Tom Daley Christmas message

@Hypatia415

Also, surrogacy has long been a thing with many women helping other women to have families. Would all those accusing Tom Daley of 'buying a baby' and being 'disgusting' hold the same standard towards others who have been involved in a surrogacy process?

Yes absolutely, anyone who is involved in this cruelty is filth quite frankly, dippy Tom included.

He's a prat but I won't read it anyway, I'm not interested in anything said by someone who feels it's ok to buy another person 🤔

A child at birth is unable to comprehend what is happening, and is certainly too young to be 'traumatised' if all their needs are met

Removal from its mother is traumatising for a baby. And that trauma stays with them even if their basic needs are met. Just because it can't be articulated doesn't mean it's not happening. To deliberately create a child with the intent to remove it from its mother at birth just because of a belief that having a baby is a human right is extremely cruel and unethical.

I am not comparing women to dogs as such. But we are a nation of animal lovers and it is interesting to note that laws are in place to protect animals whilst women and babies do not have that same level of protection. So we really can say "you wouldn't do this to a dog".
I love my dog but do I think my dog deserves greater protection than my daughters? Who would I rescue first in a fire?
I'm all for legislation to protect dogs but I also think women deserve protection and that includes, sometimes, being a bit paternalistic and protecting them from themselves. Women may choose to carry baby after baby to the detriment of their health and one can only speculate why they might do that but I think someone who exploits that desire, to put that woman at risk in their determination to obtain a baby at all costs, IVF clinics who just want their fee and are careless of the ongoing health risks to the woman and the baby she may carry need regulating. It is deeply unethical.

A child at birth is unable to comprehend what is happening, and is certainly too young to be 'traumatised' if all their needs are met.
This statement is so cruel and is dangerous nonsense.
A child at birth’s only need is it’s mother.
How do you know a baby is ‘unable to comprehend’?!
Babies comprehend having and not having their mother.
All surrogate children unable to be with their mother will have trauma.
Tom Daly is despicable.

But what is the functional difference between a child removed at birth and placed into care, and a child brought up by parents other than the surrogate?

This is a silly question. You are asking why intent matters? Do you understand the difference between a child who lost use of their legs in an accident, and a child who had their legs cut off on purpose?

Pregnancy and childbirth continue to be among the most dangerous things a woman can do.

I'm not actually sure that's true. Of course there are many things that can happen during a pregnancy but in the UK pregnancy is incredibly safe. Something like 0.2% of women died of something pregnancy related 2016-2018 here which is the same death rate for pretty much anything else.

You're ignoring a woman's capacity to self determine. You don't have to be a surrogate.

I also find the repetitive comparison of women to dogs quite strange. Women have significantly superior cognitive skills, including the ability to consent and choose whose baby they have.

And again, whilst the exploitation of poor women is also wrong, it's about the baby. The baby who we are treating worse than we treat animals.

It's an intentional straw man to call it 'buying a human', for the obvious reason.

For what obvious reason? No, honestly I really am asking, because it absolutely is commissioning and buying a human baby as though they were a painting, there's no clearer way to put it.

"Surrogacy is great! The woman wants to do it!"

Tell that to the two children who are now growing up without a mother. https://www.today.com/parents/mom-acting-surrogate-another-family-dies-while-giving-birth-t172216

Pregnancy and childbirth continue to be among the most dangerous things a woman can do. Pretending there isn't someone's body and life on the line because someone wants to buy a baby is egregious.

Just because someone wants something they can't have doesn't mean they're entitled to get it. Visually impaired people can't fly airplanes despite the fact that some may want to.

It sucks but life is unfair.

there is no LGB without the T

Perhaps he thinks T stands for Tom

I also find the repetitive comparison of women to dogs quite strange. Women have significantly superior cognitive skills, including the ability to consent and choose whose baby they have.

A child at birth is unable to comprehend what is happening, and is certainly too young to be 'traumatised' if all their needs are met.

This is nonsense. Infants aren't blobs who can be passed around caretakers willy nilly. They are sensate relational beings with needs and experiences. And they bloody well do 'remember' the trauma (yes, it is a trauma) of being separated from birth mums.

Your anecdote isn't useful evidence though. There are many children who are better comforted by their father, or a nanny, or their adoptive parents, or their dummy.

It's an intentional straw man to call it 'buying a human', for the obvious reason.

I don't consider it 'intentional trauma'.

I do. So do the various social services..... so do breeders of animals...

A child at birth is unable to comprehend what is happening, and is certainly too young to be 'traumatised' if all their needs are met.

Comprehend, of course not. Feel what an adult could identify as confusion and abandonment - I would say so, because my children, from birth, were significantly more easily comforted by me than their dad, suggesting that they absolutely had some extra connection to me, they wanted my comfort, not someone else's

but in any case. BUYING HUMANS IS WRONG.

Adoption is making the best of the circumstances we find ourselves in, and is acknowledged to be extremely difficult for all involved, hence the vetting and support. This is intentionally creating an adoption situation, intentionally traumatising a baby by removing it from its mother as soon as it's born, for money.

But what is the functional difference between a child removed at birth and placed into care, and a child brought up by parents other than the surrogate? I don't consider it 'intentional trauma'. A child at birth is unable to comprehend what is happening, and is certainly too young to be 'traumatised' if all their needs are met.

*unrecorded

Also, regarding puppies and dogs it is also the case that dogs are protected in law, to protect the maternal health of the female dog and prevent exploitation by puppy breeders.

The law restricts licensed breeders to breed no more than six litters from one female dog (sorry, the B word is quicker to type and the correct word for a female dog but can lead to deletions), no more than one litter in a year and no more than two LSCS.

The kennel club go further, protecting pedigree dogs by not registering more than four litters from any one dog.

No such restrictions apply to women and the law commission doesn't propose to make any.

Some women carry on having multiple surrogate pregnancies, risking their health to do so. There have been some extreme examples in the U.K.

‘I love giving birth. This is my seventh surrogate baby’.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a5a8dbd8-4ac5-11eb-81f9-1b786036a268?shareToken=a7e625efe1431342d3c3bd04e2b1b0faa_

This is one case. This woman had a life threatening haemorrhage on her fifth involving a stay in ITU, but went straight on to do another two. Her seventh surrogate pregnancy, by my reckoning based on information in the article must have been conceived about six months after her sixth, at the height of the Covid lockdown. How is that responsible? Of course the NHS picks up the pieces. As a result of that article I first consulted the blood transfusion consultant at my hospital who started off by saying "of course I'm fine with surrogacy..." and ended up by exploding at the expense of the blood transfusions and the ITU and that "she's doing it as a business".

I then complained to the HFEA and had a long conversation with their chief inspector - who doesn't want to live in a country where women are prevented from having as many babies as they want.

Which really isn't the same thing as having repeated high risk pregnancies for payment.

I would like Tom to have mentioned some of the transmen who have competed in male categories and done really well. Oh, hold on a minute, there aren't any. Why is it always transwomen who are being praised in this scenario?
Something about biological advantages, can't quite put my finger on it.

I just don’t understand how these supposedly compus mentus educated people cannot see that putting a person born male up against a person born female in a sporting contest is neither fair nor right.

I didn't want to derail the thread into a surrogacy discussion but anyway, we have diverted that way.

As someone who grew up on a dairy farm I simply see it as farming, using women as breeders to supply babies for those who want them and in most cases can afford to pay for them. A trade in babies.

Some women do claim to love being pregnant and "giving the greatest gift" etc. I simply think they are contributing to the demeaning narrative of women being expected to provide breeding services. Just because it's worked for them doesn't make it a good thing.

Siblings doing it for each other (or other family arrangements) ? Again, no doubt in some cases it goes swimmingly but family relationships are complicated and it can involve a lot of guilting/coercion of the sibling providing the service as well as complications after the baby is born. How many personal accounts have we seen of people who grew up not understanding the family dynamics as the big secret was that their "sister" was in fact their mother and their "mother" was their grandmother. Do we think these modern arrangements are any more pure, and less likely to cause difficulties to the child that was conceived to be given to another family member?

I note none of the Kardashian sisters stepped up to help Kim. Oh no. Because pregnancy and childbirth can wreak havoc on one's body. Best leave that to a woman of lower class/education/economic status who will be subject to a NDA among other contractual clauses.

Women can have serious health problems as a result of childbirth up to and including death. There have been three deaths of surrogate mothers this year alone in the USA, but those are the ones that are known about. Thanks to NDAs most go u recorded unless someone alert notices a gofundme to raise money for the bereaved family. Details are scant.

As @TheMarzipanDildo said, it's not just gay men. It's women, usually in a heterosexual relationship so also het men. And increasingly single men, choosing to avoid the whole messy business of a relationship with a woman whatever their sexuality.

There is also the issue of related exploitation of women who are persuaded to sell their eggs, those sibling arrangements may be altruistic but usually will involve obtaining an egg from another woman.

I'm with @GoodieMoomin

In any civilised society it should never be possible to "commission" a woman to have a baby for you, which she will hand over after it's born. We aren't talking about puppies and kittens here, we're talking about living, breathing human babies. I will never understand why anyone could ever think it's ok to ask a woman to undertake all the physical and emotional risks of pregnancy and child birth simply to hand the baby over to a 3rd party. And what of the baby? Conceived with the aim of being separated from it's mother soon after birth, with all the damage that is known to cause?

Would all those accusing Tom Daley of 'buying a baby' and being 'disgusting' hold the same standard towards others who have been involved in a surrogacy process?

Yes.

HTH.

So you're opposed to adoption?

we deliberately bring them into the world with the specific intent of removing them from their birth mothers.

this bit is key. Adoption is making the best of the circumstances we find ourselves in, and is acknowledged to be extremely difficult for all involved, hence the vetting and support. This is intentionally creating an adoption situation, intentionally traumatising a baby by removing it from its mother as soon as it's born, for money.

Yes, Andy Murray is pro-women and pro-trans - because they're not in opposition to each other

They are in direct opposition when it comes to sport. It couldn’t be more stark.

Feminist objections to surrogacy are around the comodification of women's bodies and the damage done to babies when we deliberately bring them into the world with the specific intent of removing them from their birth mothers.

So you're opposed to adoption?

Also, surrogacy has long been a thing with many women helping other women to have families. Would all those accusing Tom Daley of 'buying a baby' and being 'disgusting' hold the same standard towards others who have been involved in a surrogacy process?

Yes, absolutely, because it's not about who is buying a baby it's about buying a baby - you can't buy a kidney, you have to wait until a puppy is ready to leave its mother, but a whole human? Sure, you can pay a woman to put her health at risk to grow you a baby and take it away the moment it's born.

How anyone can support it at all, I just don't understand.