Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Famous men and surrogacy

660 replies

Annasgirl · 04/10/2019 10:43

OK, so this is not to bash the specific person involved but last night I was heading to bed and a story came up on my phone - a person from Westlife was announcing the birth of their baby - through surrogacy (he is gay) and showed a pic of him, his boyfriend and the baby - there was no mother.

So, I totally lost it and poor DH had to listen to me rant for about an hour - but when, oh God, when, are we going to stand up and be counted and take back the rights of women and children?????

DH mentioned that there will always be women poor enough to agree to do this and I countered that you cannot sell a kidney (legally) or buy one so why should you be able to buy or sell a baby???????

BTW, DH agrees with me, but why do I feel I am the only person alive who is angry about this?

And I live in Wokesville (AKA Ireland) and I am worried that we are so keen to be woke and the most liberal place to be gay in the world, that we will soon legalise surrogacy or at least make it easy for people to legally buy a baby overseas and then take it home here. That is what the person was arguing for on his gushing post.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 09:39

What a lot of rot still

think all of your 'anti surrogacy' views would be a lot different if it was you that couldn't have a biological child.

How preposterous is this!!

Ignore harms to baby, I WANT A BABY, I AM ENTITLED TO A BABY

If I cant have one i am entilito rent a womb and rip that baby from its mother, witj fkagrant disregard for the harms the baby suffers.

Adoption and surrogacy are told different things. God good! No similarity at all!

In America there are forced adoptions perpetrated upon young women and girls.

There are underage marriages, or rather a girl can be married at any age in many states to avoid a perpetrator being charged with rape.

Adoption is their way of refusing women's rights to abortion.

If you are fighting for surrogacy you are promoting harm to babies, permanent harm.

You are placing the needs of the childless above the rights of a baby. Sick.

OhHolyJesus · 09/10/2019 09:24

Can I nick all that @NotBadConsidering ? I've got more follow ups to do and that was detailed and yet concise.

I think in answer to one of the questions the cap for post-partum issues is £1k but I'm going to try to find other cases on this, I'll share what I find. I'm not sure if that cover mental health issues.

We need a family lawyer with medical experience to come and answer all those questions, maybe a surrogate can share some details of their contract to help too?

This has been shared before but for those interested it covers some of the issues relating to NotBad's questions.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005f2x

StroppyWoman · 09/10/2019 09:11

All important questions, NotBad

NotBadConsidering · 09/10/2019 09:02

I posted this on a thread a while back. I’d be grateful to those who are pro-surrogacy if they could tell me how they would address the conflict of rights in these scenarios. These are based on common things I see:

At 12 week prenatal testing it’s discovered the fetus has a severe abnormality. The surrogate wants to abort, should she be allowed to? What if the adoptive parents are religious and don’t want her to? What if the adoptive parents want to abort but the surrogate is religious and doesn’t want to? What if the pregnancy will threaten her life but the adoptive parents don’t want to abort? What if the adoptive parents decide that if she continues with a pregnancy resulting in a child with a severe abnormality they won’t have anything to do with it?

What if the pregnant woman has a major complication like a pulmonary embolism? What if she can’t return to full functioning afterwards? What if she can never work again as a result? What if she can’t look after her own family?

What if there is a conflict between parties about timing and mode of delivery? Who gets to decide? What if there’s a severe hypoxic ischaemic injury to the baby as a result of this decision? Is it anyone’s fault? Should a woman be forced to undertake a Caesarean section?

What if after a severe hypoxic ischaemic injury the adoptive parents decide they don’t want to look after a child with severe spastic quadraplegic cerebral palsy? Who does the baby belong to?

What if the pregnant woman developed gestational diabetes and didn’t look after herself? Ditto high blood pressure?

What if there’s an intrauterine fetal death? What if it’s discovered the pregnant woman smoked and drank? What if she ate something considered high risk? What if she undertook an activity deemed high risk? Should blame be apportioned? Could someone sue someone in this scenario?

What if, in the postnatal period, the birth mother develops severe postnatal depression or psychosis? Who looks after her? For how long? What if it stays with her for years?

What if the pregnant woman is group B strep positive? What if she doesn’t want antibiotics? What if she does but the adoptive parents don’t because they want everything natural? What if she’s given antibiotics and has an allergic reaction? What if she has a recurrence of previously unknown genital herpes? What if the baby has herpes encephalitis postnatally as a result? Is that her fault?

What if she develops antibodies to the fetus’s red blood cells or platelets? What if that results in invasive in utero procedures? What if she needs immunoglobulin as a result and has a reaction?

What if she has a severe postpartum haemorrhage? What if she needs a blood transfusion or two?

Basically, if harm results to the pregnant woman as a result of the pregnancy whose responsibility is that? Can the finances ever truly reconcile all eventualities? Can/should a pregnant woman be forced to undertake medical treatment if it’s in the best interests of a third party? What if what is in her best interests is not what is in the best interests of that third party?

Who pays for hospital parking? Who pays for petrol to get to appointments? Who attends appointments? What if there is another medical issue arises requiring confidentiality? Should a doctor disclose this information in front of adoptive parents present in an appointment? If adoptive parents are at appointments what pressure is there? Would the pregnant woman be able to openly disclose concerns? What if a doctor or midwife suspected there was coercion? Who would they report that to? What’s the burden of proof for coercion? How would the legal system address this quickly with an advancing pregnancy?

Thanks in advance.

IcedPurple · 09/10/2019 08:45

I think all of your 'anti surrogacy' views would be a lot different if it was you that couldn't have a biological child.

And here we go again... making assumptions about the lives of complete strangers. How can you possibly know if the posters here have their own children? I don't - through choice. But that's irrelevant. Laws and ethics aren't decided by how much they benefit indiviuals in a particular situation. They are decided with a view as to how they might help or harm society in general. The selfish desires of individuals - and yes the desire to have 'your own' child is selfish, as most desires are - barely factor into that.

But two men taking a route to be parents is so wrong isn't it?

If it involves separating a newborn from its mother at birth then yes, it is.

People needlessly bring babies into the world everyday that they can neither afford or care for. Where's all the outrage there?

There's no 'outrage' because it's an entirely separate issue. If it bothers you so much, why not start a thread?

OhHolyJesus · 09/10/2019 08:34

Abortion saves a woman from becoming a mother when she doesn't want to be. It can save her from poverty, from developing in her own life, education, career, or protect her from a difficult pregnancy and impacts on her existing family. It also prevents a child from being born so that person doesn't need to grow up as an unwanted child.

Surrogacy brings a life into the word, a wanted child, but for it to be removed from the one source of food, comfort, love and life it knows. It denies the baby what it knows and could also lead to a life of gaslighting where he/she doesn't know his or her biological origins. (There's a bit in the consultation where a person born of a surrogate can find out on a register if he or she is related to their partner!)

Body autonomy is essential for women to be in control. Making truly autonomous decisions about your body when you are vulnerable, or being persuaded or paid becomes difficult and sometimes impossible.

The woman in the case I posted upthread was not listened to when she tried to assert body autonomy.

Abortion is there so we can maintain control, surrogacy could remove control. It depends on how it is done. Hence why the laws need to protect women, on both areas.

JenniferM1989 · 09/10/2019 08:33

I think all of your 'anti surrogacy' views would be a lot different if it was you that couldn't have a biological child.

It's so easy for fertile people to sit on their high horses and condemn people that take alternative routes to be parents.

Are the majority of the people that are commenting here going to sit there and say this baby won't be loved? That some feckless junkie in a lot of cases is more entitled to have a baby because she is the biological mum? That this baby would have been better served getting skin on skin and breastfed by a woman that was happy to give her up?

The baby was not bought and sold, that's illegal. You are are only allowed to pay the mothers expenses for surrogacy here in the UK. Also, the woman wouldn't have been forced into this. She would have signed up to an agency of her own free will.

I think it's funny how if there's a post on here from a woman saying she's struggling to conceive, the replies are kind and sympathetic and even if it's not their first. But two men taking a route to be parents is so wrong isn't it? They should just stay childless to please all you people that don't even know the situation and dramatising it all by saying the baby was 'snatched' from the mother.

People needlessly bring babies into the world everyday that they can neither afford or care for. Where's all the outrage there? Oh I forgot, it's not feminist enough. The poor woman, she 'rented' her womb, this couple are monsters and so are all the other people that use surrogates.

This baby was planned, very much wanted and I assume will be well looked after by this couple, since they did go to lengths to be parents to this baby. Adoption is an option of course but they wanted to be parents to a child from birth and it's legal so what's the problem? I have never read that children from surrogacy are more prone to mental health issues or anything. That they'll suddenly fall ill due to not being breastfed or having skin to skin with their mother at birth.

What's really happening here is people speaking a lot of rubbish! Assumptions, dramatics and undertones of homophobia. A mother isn't the only important aspect for a baby or a child through it's life. This child will be with her biological father and fathers partner and depending on their agreement, she may well meet her birth mother later in life but that's neither here nor there right now, she's with a couple that wanted her and will look after her. A lot of kids are dragged up or abandoned by their fathers and mothers but a baby going to a loving home is an outrage.

Try to step away from your views that children only thrive with a mother around. There's a lot of situations where children are best kept away from their mothers

whatnow123 · 09/10/2019 08:00

Why is the difference between abortion and surrogacy as regards to "My body, My Choice"

I'm pro choice but there is a conflict between the two positions.

ChickenNuggetsChipsAndBeans · 09/10/2019 07:42

One thing I know for sure that the adoption fairytales that play out in film and stories are not true.

I feel in the same way that a lot of the stories around surrogacy contain an element of fantasy and leave out the detail of the true complex emotions.

However, I feel that more research is needed in this area. Without research being completed, we don't really know if surrogacy and adoption is a fair comparison.

Particularly as adopted children tend to experience a whole load of other stuff such as drug and alcohol use whilst in the womb, neglect, violence etc.

MrsJoshNavidi · 09/10/2019 06:53

Unfortunately, a side effect of being gay us being unable to have children with your partner.
I find the whole "ordering" a baby from a woman who is prepared to incubate and sell one unethical and immoral.
I'm more comfortable with adoption as a route to parenthood for gay men, but deliberately taking babies from their mothers (even if the mother isn't genetically linked to the baby) doesn't sit well with me.

FannyCann · 09/10/2019 06:42

*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?*

Excellent point ShesDressedInBlackAgain

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 03:44

Hpw does it help a baby to create a life purely to deliberately separate it from its mother?

I feel sick and sad that our laws currently legitimise this totally unnecessary suffering of an innocent life.

With our increasing knowledge of the harm the baby suffers this practice should be banned.

Not everyone can have children, and noone has the right to have children, no matter how much you might want them.

Children are twice as vulnerable to abuse when with non-bio parents. They come to greater harm and are at greater risk of being abandoned.

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 03:28

You discount everything except your attachment theory.

Huge deep psychological and physiological interactions which affect babies biological brain development and its basis for well being.

breast or bottle is basically equal

Not in any way shape or form.

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 03:20

Studies conducted on animals, particularly other primates, indicate that there may be a biological basis for what Verrier calls the primal wound. Reite in 1978 demonstrated that when monkey infants were separated from their mothers they experienced decreases in body temperature and sleep pattern changes, even when the separated infants were immediately adopted by another adult female. Reite suggests that these physiological changes are not due to the physical absence of the mother, but are caused, at least in part, by the perception of loss of the mother on the part of the infant, i.e., the cause is essentially psychological.

Studies in primates show that if an infant is deprived of its mother soon after birth, the infant’s brain does not develop normally. For example, the number and sensitivity of the infant’s brain receptor sites for endorphins – the internal morphinelike chemicals that affect mood – are diminished .” (Dossey, 1991; Nieuwenhof, 1994)

Separation of newborn babies from their mothers causes a high secretion of the stress hormone cortisol. (Bowlby 1980; Noble 1993) There is physiological evidence from studies of laboratory rats that the level of maternal care given to the infant influences its response to stress: the more care, the lower the levels of hormones like adrenaline in reaction to stressful circumstances. People who are highly reactive to stress are at greater risk for the development of depression, and drug and substance abuse problems, etc. Adopted people have a greater vulnerability to stress, and are also at greater risk for depression and drug and substance related abuse problems.

The few months after birth together form what Kitzinger (1978) calls a fourth trimester of pregnancy. These months are part of a continuum, in which the infant remains psychologically merged with the mother. Interruption of this continuum, by taking the baby away from the mother at birth, has a profound effect on the child. The child loses not only its mother but also part of the self. (Verrier) Yet, when it comes to adoption, Verrier wrote in 1991, there is a kind of denial that at the moment of birth and the next few days, weeks or months in the life of a child, when he is separated from his mother and handed over to strangers, he could be profoundly affected by the experience.”
From adoptionbirthmothers

Australia adopted a widespread adopton programme of taking infants immediately from their mothers, to new adoptive parents. Over the ensuing years age related suicide data for the infants and mothers revealed a doubling of both suicide rates.

This even though the babies were taken straight from their mothers, apparently before they would 'know'.

There are common adolescent affects. ODD, ADD, RAD...suicides....

Stop treating babies like objects with some magic formula that you think you can control.

To do so risks a human life, every time.

Its extremely short-sighted and laughable really that anyone can believe psychological damage from separation can only happen if a child is old enough to be in determined 'attachment' stage.

Pretending a baby is absent of deep physiological relativity to its mother, when its evident in saving lives of neonates, and much more, is foolhardy at best. To deny this and actively remove babies from their physiological mothers is cruel.

I don't know how its contemplated, let alone defended!

Baseline.

AugustL · 09/10/2019 02:08

week of pregnancy :
18 Baby starts to hear sound.
24 Baby is more sensitive to sound.
25–26 Baby responds to noise/voices in the womb.

"Around week 25 or 26, babies in the womb have been shown to respond to voices and noise. Recordings taken in the uterus reveal that noises from outside of the womb are muted by about half.

That’s because there’s no open air in the uterus. Your baby is surrounded by amniotic fluid and wrapped in the layers of your body. That means all noises from outside your body will be muffled.

The most significant sound your baby hears in the womb is your voice. In the third trimester, your baby can already recognize it. They will respond with an increased heart rate that suggests they are more alert when you’re speaking."

www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/when-can-a-fetus-hear#2

loopsdefruit · 09/10/2019 01:54

Truth Kangaroo Care for premature babies is absolutely fantastic and does improve outcomes, and breastmilk has significant protective qualities against NEC which is incredibly dangerous in premature babies (that can be donated breastmilk and often in very small babies it's given to them via tube rather than directly from the breast, still just as good).

It has nothing to do with full-term healthy babies. It's another confounding factor to consider when assessing attachment formation and secure/insecure attachment. A NICU stay is absolutely likely to impact on the attachment relationship between a child and caregiver, and is a risk factor for postnatal mental health difficulties which in turn can make it harder for a mother (or father) to consistently recognise their baby's cues and meet their needs (crucial for attachment formation).

The bottom line is still the claim that any of this actually proves that children born via surrogacy will face long-term, lasting, attachment "problems". What are those problems? Where is the evidence? We have a reasonably large number of children now who have been born via surrogacy, are they any worse off than anyone else or do they have the same amount of secure/insecure attachment as people who were raised by their biological mother, or by both their biological parents.

I think if we don't know, that's ok but I think we should know...it's important for children that we know. It's important for law making and decision making and child welfare that we know. You don't seem able to actually provide any evidence that specifically compares the key demographic (people who were born via surrogacy compared to people raised by their biological parent/s).

Surrogacy either is always damaging to children, even when it all goes smoothly, or it isn't. If it is then yes it should be banned because it is creating children to harm them. If it isn't, then it should be regulated to protect vulnerable adults from exploitation and understood to be another way of having a family (alongside egg and sperm donation, adoption, and fostering).

Right now there isn't the evidence that that is harmful, or specific evidence that it isn't. There's just general theoretical understanding of how secure attachments are formed and what impacts insecure attachments can have (not always that significant in most people).

I think we need to know more.

loopsdefruit · 09/10/2019 01:33

Ahh well Field I don't actually think breastfeeding is all that important. Feeding yes, of course, but breast or bottle is basically equal in a developed country with clean water.

Bottle fed babies have the same breakdown of secure/insecure attachment to their primary caregiver that breastfed babies have. It's 60/40, for everyone.

The blog actually isn't bad. The cited research around attachment is high quality, and it's accurate, but none of that research mentions breastfeeding being necessary for the attachment relationships to form. Where the blog veers a bit is this:

"Thus, research on infants, children and parents indicates clearly that parental sensitivity to child cues plays a central role in facilitating healthy social emotional development. Another important implication of this research is that acts that take place during parent-child exchanges may contribute and enhance vital functions. Breastfeeding exemplifies a context that facilitates the development of sensitivity in parents with positive implications for child development (Epstein, 1993; Epstein-Gilboa, 2006, 2009)." - My emphasis

That's all fine, but the study quote is "breastfeeding exemplifies a context that facilitates the development of sensitivity in parents"

Yes it does. But it is a context, not the only context. Feeding a baby with a bottle if you hold them in your arms and look at them and talk to them and are responsive to their cues also exemplifies a context that facilitates the development of sensitivity in parents...as do multiple other parenting tasks that loving and responsive parents do.

The breast crawl is awesome, and great if you have the option to do that. It isn't indicative of attachment though, just a primal need the baby has to Not Die. Also the infant does not form an attachment relationship to a breast, because the breast does not provide a secure base or a safe-haven...that's the caregiver, whether they have a breast/breasts or not.

Anyway, I will come back tomorrow (after work) but it's 1:30am and I actually do need to go.

Seriously though if there are any specific studies that evidence that children born via surrogacy (in particular surrogacy not adoption or death of a parent etc...) have higher rates of attachment disorders or a different level of secure/insecure attachments than the general population I'd be happy to look at those.

Maybe it genuinely is an area where more research is needed. I think if the argument is that surrogacy harms babies even when it all goes 'right' then we probably should have some evidence of that. There must be enough children at this stage to be able to study it.

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 01:32

Are you trying to discount the profound physiology, that is as profound as to increase and decrease neonate mortality?

You seem to be significantly missing the points in each research relative the to impact upon a baby of its mother.

Such things as cognitive development that speah will evolve relative to its mother (in utero) - language patterns and sounds.

A baby is developed attuned to its mother.

Noone can discount that without risking babies lives and wellbeing.

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 01:28

... and before you say it yet again

The significant impact is upon the baby by its mother, not 'father' or 'random'.

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 01:25

The physiology between mother and baby is as significant as saving lives..

This, [from a meta study research abstract]

Kangeroo mother care... (Mother and baby skin to skin, breast-feeding, early home discharge)
effective in reducing the risk of mortality among preterm and low birth weight infants.

it goes on to say, also reduces the risk of hypothermia, severe illness, nosocomial infection, and length of hospital stay, and improves growth, breastfeeding, and maternal–infant attachments

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4871067/

loopsdefruit · 09/10/2019 01:10

"Possible role" being the salient point there. Yes babies can recognise their biological mother's voice. But as has previously been shown, newborn babies do not exhibit specific attachment to one caregiver at birth, and they only begin to show 'strong' (discriminate) attachment to their primary caregiver at around 7 months of age.

You're not actually providing any evidence that children born from surrogacy have attachment "problems".

Are there any studies that show that children born via surrogacy have a higher rate of attachment disorders? Or even that the secure attachment/insecure attachment breakdown in the population of "children born via surrogacy" is different than the 60/40 breakdown in the general population?

I find the insistence that biological mothers need to be the primary caregivers for children or the children will face some unnamed attachment "syndrome" deeply unfeminist... you don't need a woman there 24/7 for a child to develop normally and form secure attachments in their childhood.

Also, given (again) that the proportion of all people who were not securely attached to their caregivers as children, what's the problem with insecure attachment...unless the cause of that insecure attachment was abuse of the child?

Fieldofgreycorn · 09/10/2019 01:04

*meant the second one sorry

Fieldofgreycorn · 09/10/2019 01:02

Agree Truth the 3rd ref I quoted also discusses the bonding process beginning in utero.

Fieldofgreycorn · 09/10/2019 01:00

I agree later separation anxiety can be more traumatic. But this whole developing discourse is yet more about undermining the role and value of breastfeeding.

Virtually the first thing a baby does after birth is look for the breast (within the context of the 9 stages). It’s first relationship is with the breast, and the person it’s attached to. That mother baby relationship is the first crucial one. I’m not saying if that doesn’t happen it’s catastrophe. There is a wider window for attachment as well. But we’re talking about the ideal here, and why shouldn’t we?

gpifn.org.uk/secure-attachment/

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223373/

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1459116/

Babies recognize their mothers at birth and at delivery healthy babies placed on the abdomen of their mother will crawl up onto her chest and, locating the nipple via its familiar smell [63], will attach to her breast and suckle [64,65]. Newborn infants desire to remain with their mother and if removed from skin-to-skin contact with her will give a specific "separation distress cry/call" as an appeal for reunion [66]. Maternal separation is stressful for infants [25,66-69], and all adopted children have experienced the loss of their birth mother. Some believe that this loss can impede the development of later relationships even where the birth mother is quickly substituted with another caregiver [70].

Not a journal but interesting blog womenshealthtoday.blog/2018/05/12/physiological-breastfeeding-patterns-and-establishment-of-secure-attachment-systems/

loopsdefruit · 09/10/2019 01:00

Truth I'm struggling to see the relevance of comparing a baby with mother and a baby left alone in a cot with a baby who is being cared for by another human who is not the mother.

They do not seem to have compared that. Probably because the aim of the study was to challenge the practice of separating newborns from their caregiver and taking them to a well baby nursery.

Do you know if they have done a study which compared autonomic activity and quiet sleep when baby was held by mother vs another caregiver that is not the mother?

What 'syndrome' are you talking about? Are you meaning an attachment disorder? Insecure attachment is not an attachment disorder, again, almost half of all human beings were insecurely attached as children.

I discussed the confounding factors regarding adopted children in my post, especially as almost all adopted children in the UK are removed following abuse or neglect by their birth parents (and very few are removed at birth, even fewer are then immediately placed for adoption and never have another move or change of caregiver).