Surrogacy battle continues

In an earlier post, suggested amendments to Queensland surrogacy laws were noted. These form part of a broader roll back of same sex laws by Queensland's new government - the Liberal National Party with a huge, huge majority. As part of the roll back, same sex couples will not now be able to have state-sanctioned civil unions, but can instead 'register' their relationship (which, so I take it, will provide various civil rights).

On Friday, the Queensland government formally announced that it would amend surrogacy laws to prohibit surrogacy being available to same sex couples.   Below comment is made on selected media coverage of the surrogacy announcement, but prior to that, one concern about the proposed change is worth considering. 

The concern is this - the proposed amendments to surrogacy laws do not remove the availability of surrogacy all together, but only to same sex couples.  While I regard the proposed change to be in the best interests of the child (as per the earlier post), those interests would be far better served by a total ban on the practice. This is not just because surrogacy is a very troubling notion in itself, but (and as explained below) because the proposed changes risk further legitimising the practice of surrogacy amongst heterosexual couples. To illustrate, contrast this situation with 'gay marriage'. 


In gay marriage debates, arguments against same sex marriage often focus upon marriage as being the natural 'institution' between heterosexual couples within which families are created (all things being equal) and then raised. Marriage has a natural connection to heterosexuality that it does not have with same sex couples - same sex marriage, on this analysis, is impossible. 

By contrast, surrogacy is not natural in the first place. It needs legitimisation from the outset. The very idea of a mother becoming pregnant with the sole pre-pregnancy intention of giving a child away does not strike as natural. 

The changes to surrogacy laws, if considered as being in the same sphere of debate as gay marriage (ie a gay rights issue), mean that the Queensland government is effectively saying that surrogacy is legitimate when used by heterosexual couples (in the same way that marriage is) but not by same sex couples.  In the circumstances, the appropriate thing to do would be to ban surrogacy.  We can only wish.

Turning back to the media coverage of the issue, consider the following:

The ABC's current affairs radio story got into the act by using language such as the government 'delivering another blow' and dropping 'bombshells' and 'vowing' to 'write out' gay rights. No surprises here, but it does provide the chance to reflect upon the way that media coverage can seep into your world view by telling you what to believe. You listen to this story and it seems as though a great injustice has been occasioned. No real effort is made to explain why the laws are being changed, and what the perceived benefits of the change are.

Similarly, the Sydney Morning Herald has a story about "kowtowing to right wingers" .

One of the more balanced articles was in the Brisbane Times, which ran a headline that suggested that there may be some sort of rationale to all of this - "Childlessness a 'consequence of homosexuality'".

The fight goes on.