The mother of Tom Daley's child

She might not want publicity. She chose to do it. Her right to choose they didn't force her .

Surrogacy in the UK is no less commercial than in the US.

The expenses for a UK surrogate are limited to what is reasonable in terms of costs/compensation. Pay for US surrogates is kept down by market forces due to the sheer number of low income women to prey on.

Adoptive parents are real parents. They don't pretend to be the biological parents.

If adoptive parents are real parents then I don't see how surrogate parents who basically adopt the baby are not real parents. Ton Daley and his partner are hardly going to be "pretending to be the bio parents" are they? They are both male, I'm sure their child would question that.

Read down to the end of this, about surrogacy contracts www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20390/

There are clauses in these contracts that the future parents have the absolute rights to make the surrogate have an abortion for any reason they want up to 18 weeks, that they can have selective abortion later than that if it's a multiple pregnancy - if the surrogate refuses then she has to bear the whole cost of the pregnancy including all the IVF to get pregnant in the first place. And these contracts are enforceable!

I don't care that it's two men, I feel the same way about Caprice and her husband, Kim K and Kanye, surrogacy is awful and just rents a woman's body making her nothing more than a commodity.

And anybody remember baby Gammy, abandoned as he had Down's syndrome while his healthy sister was taken home by a sex offender?

David Milliband and his wife adopted a baby where the mother was paid

2 wrongs don't make a right. They circumvented UK law as well. I didn't know this and think considerably less of him now I do.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287774/Real-story-Milibands-20-000-adoption-sons-America.html

WTF is this person on about?

www.versobooks.com/blogs/3654-gestators-of-all-genders-unite

I think David and Elton went the US route for their babies

Changing the legal definition of who the mother of a child is depending on any pre birth agreement that may have been made/ paid for/coerced is a dreadful idea. The woman who gave birth should always be recognised as the legal mother until they choose to relinquish the child.

Is that going to be Stonewalls next target? Paid surrogacy in the UK?

I said this on the last surrogacy thread. I think over the next decade or so we are going to start seeing a push for changes in the law around surrogacy.

Absolutely agree. For trans people who have lost the ability to bear or conceive children too.

It isn't illegal in America.

I really don't think that 'legal' should be the bar we are setting when it comes to buying the use of women's bodies, and the buying/selling of the resulting babies.

If you want a person who is clearly thankful and gracious and gave a heartfelt thankyou, I present Tyra Banks (who was very open about the issues she had trying to conceive):

[[https://www.instagram.com/p/BBEF9b1KQD4/?utm_source=ig_embed
As we thank the angel of a woman that carried our miracle baby boy for us, we pray for everyone who struggles to reach this joyous milestone]]

The woman, both appreciated and thanked, that's how the announcement is done right.

I'm still dead against commercial surrogacy - I've had 2 children, I don't think you could pay me enough to be a surrogate - I don't think I could even do it altruistically for a relative.

Yes but the idea of calling the birth mother the real mother in surrogacy seems conflicting with the idea of who the real mother is in adoption

An adoption will make the adopted mother the legal mother. It does not erase the existence of the birth mother.

In any case the point is the woman who carried and gave birth here gets no mention (other than the generic "those who helped") either as a mother or a woman.

I think there needs to be a change in law. Of course in cases where donar eggs and sperm are used etc, bio parents shouldn't be allowed to come in and say "hey that's actually MY baby", but in cases where a surrogate is using the intended generic mother's egg etc, I don't think the surrogate should be allowed to keep the baby.

No there doesn't need to be a change in the law. We don't want exploitative practices here thanks. By your logic why wouldn't a bio parent have a similar claim on an IVF baby? It's merely a good faith agreement. The woman concerned might not be fully aware what she was getting herself into. Do you feel differently if she uses her own egg?

No-one forced the mother to be a surrogate. She chose to do a wonderful thing for someone else.

In adoption the birth mother is always the birth mother. Or biological mother. It doesn't make the mother any less of a real mother. Adoptive parents are real parents. They don't pretend to be the biological parents.

In this case, there is only one mother - the surrogate.

'Gestational carrier?' Yuk, how very Handmaid's Tale.

It is a tricky one this one. It may well be that Tom and Dustin are eternally grateful to this woman in private and I guess it's not really any of our business as the general public.

But on the other hand they should perhaps think about the message they are sending. That if you have the dosh then you can just rent a womb, and end up with a lovely cute baby, as if by magic, and don't even need to acknowledge who gave up what to allow that to happen.

How did Elton John acquire his baby Zachary (and don't they have another one as well?)

"People do not get pregnant in order to give their baby up for adoption.

People are not paid for giving their child up for adoption."

Umm, yes they do. David Milliband and his wife adopted a baby where the mother was paid.

Is that going to be Stonewalls next target? Paid surrogacy in the UK?

I said this on the last surrogacy thread. I think over the next decade or so we are going to start seeing a push for changes in the law around surrogacy.

There was something on here a while ago, it might have been from Amnesty (and probably taken from the Yogyakarta Principles) about men having the right to have a child.

With the rise in same sex marriage + a large increase in those identifying as trans I think reproductive 'rights' will come under the spotlight in the UK soon.

It sounds lovely and inclusive in theory until you realise there would need to be a steady supply of women to provide reproductive labour. Which then takes us somewhere towards Gilead territory.

No one is suggesting she be named- are you really so dim you don't understand the woman who carried the child could be specifically thanked for her role without her name being used?

What a nasty comment. Are you really unable to understand that she might not have wanted to be publicly thanked? Is it really beyond your imagination that someone might want a genuine thank you in person not some kind of public display. It has nothing to do with anonymity and everything todo with sincerity. Why would this woman want to be mentioned even anonymously in the press?

Choosing surrogacy in the US over the UK has nothing to do with the ability to pay a surrogate. You can pay a UK surrogate more than the average US surrogate, as long as you call the payments expenses. Parents choose the US because the process of getting a parental order is more legally defined. Surrogacy in the UK is no less commercial than in the US.

Yes but the idea of calling the birth mother the real mother in surrogacy seems conflicting with the idea of who the real mother is in adoption.

But I don't understand why everyone is so adamant on calling the birth mother "The Mother", even when the baby is then given to somebody else. I mean what about all these adopted babies etc? Is the adopted mother not the "Real Mother", because in fact the one who grew and birthed the baby is The Mother.

Uyulala adoption is completely different and many people have explained why on this thread.

People do not get pregnant in order to give their baby up for adoption.

People are not paid for giving their child up for adoption.

Adoption occurs when a mother is unable or unwilling to care for their child. The child is already in existence (or in utero). It is not conceived for the purpose of adoption.

Gestational carrier has really angered me. I saw a great post on another thread about the idea that the surrogate is not the mother if an egg donor is used-

'This is a patriarchal reversal, an attempt to reduce the female reproductive role to the male one (gamete supply).

Gestating and birthing a baby is not only, by definition, a biological process, it is the primary process involved in reproducing the species, and is both physically and experientially not comparable to gamete supply.

When people claim that a woman who has gestated and birthed a baby isn't the child's biological parent, they are engaging in a reversal of reality, because motherhood (the female reproductive role) is biological to its roots, especially in mammals...'

There is this

She clearly didn’t want anything about herself to be public knowledge. I imagine their gratitude in private will have been overwhelming

No it is not. That is a generic thanks to "those" (plural) who helped.

No one is suggesting she be named- are you really so dim you don't understand the woman who carried the child could be specifically thanked for her role without her name being used?

I put 'mother' rather than mother because I don't believe you really are a mother if you conceive using a donated egg and are having the baby for somebody else. You are a gestational carrier.

That's a horrific way to think. Women aren't fucking vessels. The woman has carried the baby and birthed the baby. Of course she's the mother in the same way a woman having a baby through donor egg IVF is.