Robbie and Ayda Anyone else uncomfortable with surrogacy in these circumstances?

[Charlottesspider0]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2018/09/07/robbie-williams-and-ayda-field-announce-theyve-welcomed-a-daughter-by-surrogate-7922256/amp/

I don’t fully agree with surrogacy for many reasons. Impact on newborn being removed from the ‘carrier’, impact on potential surrogates health. Also, the fact that unless the surrogate is altruistic, even in the uk where there are restrictions on financial payments for surrogacy, it almost will still always involve a financially Richer person compensating a poorer woman.

However in the case of couples who can’t conceive themselves or via ivf, and same sex couples, I can see what leads people to seek surrogates.

However this article makes reference to the use of a surrogate because their work schedules are too busy.
They also have two healthy children.
I find it difficult to accept that they are willing use Another woman’s body to take the risks of childbirth, paticularly in their given circumstances.

I think you want a baby, before your 40th birthday as the article makes reference to, then do it yourself, take the risks yourself and sort out your own work schedule to suit. It’s not like they don’t have the money in the bank to do that.

And if after two healthy children, a third pregnancy doesn’t happen for you, be happy with what you have.

Robbies famous comment likening watching his wife give birth to his first child, to his favourite pub burning down, to me just makes renting another woman’s body even more distasteful.

GunpowderGelatine any IVF treatments & other costs are on top of that. It is illegal for a surrogate to receive payment for surrogacy, they receive expenses to compensate things like additional childcare, lost wages etc during the pregnancy. Many IPs - especially via an agency - will fork out around £20k from start to finish for a surrogacy journey.

KingfordRun that surprises me greatly because commercial surrogacy - ie surrogacy without medical need - is currently illegal in the UK. You have to prove that you cannot safely carry a baby yourself (or be biologically unable as with gay couples).

TwoBlueShoes there are several countries it is still very easy - and very cheap - to get a surrogate. But your initial comment was regarding India, which is not the case anymore. Sadly until other countries tighten their laws, surrogates in poorer countries will be at risk

It if they're reasonable expenses pissedoff then a surrogate still isn't making any money, therefore it's not a commercial surrogacy

Crunchymum my thoughts exactly! Plus I think it is a lot more common than we are aware of, we only know about the couples that admit to using a surrogate. What about the ones who just present the baby and say they have had it! I mus confess I’m especially sceptical re twin births and the mother “springing” back into shape the same day!

Yeah agree this is becoming the new norm for the rich. Why carry your own baby, have your body changes...the hormones etc when you can rent a womb to carry your biological child?

The problem I have is I wonder if the bonding is more difficult? it is an interesting one.

GunpowderGelatine it isn't commercial surrogacy, correct. I was merely answering your comment that surrogates in the UK only get £750 for their journey. Expenses range from £12k - £17k depending on what type of surrogate you use. They can hit ad much as £20k if complications arise.

Interesting - I assumed the UK as that’s where she lives. Do the London clinics also help re: finding surrogates? Of course she may have had a medical reason too she did not disclose.

Another thought, how ‘easy’ is it to prove there is evidence you can’t carry a baby to term? Being over 40 a risk factor etc? Having had high blood pressure with a previous pregnancy? In time, I do see ‘rules’ being relaxed & clinics offering this service with no real medical need. I was told that a C section would be ‘better’ by a consultant re: issues further down the line/risks of childbirth - a bit of a push on that & you have some suggesting why expose yourself to any risk at all?

KingfordRun they can do i believe. With the couple i tried for after my first journey she unfortunately couldn't carry for various reasons - she had to be able to produce medical evidence of diagnosed problems if CAFCASS requested it. I know through an agency IPs can be put through the wringer for info

pissedoff That makes sense and I imagine it's mainly down to loss of earnings etc

That's it. You have to be able to justify them if asked.

Which is why I think the U.K. has got it right in a lot of respects - and why I'm a bit when people like Daley hop abroad to take advantage of different rules.

I share the concerns around surrogacy in the circumstances that seem to be at play here (although I do not think we really know what the background is - nor should we). I cannot fail to be bothered by the potential for impact on the physical and psychological health of the birth mother and on attachment issues in the baby (for whom - at birth - the fact of who she shares DNA with is far less important than her sense of belonging to the person who has carried her).

I would like to comment specifically on the idea that “most women having had 2 children would be be happy with that...”. That is far too wide a generalisation. When I got pregnant for the first time at 34 it happened easily and I was very happy. But I had not had much time to really long for a child. Motherhood was something of a joyful surprise. 2 miscarriages later I was distraught at possibly not having a second child. I was so fortunate to have my 2nd at 37. But my desire for a third child was - if anything - even more strong than before. I just was not “done”. The heartbreak of 4 subsequent miscarriages was acute. Yes I was so thankful for the children I had. But the longing for a third was intense. I am beyond fortunate that at 44 I had my third child. So I challenge the notion that somehow once a woman has 2 children she is automatically going to feel less pain at not having a third. That was not at all the case for me. I do not presume to think I am at all unique.

I would not - personally - have sought out a surrogate to heal my emotional wounds. I can, however, see how and why others might.

Protection of the welfare of birth mothers and babies is something that the laws of both the US and the UK (and elsewhere) should give greater heed to. It is too much to expect individuals or couples faced with the emotionally charged arena of their own fertility and reproduction to assume this responsibility. Many (not all) will just take advantage of what the law permits. If there is fault it lies with the legislators rather than individuals who are mired in the complexities of their own desires for children/more children.

I can understand it in some respects. There are pre-birth contracts in place that are legally binding for example...contracts here are simply to show intent

Why did they feel the need to have 3 children? Why not stop at 2?

I really do not understand why so many couples are having 3 or more children. The planet is overpopulated let alone the UK. Resources are going to get more and more scarce. We need to be having less children not more.

So I don't even think having another child was a good idea. As for using a surrogate no not a good idea at all

Pissedoffdotcom I think it’s rightly so ips are ‘put through the ringer’ and have to declare why.

What would your thoughts be on a couple wanting to use you or another surrogate because she didn’t want The risks of birth. No other reason.

For example after a birth injury with my first, I had to really think about a second. The potential for making problems worse. I wanted two children more than I feared the risk, so In the end I went for it.

But that was my risk to take. If I’d decided the risks were too great, (I was actually thinking this at one point) then We would have stayed as a family of three. And I honestly would still have been eternally grateful for ds.
It’s not my ‘right’ to have two children and my ‘perfect family’. In the same way I would have loved a daughter, but that wasn’t my ‘right’ either and I wouldn’t have sex selection ivf abroad, if I could have afforded it, just to get my idea of my perfect family.

I could imagine some women in my position, with more money available to them, may have used a surrogate if they could to avoid the risk.
I wonder if In the states women are using them, to avoid vaginal trauma, to avoid your husband commenting he feels like his local pub has burned down, to avoid a c section scar, the weight gain, stretch marks, sag.
If it hasn’t happened already I could see it happening in some countries and it is terrifying.

Absolutely it is. As I've said before commercial surrogacy doesn't sit well with me. Personally i would never surrogate for someone who simply didn't want to be pregnant

I don’t watch any of this so googled

The article had their quote about a long and difficult journey, not busy lives.

Although there is an expenses limit in UK, surely if the parents wanted to stick £10K in cash into a brown envelope and 'gift' it to the surrogate, nobody would be any the wiser?.... I suppose it would come down to a tax inspection or similar, and then questions would be asked.

daisychain01 like anything the expenses thing is easy to get round in that sense. That said, trying to explain where an extra amount of money in the bank or a posh car etc came from could cause folk to come unstuck. Usually extra gifts are given by IPs not demanded by surrogates...demanding surrogates get given a wide berth. And if an agency is used it is more difficult anyway

Charlotte - I think this is coming re: your last paragraph. In the ‘selfie’/celebrity/materialistic culture I really think those with the resources will increasingly opt for surrogacy in the not too distant future where there is no real medical need. Once a few do it it’s not long before it slowly becomes an established norm.

The idea that any kind of medical professional would offer Botox injections in the ‘sensible’ UK in Superdrug (in the vast majority of cases just to satisfy women’s vanity) would have been laughed at only a few short years ago.

So is that what commercial surrogacy means, where there is no medical reason the couple can’t conceive themselves?
I thought commercial meant the surrogate received payment beyond expenses.

I note someone mentioned Kim katdashinan earlier. Her case doesn’t sit comfortably with me either. There were risks to her if she underwent a third pregnancy. To me, in that situation, you weigh up the risks and make your decision.
But she paid someone else to take them for her in the name of her perfect number family.

I really don’t see how paying another woman to take the risks of childbirth for your perfect number family, would be any different to sex selection tbh. It just seems beyond the joy of an infertile couple getting the joy of having a family. These cases seem about people getting their own personal designer family.

Commercial or social surrogacy is when the IPs have no medical need for a surrogate. They do it for social reasons. Not all surrogacy in the US is deemed commercial/social yet surrogates in the US legally earn from it

i agree OP. It's yet another way to exploit women.

"I'm uncomfortable about surrogacy in general.

A baby is not a commodity, and neither should a woman's body be."

This. It's taking us down a worrying path.

This thread is vile.

I honestly don’t give a monkey’s about it because it’s absolutely nothing to do with me. 3 consenting adults have produced a much wanted baby, the whys and wherefors are private.

I’m permanently disabled from pregnancy and childbirth that doesn’t mean surrogacy should be banned.

We cannot judge, as we don’t know the reasons behind their decision. I doubt they just did it for fun.

The baby is biologically theirs, the surrogate will have volunteered for the role, and almost certainly been screened to ensure she knew what she was getting into and was prepared psychologically.

What I hate most about this quite nasty thread is the person who pedantically nitpicked about their joy in saying “we have had another child”.

Yes they have! If it had been by donor egg or sperm, new parents say will still say they have had a baby, with adoption we still class it as their baby.

No matter the method, why try to rain on the joy of their child?