Famous men and surrogacy

The intrauterine environment presents a rich array of sensory stimuli to which the fetus responds. The maternal voice is perhaps the most salient of all auditory stimuli. The following experiments examined the movement response of the fetus and newborn to its mother's voice and a strange female's voice and to voices speaking normally and speaking 'motherese'. Newborns (2-4 days of age) discriminated, as measured by the number of movements exhibited to the presentation of the stimuli, between their mother's voice and a stranger's voice and between normal speech and 'motherese', in both cases the former being preferred. Fetuses, 36 weeks of gestational age, evidenced no ability to discriminate between their mother's and a stranger's voice played to them via a loudspeaker on the abdomen but did discriminate between their mother's voice when played to them by a loudspeaker on the abdomen and the mother's voice produced by her speaking. The results are further evidence of the ability of the fetus to learn prenatally and indicate a possible role for prenatal experience of voices in subsequent language development and attachment.

Abstract from: Journal
Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology
Volume 11, 1993 - Issue 3

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02646839308403210

Note specifically... subsequent language development and attachment.

researchers measured heart rate variability in 2-day-old sleeping babies for one hour each during skin-to-skin contact with mother and alone in a cot next to mother's bed. Neonatal autonomic activity was 176% higher and quiet sleep 86% lower during maternal separation compared to skin-to-skin contact.

Dr. John Krystal, Editor of Biological Psychiatry, commented on the study's findings: "This paper highlights the profound impact of maternal separation on the infant. We knew that this was stressful, but the current study suggests that this is major physiologic stressor for the infant."
An excerpt.from the abstract www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111102124955.htm

This is about physiological benefit/harm, not behavioural. Its a physical bonding between mother and infant, before, and after birth.

Read research around the profoundly benefical effects of akin on skin contact leading to significantly improved outcomes for neonates, esp. preemies.

These are the basic building blocks of behavioural attachment that we see expressed as secure/avoidant etc later on, and separation anxiety.

Babies instinctive fear response can be lack of response, as well as screaming and crying fretfully.

They don't consciously know, but they are unconsciously affected.

Look also into adopted children etc. Even as babies they have been observed to have this syndrome.

But even if what you say is correct, the "one person consistently feeding them" could literally be anyone and they would then form an attachment to that person. So if it was their adopted (or intended) parents, then the baby would attach to them...which again would not support the idea that babies born via surrogacy would be insecurely attached.

Sorry Field but again, not what I have been taught about infant attachment.

Up to 6 weeks babies show no particular attachment to a specific caregiver. From 7 weeks they start to show a preference for a primary and secondary caregiver, but they do not develop a discriminate attachment to their primary caregiver until around 7 months of age. (This is when separation anxiety can start)

www.verywellmind.com/what-is-attachment-theory-2795337 This is a reasonably easy to understand link and has a visual as well as more in depth about the research.

Of course, if you actually can evidence what you just said that would be helpful.

This is why newborn babies are pretty content with their care happening from multiple familiar people.

What makes you think they’re ‘pretty content’?

Babies form an attachment first with one person in line with their cognitive development. That’s why they should be fed consistently by one person, preferably their mother for the first 6 weeks or so.

Once they form a secure bond to one person they can start to develop relationships with others.

I am genuinely asking for more information because from my current knowledge and understanding of child development and attachment some of the claims on this thread just don't make sense, however I may be wrong and am happy to admit that.

I will say that I don't disagree that the law on surrogacy needs to be strengthened in some way to ensure vulnerable people are protected, but I don't currently feel it needs to be banned.

So, lots of talk about attachment. This is what I currently need to better understand from posters who mention attachment problems.

1. Attachment is not immediate, babies develop attachment over the first few months of their lives. This is why newborn babies are pretty content with their care happening from multiple familiar people. An attachment relationship forms as a result of consistent care being provided to an infant and the infant then learns they can rely on their caregiver to meet their needs promptly and all the time. If a child's parents do this, then will the child not form an attachment to them, even if they are not the biological mother?

1. What do you mean by attachment difficulties/problems? Do you mean reactive attachment disorder? Or do you just mean an insecure attachment? Because again from my understanding of attachment around 40% of all adults were insecurely attached to their primary carer as children. Not 40% of Looked After Children, or adopted children, just all people. But reactive attachment disorder is incredibly rare and almost always a result of abuse or neglect.

1. The studies you mention. Do they specifically study children born via surrogacy or are they studies that explore 'children not being raised by their biological parents' or even 'children not raised by their biological mothers'. I ask because unless the study parameters are very specific, I would imagine there's a lot of confounding factors that would impact those results. In the UK for example this is what I can think of:

• Were the children removed as newborn babies. If no, did they experience abuse or neglect prior to being separated from their birth mother/family. If removed as babies did they experience any complicating factors in utero (alcohol or substance misuse by the mother that caused FASD or NAS).

• When the babies/children were removed, did they go to foster care and then onto adoption/a long-term foster carer? Multiple moves would definitely complicate any studies on the children's ability to form attachments.

• Were the babies/children told repeatedly during their formative years that they had lost something or had something taken from them. Many children whose parent/parents died are told about their deceased parent (as they absolutely should be) and their lost parent becomes an important part of their lives as they learn where they came from and their life story. However this also means they are constantly aware of a loss in their lives, which could impact on their mental health and feeling of 'loss'. Equally, adopted children or children who are Looked After also learn about their birth families and often continue having contact with their birth parents and siblings...this could also impact on their feelings of attachment to their adopted or foster families, and contribute to their feelings of loss.

Of course life happens, and children born via surrogacy could experience loss or could be exposed to something in utero, or could end up in foster care or being moved from one home to another, but unless the studies account for all of those impacts then it'd be hard to say that surrogacy in and of itself causes attachment 'problems' (again, what are you classing as a problem considering it's likely a lot of us on this thread were insecurely attached as children and presumably are doing ok).

Again, I agree that the law as it stands is not doing a good enough job at protecting vulnerable people within surrogacy arrangements and it doesn't prevent abuse as has been shown by the AB X Z judgement.

another at what age does it stop being okay to give away a child?

All of you defending surrogacy: please try to get your priorities in order. This is not primarily about the surrogate (though I do believe surrogacy is a form of exploitation of women) and still less about the people paying her. It's first and foremost about the child.

You can kid yourselves on that the baby will be fine with its 'parents', but please look at the research on children removed from their families - primarily their mothers - at birth or beyond. Move beyond the myth that the early removal of a child will always - or even often - mitigate against long term attachment issues, or even that love and patience can overcome attachment problems.

Removing children is not done to order when potential parents are ready for a child. It's meant to be and should be about what is best for the child. Removing a child should only be done when it's absolutely impossible for the child to stay with its birth family, not because some people can afford to pay for its removal.

bringing a much wanted and loved baby into the world

Yes, yes, but ignorant of the harms to the baby, nothing but selfish interests.

bringing a much wanted and loved baby into the world

Intentionally without a birth mother.

Bringing into the world for who?

so you’re turning a story and subsequent post about two men in Ireland having a baby into an argument about surrogacy in India. 🤣 trolling and stupidity at its best. Why not head to India and fix it there, where it is needed. Not going on about surrogacy in this country behind a computer

Couldn't see any reality or constructive points in this so pfft. This makes you cry laughing somehow. Well that shows how seriously you take child welfare.

You're right it doesn't SheDressed the family lawyers involved would be set to bill for some expensive hours if surrogacy is made easier though, made a more accessible way of "building a family".

They get more than their expenses paid so imagine my shock when I saw that a good handful of family law firms met with the Law Commission before releasing the consultation, there was even one from America (why?).

Sury the precedent should be- as in family law - that the best interests of the child are paramount?

And given that family law also holds that generally it is in a child's best interest to be raised by its birth family (where adoption can only take place after all possible options with a birth family have been exhausted) how can any surrogacy meet that standard?

This is useful.

womansplaceuk.org/2019/10/08/wpuk-submission-to-law-commission-consultation-on-surrogacy-reform/

Why not head to India and fix it there, where it is needed.

Job done Another posted upthread...
*
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/20/india-bans-commercial-surrogacy-stop-rent-womb-exploitation/*

Since I doubt another can be arsed to read the thread, I'm going to repeat what I said earlier:

When in fact what we're actually talking about here are changes in the law.

We don't frame possible changes to laws around assisted suicide, for example, round clear cut case scenarios only. (Lovely granddad dying of incurable, rapidly advancing degenerative disease, wants to go out at time of his choosing before suffering becomes too much, surrounded by loved ones). We take all possible cases into consideration (Neglected granddad who happens to live in house in home counties worth 3/4 of a million, suffering from slowly progressing chronic condition which can be managed with decent nursing, who is under pressure from offspring who don't want to see the proceeds from that 3/4 million house spent on nursing).

Likewise with surrogacy. A happy auntie prepared to step in for her dearly loved brother and his partner is not the only woman, nor is the child she's carrying (or "cooking in her oven" according to taste and tweeness threshold) the only scenario the law has to cover. It has to cover the woman in poverty who might be taken advantage of. It has to cover the rights and needs of the existing children where a surrogate dies, unpredictably and suddenly, from a placental abruption. It has to cover the child who is unwanted by the commissioning couple because the child is born with complex health needs.

We don't frame legislation round Mary Poppins best case scenarios, we frame it round the whole range of possible scenarios to make sure everyone in society receives protection.

We should not allow the process of framing new laws to be hijacked by wealthy, powerful interest groups (in this case, comfortably off people with multiple thousands of pounds to throw at surrogacy) with no concern for the impact on all potential host mothers (not just the happy altruistically minded ones) or all potential children (the ones with complex health needs, the ones who grow up and say "you know what, I would have liked to know about my host mother", as well as the happy ones).

Also, I strongly suggest you read this case carefully:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/34.html

Surrogates aren't all articulate, educated women like yourself. This case concerns "commissioning parents" who were utter bastards in the way they sought to take advantage of a surrogate with learning difficulties. Fortunately for the surrogate and the child, our law as it is currently set up protected her and the child's best interests. I am opposed to any attempts to water down this law and give more rights to the "commissioning parents" at the expense of the well-being of children, and the safety and well-being of women.

two men in Ireland having a baby

Except they didn't have a baby did they?

Men cannot have babies.

A woman - othewise known as a mother - had that baby. But she has been erased from the picture, and from that tiny newborn's life. That is the real story here, not you and your 'choices'.

so you’re turning a story and subsequent post about two men in Ireland having a baby into an argument about surrogacy in India. 🤣 trolling and stupidity at its best. Why not head to India and fix it there, where it is needed. Not going on about surrogacy in this country behind a computer.

Sorry, but spouting more rubbish here....

same as a father

No, cos biology. Fathers don't grow babies!

Talk about ignore some of the fundamental differences between the sexes, and the impact on infants!

Disgraceful.

All very convenient isn't it to call actual syndromes in babies spouting rubbish

Its shocking that anyone claiming to do this can be so ignorant of hurting babies.

No mention of harms to baby, very real acknowledged harms.

What do you feel about that?

Documented and recognised caused by treating babies like commodities to buy and sell, or give away.

You’re using this as an excuse to spout rubbish

There ends any credibility, as noone has actually spouted any rubbish only actual harm.caused to babies.

Also, as already stated, the carrier of a baby IS the mother.

Actually, some rubbish is being spouted! 😂😂😂😂

An excellent question @pallisers.

When it comes to the mother (sorry, 'surromum') we're told that the very biological acts of gestating and birthing a child are irrelevant. However, at the same time, the attraction of surrogacy for the 'intended parents' is the fact that the baby is their 'own', ie has a biological link to at least one of them. Massive contradiction.

Love, guidance & nurturing makes a mother.

Presumably the same is true of a father. Why then was it so important to "the boys" that they had a biological connection to their child so adoption wasn't considered?

I do not want to register a birth or be on a birth certificate for a child that isn’t mine. I also do not want to end up with a child when the intended parent changes their mind for one reason or another. The intended parents also don’t want to be in a situation where their baby (especially when it’s their egg and sperm) is kept by the surrogate

There's a very easy solution to all of those problems.

Outlaw surrogacy in all forms.