To not be surprised a 35 year old with a history of eating disorder would struggle to get pregnant (lily Collins)

@gahla Maybe she wanted to increase her audience, more followers = more revenue.
People go to crazy lengths to keep influencing their followers.

inknew you were going to mention breastfeeding.

my sister gavr birth to twin at 7 months instead of 9. They went straight to icu she didnt even get a cuddle.
one of them had to stay in there for 3 months has got jaundice.

both we never breastfed. One of them never hold in arms for the first 3 months of his life.

fast forward to now. He is 25, mega tall and strong, totally handsome, very very happy and very close to his mum. He has no mental health issues or attachment issues to any of his parents, siblings, aunties and uncles, grandparents.

so moo point yo you

This is interesting as we don’t hear about the trauma when a premature baby is separated from its mother and they then are in incubators with sometimes no human touch as they are too fragile. I saw a thread once where it was said that volunteers often go to nicu units to cuddle babies with nobody there and how it helps them massively - these would be strangers to those babies and there’s a huge benefit - so in the case of a surrogate giving birth and that healthy baby being handed straight to the intended parents for immediate and prolonged touch warmth and comfort surely they will be fine ?

I don't like this post. None of us knows her and her circumstances. It's ugly tittle tattle.

Lily has spoken publicly before of her previous EDs, how she wanted to be open about it and how she was worried it might affect her ability to have children. So it’s reasonable to assume that her use of a surrogate is related to that.
If so, it’s very sad and highlights the awful long lasting side effects of EDs. Very likely she would much rather have been able to carry the pregnancy herself.

I am willing to bet that the surrogate is poor though. If it were a family member they would have said so.

@Hackingworry but those babies weren’t created to go straight into NICU to be away from their mum. This baby was purposely created to be taken away from the birth mother, like a commodity. Many babies born via surrogate maybe fine but some undoubtedly will have issues with this, even if it is when they are older and realise they were created as a result of a monetary transaction with possible exploitation of a poorer woman

i can’t see anything on that webpage that says anything about whether it’s traumatic for a baby being separated from the woman who carried and birthed it, in a case where that was planned and agreed in advance with the person(s) who are to be its parents

Does anyone have any actual evidence about the alleged traumatic effects on a baby of separation from the woman that carried it? I can’t help wondering if some of the people posting here are influenced by their own strong feelings about motherhood based on personal experience of bearing their own children, and their belief about how unique and essential and irreplaceable their connection with their baby was.

I'm not here for a debate about breast feeding

Op, you're someone who believes infertility is common at 35 (and have ignored any data posted to demonstrate what everyone else knows except you i.e
that it's not common).

You're someone who believes that the average age of first time Mums in the UK being 30/31 has been skewed by fertility treatment - even though the average age of women starting fertility treatment is significantly older than 31 and most babies born are not due to fertility treatment. You've ignored that too.

You've talked about LC not being the "ideal" age' to have a baby; what percentage of births do you think are to women who are the ideal age (around 25)? The majority of babies born in the UK are not to women in the ideal age bracket, yet they're still here. And the vast majority of them are not assisted by fertility treatment.

You don't have a reasonable grasp of basic facts. Hence you are saying a woman is "barren" due to her age and a past ED.

I'm wondering why you think anyone would believe you're worth debating anything with.

That happens with people adopting a baby too though. The birth mother 'willingly' gives the child up, (usually willingly!) but the reasons behind it are often sad and upsetting. The vast majority of women giving up a baby for adoption will generally be doing it because she can't raise the baby herself - for various reasons. And it can be devastating for a mother to hand her child over to be adopted (because she can't care for it/raise it herself.)

Behind every beaming, happy couple adopting a newborn, lies a birth mother with a sad heart, crying herself to sleep, and spending decades longing for that child. I never see or hear of people giving the birth mother a second thought, when a stranger adopts their newborn, and she never sees that baby again. And no-one ever says 'oh but what about that poor baby being taken from her natural birth mother...'

Yes, some women in some countries have been used (as a surrogate) by rich people, to carry a baby, and hand it over for £50K or so, (sometimes, more, sometimes less.) But the surrogate gets pregnant knowing the child is going to another couple, and that she will receive money for doing this.

So, playing devil's advocate. How come surrogacy is the work of the devil according to many Mumsnetters, but adopting a baby is not? It's still resulting in a couple who want a baby (and seemingly can't biologically produce one themselves) getting one from another woman, and that baby being taken from its birth mother.

And 'yeah but at least the baby being adopted is going to a home where it will loved and cared for, when the birth mother is unable to raise it' is not a suitable answer. Why are people so feverishly against surrogacy, but absolutely fine with adoption, when the end result is the same? A mother having her baby taken from her, and the baby being taken from its mother..

It’s incredibly obvious she didn’t want to gain weight during a pregnancy so paid another woman to do it.

@Namechangeforobviousreasons100 I speak as an adopted person. The way adoptions are processed now are very different to the way they were when I was adopted. Very much the focus is on what is best for the child. When I was adopted it was all about providing a child for childless parents (and stigma of unmarried mums).

People now created via donor sperm and eggs now have rights to know about their genetic link, which they didn't used to, because once again the resulting child is being put first.

Currently there is no regard for babies born via surrogacy, again it is all about the childless parents to be (just like adoption used to be) and this needs to change

Here's another simple little factoid for the op to ignore;

And before the op comes in with the "hardly any of them will carry full term claim", miscarriage probability at 35-39 is 20-25%.

@BatchCookBabe but a baby who is adopted is not usually created to be adopted. They may be created without any thought (drunken one night stand for example) but adoption, certainly in this country is usually last resort and based on what is best for child and will have a process behind it.

No process for a baby born via surrogacy

It's still a baby being taken from its mother though. And the mother having her baby taken away and never seeing it again.

Why do people (on here especially) not show the same concern (and outrage) when people adopt, as they do surrogacy? If surrogacy is the work of the devil, then why do they not see adopting a baby as the same?

I am not saying adopting a baby is wrong or bad, (because yeah, a couple ARE giving a baby a home who would otherwise not have one, and they are getting a child that they have wanted for a long time probably....) But to be so fervently outraged and furious about people using a surrogate, but not angry and outraged about people adopting a baby is is hugely hypocritical .. The baby is still taken from its mother.

Disingenuousness at its finest. Selective outrage.

No-one is going to be able to give a proper answer to this question, 'why is surrogacy bad, but adopting isn't?' because no-one can ... Basically, if you support adopting babies, you must support surrogacy too. Otherwise you're making no sense, and you're a huge hypocrite.

That happens with people adopting a baby too though. The birth mother 'willingly' gives the child up, (usually willingly!) but the reasons behind it are often sad and upsetting.

Actually, only around 1% of adoptions in the U.K. these days are voluntary. The vast majority are cases where the child is ordered to be removed by the courts.

Adoption is not straightforward but it makes the best of a tough situation. We shouldn't be purposefully creating situations where newborns are removed from their mothers as we do with surrogacy.

Again, no straight answer ^ People are still taking a baby away from its mother when they adopt, just as they are with surrogacy. You can't be outraged by surrogacy and then say it's OK to adopt a baby. Nope you really can't.

Total hypocrisy.

Again, I am NOT saying it's awful or bad to adopt, but you cannot say adopting is OK and surrogacy is bad.

@BatchCookBabe because a child is adopted because there is a reason, and usually a safeguarding one nowadays, why a child cannot live with their birth parents. The adoptive parents are giving that child a safe haven and a home. That child was not purposely created for the adoptive parents, a commodity. In surrogacy the people given the most importance are the resulting parents. In adoption the most important person is the adopted child.

No. Babies are still being taken from their mother through adoption - the same as they are via suoogacy.. And babies of surrogacy will be loved and cherished, just as much as adopted babies will be,

Someone is OK with adoption? But not with surrogacy? Makes no sense.

A baby via surrogate is not a 'commodity' any more than an adopted one is.

You are not going to win this argument. You can't.

@BatchCookBabe adoption will be last resort. Agencies will try and help birth mother stay with baby. Agencies work with prospective adoptive parents you can’t just rock up and adopt a baby, there is a long and gruelling process to go through. Adoption takes time, unless in extreme circumstances, there is a time lag between a child being put up for adoption and prospective adoption parents getting the court order, to give birth parents time to really understand what adoption means.

Where did you get this from though? Where is your source?

Still hugely swerving the point @crumblingschools

Babies are still being taken from the birth mother via adoption.
As they are with surrogacy.

So to be OK with adoption, but not surrogacy is hugely disingenuous.

That's a fact I'm afraid.

@BatchCookBabe it’s you that can’t win this argument.

Look at the horror people now have of the Magdalene laundries where babies were taken away from the birth mothers and just handed over to adoptive parents.

This is why adoption process is so much more regulated now. This is why so few babies are adopted as birth parents are helped and supported if baby is born in less than ideal circumstances. Less stigma of unmarried mothers. And all the time in the process the focus is on the child.

There was no focus on the child in the Magdalene laundries or on the birth mothers and that is why we look at them with horror now. But they aren’t that far away from what happens in surrogacy today