Angus Parsad-Wyatt is the Chief Executive of ConservativeHome.
In a recent interview for The House magazine, Miriam Cates expressed staunch opposition to surrogacy. While she may not be alone in her views, I believe considering the broader benefits of surrogacy is important, particularly in line with the core conservative values of family, community, and individual freedom.
During her speech to the National Conservatism Conference in May 2023, Miriam Cates described falling birth rates as “one overarching threat to British conservatism and indeed the whole of Western society.” This alarming statement underscores the urgency of addressing demographic decline – an issue where surrogacy could play a pivotal role. Surrogacy, in its essence, is not just about individual desires but about contributing to the very fabric of society that Cates is concerned about preserving.
Starting with a quick primer on surrogacy in the UK is helpful. Surrogacy is a legal arrangement in the UK, albeit complex. The surrogate is considered the legal parent at birth. The intended parents then secure legal parenthood through a parental order (or adoption).
The entire surrogacy process is safeguarded by comprehensive legislation, including the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which prioritises the child’s welfare and ensures that all parties—the surrogate, the intended parents, and the child—are protected. This includes screening and counselling by accredited surrogacy agencies, which play a pivotal role in facilitating these arrangements responsibly.
In the UK, unlike some states in the US, surrogacy operates on a generous, non-commercial basis. Surrogates can only be compensated for reasonable expenses, ensuring that their decision to carry a child is not financially motivated. This framework is designed to protect surrogates from exploitation, protecting the welfare of surrogates and children alike.
A growing body of research reaffirms the positive outcomes of UK surrogacy. One particular study demonstrated that surrogate children generally experience normal emotional and psychological development. The study also suggests that surrogate families often exhibit stronger parent-child bonds and less parenting stress when compared to natural conception, underlining surrogacy’s viability as a family-building option.
Reflecting on Cates’ statement that “having children is a sign of hope for the future,” it becomes clear that surrogacy aligns perfectly with this vision. It offers a pathway for many who yearn to partake in this hopeful endeavour but are unable to do so through traditional means. For the LGBT+ community, in particular, surrogacy is not merely a medical procedure or legal pathway; it’s a gateway to fulfilling a natural, biologically ingrained desire to parent and contribute to the future of their family, community, and nation.
Cates’ concerns about how current economic and political frameworks are failing to produce the one thing required to sustain them into the future – children – further bolsters the argument for surrogacy. If a successful framework should encourage the creation and nurturing of future generations, then surely surrogacy, which allows for more individuals and couples to have children, should be embraced as part of the solution.
Her view that couples “will have children, if they believe that it is a socially valuable endeavour; that they will be rewarded with status, respect, and support for doing so,” directly supports the argument for surrogacy. By recognising and supporting surrogacy, society validates and respects the decision of individuals and couples to embark on the journey of parenthood, regardless of their sexual orientation or biological limitations. It sends a powerful message that starting a family, in whatever its form, is a valid and respected endeavour.
In contrast, Cates’ current stance against surrogacy, particularly her view that “to deliberately bring a child into the world to separate it from its mother at birth is just ethically not acceptable,” seems to overlook the nuances and ethical frameworks that govern modern surrogacy. Surrogacy today is a process involving immense consideration, legal protections, and, most importantly, the willing and informed consent of all parties involved. It is a profoundly altruistic act by women who in many cases have already birthed their own children.
Furthermore, a fundamental tenet of conservatism is the support for individual freedom. Surrogacy, entered into willingly and informed by all parties involved, epitomizes this principle. Outlawing surrogacy would contradict the Conservative belief in personal liberty and the right of individuals to make decisions that best suit their lives.
The suggestion by Cates that gay people can adopt but do not have a right to become parents through surrogacy seems to miss the broader point about the nature of family and parenting. Adoption is a noble pathway to parenthood, but it should not be the only option available to certain segments of society. The right to start a family should not be constrained by narrow definitions or traditional biological pathways.
For me, the issue of surrogacy is not just political; it’s deeply personal. It represents the possibility of fulfilling the fundamental desire to build a family. Whether my husband and I one day pursue this path or not is immaterial – what matters is the opportunity and freedom of choice. If we are to uphold the conservative values of family and individual freedom in a modern, compassionate way, we must recognise that this is not merely a policy debate; it’s about real lives and the universal aspiration to nurture and raise the next generation.
Cates has praised marriage as “the most successful institution for the raising of children”. This belief should extend to support all forms of family building, including those facilitated by surrogacy. True to the essence of marriage – love, commitment, nurturing – surrogacy fulfills these values, supporting diverse routes to family life.
Most Conservatives advocate for a smaller state that nonetheless supports its citizens in building prosperous futures. Enabling couples who wish to have children and surrogates willing to assist them falls squarely within this remit. It’s not just about providing support; it’s about empowering individuals to realise their aspirations.
The Conservative Party is Britain’s oldest and most successful political party because of its ability to adapt and evolve. Leaders like Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, and Boris Johnson have all, in their ways, realigned it with the contemporary values of the British electorate. Today, this means attaching more value to ‘family’ in all its forms and eschewing judgment or prejudice against different versions of it.
Surrogacy stands not only as a solution to demographic challenges but also as a beacon of conservative values. By becoming more supportive of surrogacy, Conservatives can reaffirm their commitment to family, individual freedom, and a forward-looking approach that respects, understands, and values the evolving 21st-century family.
Angus Parsad-Wyatt is the Chief Executive of ConservativeHome.
In a recent interview for The House magazine, Miriam Cates expressed staunch opposition to surrogacy. While she may not be alone in her views, I believe considering the broader benefits of surrogacy is important, particularly in line with the core conservative values of family, community, and individual freedom.
During her speech to the National Conservatism Conference in May 2023, Miriam Cates described falling birth rates as “one overarching threat to British conservatism and indeed the whole of Western society.” This alarming statement underscores the urgency of addressing demographic decline – an issue where surrogacy could play a pivotal role. Surrogacy, in its essence, is not just about individual desires but about contributing to the very fabric of society that Cates is concerned about preserving.
Starting with a quick primer on surrogacy in the UK is helpful. Surrogacy is a legal arrangement in the UK, albeit complex. The surrogate is considered the legal parent at birth. The intended parents then secure legal parenthood through a parental order (or adoption).
The entire surrogacy process is safeguarded by comprehensive legislation, including the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which prioritises the child’s welfare and ensures that all parties—the surrogate, the intended parents, and the child—are protected. This includes screening and counselling by accredited surrogacy agencies, which play a pivotal role in facilitating these arrangements responsibly.
In the UK, unlike some states in the US, surrogacy operates on a generous, non-commercial basis. Surrogates can only be compensated for reasonable expenses, ensuring that their decision to carry a child is not financially motivated. This framework is designed to protect surrogates from exploitation, protecting the welfare of surrogates and children alike.
A growing body of research reaffirms the positive outcomes of UK surrogacy. One particular study demonstrated that surrogate children generally experience normal emotional and psychological development. The study also suggests that surrogate families often exhibit stronger parent-child bonds and less parenting stress when compared to natural conception, underlining surrogacy’s viability as a family-building option.
Reflecting on Cates’ statement that “having children is a sign of hope for the future,” it becomes clear that surrogacy aligns perfectly with this vision. It offers a pathway for many who yearn to partake in this hopeful endeavour but are unable to do so through traditional means. For the LGBT+ community, in particular, surrogacy is not merely a medical procedure or legal pathway; it’s a gateway to fulfilling a natural, biologically ingrained desire to parent and contribute to the future of their family, community, and nation.
Cates’ concerns about how current economic and political frameworks are failing to produce the one thing required to sustain them into the future – children – further bolsters the argument for surrogacy. If a successful framework should encourage the creation and nurturing of future generations, then surely surrogacy, which allows for more individuals and couples to have children, should be embraced as part of the solution.
Her view that couples “will have children, if they believe that it is a socially valuable endeavour; that they will be rewarded with status, respect, and support for doing so,” directly supports the argument for surrogacy. By recognising and supporting surrogacy, society validates and respects the decision of individuals and couples to embark on the journey of parenthood, regardless of their sexual orientation or biological limitations. It sends a powerful message that starting a family, in whatever its form, is a valid and respected endeavour.
In contrast, Cates’ current stance against surrogacy, particularly her view that “to deliberately bring a child into the world to separate it from its mother at birth is just ethically not acceptable,” seems to overlook the nuances and ethical frameworks that govern modern surrogacy. Surrogacy today is a process involving immense consideration, legal protections, and, most importantly, the willing and informed consent of all parties involved. It is a profoundly altruistic act by women who in many cases have already birthed their own children.
Furthermore, a fundamental tenet of conservatism is the support for individual freedom. Surrogacy, entered into willingly and informed by all parties involved, epitomizes this principle. Outlawing surrogacy would contradict the Conservative belief in personal liberty and the right of individuals to make decisions that best suit their lives.
The suggestion by Cates that gay people can adopt but do not have a right to become parents through surrogacy seems to miss the broader point about the nature of family and parenting. Adoption is a noble pathway to parenthood, but it should not be the only option available to certain segments of society. The right to start a family should not be constrained by narrow definitions or traditional biological pathways.
For me, the issue of surrogacy is not just political; it’s deeply personal. It represents the possibility of fulfilling the fundamental desire to build a family. Whether my husband and I one day pursue this path or not is immaterial – what matters is the opportunity and freedom of choice. If we are to uphold the conservative values of family and individual freedom in a modern, compassionate way, we must recognise that this is not merely a policy debate; it’s about real lives and the universal aspiration to nurture and raise the next generation.
Cates has praised marriage as “the most successful institution for the raising of children”. This belief should extend to support all forms of family building, including those facilitated by surrogacy. True to the essence of marriage – love, commitment, nurturing – surrogacy fulfills these values, supporting diverse routes to family life.
Most Conservatives advocate for a smaller state that nonetheless supports its citizens in building prosperous futures. Enabling couples who wish to have children and surrogates willing to assist them falls squarely within this remit. It’s not just about providing support; it’s about empowering individuals to realise their aspirations.
The Conservative Party is Britain’s oldest and most successful political party because of its ability to adapt and evolve. Leaders like Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron, and Boris Johnson have all, in their ways, realigned it with the contemporary values of the British electorate. Today, this means attaching more value to ‘family’ in all its forms and eschewing judgment or prejudice against different versions of it.
Surrogacy stands not only as a solution to demographic challenges but also as a beacon of conservative values. By becoming more supportive of surrogacy, Conservatives can reaffirm their commitment to family, individual freedom, and a forward-looking approach that respects, understands, and values the evolving 21st-century family.