framing there chaps!
Where are all the feminists when you need them? The silence could not be more deafening. Where is the sisterhood? What could be more exploitative than rich men using the bodies of poor or less-well off women? Nothing could be more of a feminist issue as it is only women’s bodies who can be exploited in this way and typically for the benefit of men – lesbian couples rarely have to resort to overseas surrogacy. The Drewitt-Barlows argue that surrogacy may help straight couples who have been rendered infertile by the ravages of cancer, but that still does not make the initial exploitation any the more acceptable. This has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with the exploitation and de-humanisation of poor women by richer ones.
Though Drewitt-Barlow seem to be more concerned with advancing their partner business in the USA, it’s worth looking at the situation in India where the business of wombs for rent is thriving. The women who ‘choose’ to become surrogates are confined to clinics or supervised homes where they can be closely monitored. Their “choice” such as it is, is borne out of economic necessity and cannot said to be in any way free. Which is precisely why the laws remain so stringent in the UK, where incidentally, gay single people cannot gain full legal rights over a child born by surrogacy.
For the record the Drewitt Barlows stated that they did not endorse India for potential surrogate couples, shortly after India issued a ban on gay couples in an attempt to tighten up on their surrogacy laws. This was, they said, due to concerns about exploitation, besides their partner clinic with whom they have negotiated preferential rates is in LA, where they spend 50% of their time. The exploitation of the poor by the rich is not mitigated by the location, something tells me that Tasmania may be the next location on the cards.
There can be no justification for the exploitation of poor women by predominantly rich men. There can be no justification for deliberately contriving a situation whereby a child is deprived of its biological parent and traded like a commodity. There can be no justification for the exploitation of young children, such as those belonging to Drewitt-Barlow who are mercilessly flaunted in the press, in order to propagate the ideology that children no longer need their biological mothers.
Perhaps that’s why Drewitt-Barlow are so angry – it’s impossible to defend the indefensible. Anyone who might object to the trading of babies, to the Western colonisation of poor women’s bodies abroad, to the reduction of women to the level of brood-mare – well they are simply ugly, lack class, are homophobic and don’t deserve to be parents.
Jurassic Park ranks as one of my all-time favourite films. Not simply for its ground-breaking special effects (I remember driving home from the cinema nervously checking my rear view mirror for glimpses of the spitting one with the collar sitting on the backseat), its evocative score by John Williams, its universal appeal with classic cinematic moments of suspense, scenes of comedy, horror, pathos and schmultz in equal measure, the anthropomorphism of the dinosaurs (remember the raptor impatiently tapping her claws in the denouement kitchen scene), but just as importantly because it has always struck me as being something of an allegory of our times.
I’ll elaborate shortly, but the analogy of Jurassic Park seems particularly fitting in relation to this topic, because no doubt, to some, my musings will provoke outrage and I will indeed be compared to something out of the Jurassic or Cretaceous era, a fossil or a dinosaur with no relevance in today’s modern and enlightened society. I am already anticipating the inevitable outrage this post will undoubtedly attract.
I’ll never forget the part in the laboratory or hatchery, when having overcome his initial scepticism, and overcome by wonderment and awe at this incredible and fantastic world that has been created, Dr Grant watches a baby dinosaur hatch. His reaction is one of fascination at the miracle he sees unfolding before him through the genius of science, and as he tenderly holds the newborn creature in the palm of his hand, he enquires as to the species of the hatchling. His response to the information: “You’re breeding RAPTORS?!”. The look of terror on his face tells a story all of its own, the potential for uncontrollable devastation has been unleashed.
Sometimes I feel like I’ve been catapulted through the cinema screen onto Isla Nublar, into a world where chaos and destruction brought about by mankind’s hubris reign. Like Dr Grant I watch the scientific developments unfolding all around me with both admiration and trepidation and an increasing sense of innate unease, wanting to cry out, to call a halt; yet my voice is impotent, it is too late, the clock may not be turned back, and mine is anyway a solitary voice, my discomfort drowned out by cries of derision because I cannot accept, condone and embrace how man has been able to overcome the laws of nature and taken on the role of creator.
This week we have seen yet another celebrity surrogacy, with Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban having paid a surrogate to carry a child for them, with most of the mainstream media cooing over the new arrival and documenting Nicole’s ongoing battle to conceive and miscarriages in some detail. The general consensus of opinion seems to be how wonderful, there is much less condemnation than there was of Elton John, by virtue of the age of the couple, their less prolific celebrity status and the fact they are a heterosexual couple. None of these factors have any impact on my overriding impression that this is still a fundamentally flawed and potentially terrifying arrangement. I have no doubt that the couple will make great parents, it was the use of the phrase “gestational carrier” used by the couple to thank the parent that caused me to shudder, the phrase being carefully chosen to refute any suggestion of motherhood, in order that Ms Kidman may stake her biological claim upon the child.
It cannot be right to pay women for the use of their womb, to put them through a procedure which entails considerable physical stress and risk, one which will have a life-long impact upon them. All this does is reduce a woman down to her reproductive capacity, treating her as some kind of object, in the same way that most women are objectivised in the sex industry. There is no legal transplant market in the UK, for the very same reasons. It does not matter that a potential recipient may be extremely deserving of an organ, the practice of paying someone to provide or donate an organ is rightly outlawed in order to prevent exploitation. Some people may see no harm in paying a donor huge sums of money to provide a body part, but the fact is, that the donor would only do this in a free market for a considerable fee, given that the donation would severely physically compromise them. A surrogate will undoubtedly physically compromise herself in the process of surrogacy. She may well be motivated by altruism and certainly the UK laws on surrogacy exist to prevent exploitation, but nonetheless, whether intended or not, exploitation is what surrogacy amounts to, never more so when it involves a mother carrying a child that is not genetically hers. The problem is already particularly rife in countries like India whereby women are coerced into surrogacy and paid an absolute pittance to carry and painfully deliver a child which they must then relinquish, due to economic necessity and the demands of the free market. Even in the UK where we have laws to prevent this, heart-breaking cases such as this one arise, when a woman cannot bring herself to part with her baby.
To me, nothing is more heartbreaking than a woman being legally required to give up a child that she has cherished and nurtured in her womb and brought into the world. Some women do this voluntarily, however the vast majority are enticed by the financial gain. The fact that this is not an act that most women are prepared to undergo is borne out by the fact that there is a much greater demand for surrogacy in the UK, than there are surrogates. It is argued that updating the laws will redress the balance, but in reality all this will do is encourage more women to use their bodies for the benefit of others, particularly in these times of economic hardship. Many commentators such as the Fawcett Society are keen to point out how women seem to be disproportionately affected by the cuts, agreeing to be a surrogate could be a financial lifeline for many.
Many people have argued, where is the harm, how is this hurting anyone? Well, apart from exploitation, for every live baby born via IVF, 7-10 embryos are destroyed. This is clearly problematic for anyone who believes that life begins at conception. A zygote or an embryo is no less alive than any living person. That’s an incredible amount of destruction of human life. The desire for genetic offspring of one’s own, does an inordinate amount of harm to those children languishing in care homes in desperate need of loving families. The demand for babies is making it increasingly difficult to find loving families for children barely out of toddlerhood. The introduction of a third party into the process of reproduction also overrides the rights of a child to be carried in the womb by its biological mother.
So what does this matter to me, why am I concerned with the lives of celebrities, why can’t I “live and let live”? The reason being is that what celebrities do undoubtedly sets a trend and paves the road for us normal folk. Does that sound far-fetched? Well apparently Eastenders, renowned for tackling hard-hitting social issues and dramas that affect real-life people is planning a controversial surrogacy story-line, which yes, shock horror, involves its two gay characters. More importantly Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, the first gay couple to use surrogacy in the UK, are to open the UK’s first centre to advise and guide same-sex couples through the surrogacy process. They want to match couples from Europe with surrogates and egg donors in the US, and have a centre in California (where Elton adopted) to help with this stated aim. Referring to the Elton John adoption Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said: ‘It’s positive news for gay parenting. The more high-profile the people using surrogacy to start their families, the more mainstream it becomes’. Proof that what celebrities do, has a direct impact on everyday society.
See there I go again, can’t resist bringing gay people into it, I hear them cry. Nothing to do with homophobia or hatred, simply to deny a child its biological mother is deeply immoral and denies the rights of that child to its biological mother and father. It’s strange, as I write this, I can almost sense the sharp intakes of breath, the palpable outrage, this is homophobia at its height, see look, she’s at it again, somebody do something, call the police, lets out this evil woman and her hateful rantings of course two gay men have as much right to a child as anybody else, but here’s the thing, NOBODY has a right to a child, no-one. A child, is a blessing, a gift, a privilege, not a commodity to be bought and sold to satisfy what is essentially a selfish desire to experience parenthood, without so much of a hint to the rights of a child to an identity, knowledge of its mother and father or its biological family tree. All of us have an innate desire to identify ourselves within the world around us, a longing to put ourselves into historical and biological context, an innate yearning to know who our birth parents are. A child might well feel that it was loved and wanted so much that two people paid a lot of money and went to a lot of trouble to ensure that it was created, but equally that might put a lot of pressure on the child in terms of living up to expectations and there is a more than a slight possibly that the child will grow up longing for the presence of the absent father or mother. To complicate a child’s identity by separating genetic parenthood from the gestation and raising of the child raises serious ethical concerns.
And for those who counter the idea that surrogacy whether heterosexual or homosexual has anything to do with commercialism, here are the words of Barrie Drewitt-Barlow: ‘
It’s aim is to bring together intended parents with egg donors and surrogates, along with donors, and offer legal advice from qualified legal professionals. I will be responsible for the assessment of intended patients and the assessments of potential egg donors and surrogates, and for helping with all legal documentation to allow each couple to bring home their baby to the UK’.
All of this comes gratis does it? No exchange of money whatsoever? All donors motivated purely by altruism? Where does it stop, will a woman who is phobic of pregnancy and childbirth have a right to pay someone else to go through the entire business for her? We have opened a Pandora’s Box of ethical dilemmas. Nightmare horrific sci-fi scenarios have become the reality, with surrogates ordered to undergo abortions and one case in Los Angeles which had an unbelievable 5 would-be parents vying for custody of a child. It seems that we are living in a world turned entirely on its head, which on the one hand sanctions the mass murder of an entire generation of unborn, with over 200,000 lives lost to abortion in the UK every year alone, and yet on the other hand, is spending huge amounts of money on technology to create babies in a laboratory which has a high rate of failure (70-80%).
Of course, given that I “fall pregnant at the merest hint of sperm” and “live in a fertile ivory” tower, absolutely invalidates any right I have to comment, according to my detractors. Because I have not directly experienced the pain, anguish and longing of infertility I am unable to comment and to describe surrogacy as a commercial arrangement is deeply offensive and hurtful to those who might wish to enter into these arrangements. As indeed it is allegedly “hurtful to question the morality of a medical procedure”!!
Just because the technology is available, it does not mean that we need to avail ourselves of it. We have the technology to annihilate entire continents thanks to the technology of nuclear weapons. Do we have a right to avail ourselves of it, simply because it exists? In previous ages, women had no other option other than to accept the cruel lot that nature had dealt them, and often managed to fulfil their motherly vocation in other ways. I can’t begin to image how it must feel to be infertile and I cannot tell women how they should manage their pain, nor can I condemn people for wanting to go to extraordinary lengths to fulfil their dreams, however I can question whether or not this is good for society as a whole.
To go back to Jurassic Park, no-one doubted that the intentions of John Hammond, the park owner portrayed so brilliantly by Richard Attenborough were anything but benign. Admittedly, like mankind he displayed a staggering amount of hubris, but he wanted to share the wonders of modern science with the world, to encourage discovery, exploration and learning, not cause chaos and devastation. Though his intentions were laudable there were plenty of others willing to exploit the technology for their own personal gain. What he learnt was that you tamper with nature at your peril. He was guilty of nothing but naivety.
In the words of Jeff Goldblum “Too busy thinking about whether or not they could, to think about whether or not they should“…