Robbie and Ayda new baby. Another surrogacy discussion.

[EachandEveryone]

It fascinates me and thats not to upset everyday folk who are on the journey. They used the same surrogate that carried their little girl that must be just over one year? The poor womans hardly had chance to recover. I know she wasnt forced!

They already have a boy and girl. I dont understand celebs at all. I wonder if it was in the UK or USA? Anyway, Im sure the little one will be very loved thats the main.

www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/robbie-williams-ayda-field-fourth-child-surrogate-instagram-a4362756.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1581708410

Its a shame they cant adopt though

Adoption is a completely different kettle of fish from carrying your birth child or indeed a surrogacy process. It’s not always the answer to infertility - primary or secondary.

Two words "Handmaids Tale"

Milk admittedly I'm not an expert on ivf or up to date with the latest practice, but last time I checked ivf didn't involve renting a womb, the human behind it and all the physical and mental harm and risk of harm that goes with it, or removing a newborn from the woman that carried it and birthed it, and the irreversible damage it does to the future child.

Whether the nhs should or shouldn't be funding ivf is purely a financial argument. Buying a baby is a moral debate. In fact it shouldn't even be up for debate.

I do agree with this to a certain extent but I think for as long as you accept IVF, particularly if you think it should be available on the NHS, you shouldn't argue against surrogacy

Well, I don't agree with IVF either so no contradiction here.

And also what @TrainspottingWelsh said.

Comparing IVF to surrogacy totally bypasses the risk the surrogate takes on when carrying the baby.

A couple who took one twin and left the disabled child with the surrogate:

www.cnn.com/2014/08/04/world/asia/thailand-australia-surrogacy/index.html

Surrogate mother who died leaving her own family motherless:
people.com/human-interest/surrogate-mother-died-giving-birth-rock-of-her-family-brother-in-law-says/

Women’s bodies are not for rent.

You either agree that women can try all means available to them to have a child they want, or only women who are able to conceive naturally and carry successfully can have a child.

For me it isn't about women in this situation. It is about children.
I'm not adamantly against surrogacy but I am increasingly uncomfortable with it.
It is not in the best interests of a baby to lose their birth mother in the fourth trimester.
I would hope that this would only happen if significant harm could be demonstrated if they stayed together.
I have removed dc at birth but only in extreme circumstances.
As someone who did use IVF it is important to remember that dc are not a right, parents in the UK don't have rights, only responsibility.

Well they have the baby now so wishing them well. Surrogacy is a very selfless thing. It does seem very much a privilege for the wealthy and becoming common.

Buying a baby is a moral debate.

IVF is buying a baby.

Your objection is to a woman renting out her womb? Either women can do what they choose to do with their own bodies or they can't. This whole train of thought that "women can do what they want but only if it fits in with my moral superiority" is problematic for me.

I'm curious to know how people who think surrogacy is 'renting a woman's womb' and 'buying a baby' view donor egg/sperm IVF. That's buying a biological commodity as well, isn't? So are you against that too?

My question is borne of a genuine curiosity as to views, I'm not attempting to be inflammatory. I didn't realise surrogacy was viewed as such a terrible thing . . .

Also, aren't there lots of other instances where our bodies are used as a commodity - male and female models, for example. Professional sportsmen and women - boxing comes to mind, people who could be permanently and potentially fatally injured and possibly exploited by managers and agents.

If the outrage is around women's bodies being used and exploited, I don't think surrogacy is the only example of this.

IVF is buying a baby
Yes, but you are assisted in having your own baby not involving a third party!!! I'm not sure what your point is?
That you can't see the difference between IVF and surrogacy is problematic for me

56Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons

In what other circumstances does society celebrate ripping a baby from the only home it has ever know immediately following birth?

As far as I am aware in every other circumstance we try to keep the mother baby dyad together because it is well established that it is beneficial.

Babies should not be boug

The home the baby knew was a womb so hardly ripped from it

Plus the woman who gave birth was not the baby's biological mother
I am not completely defending this but if you are going to argue against it dont use emotive untruths

Yes, but you are assisted in having your own baby not involving a third party!!! - Donor egg? Donor sperm? Is that acceptable or not?

We are all selling ourselves one way or another. Some people do risky jobs. There are many jobs that people do that they wouldn't choose to if their financial situation didn't dictate that they have little choice. I don't think surrogacy even falls in to that category. Some women enjoy pregnancy, some women genuinely enjoy helping others, some women choose to become surrogates. Who are you to judge them?

Odd, very odd. Plus cringey. But also entitled. Surely they have enough children.

Surrogacy is buying women's bodies and selling babies,of course it should be something of public interest and not a hidden taboo upon which nobody is allowed to express an opinion.

Like prostituted women it's something that is highly unlikely ever to be genuinely a free and equal choice - there is always a massive power imbalance and massive danger to the financially disadvantaged female.

In this case the newborn baby is a sold commodity. Morally unsanctionable. Removed from the mother at birth under premeditated circumstances. Something that nobody would do to a puppy and be accepted by reasonable society.

RedPandaFluff yes. I'm against the sale of gametes.

IVF isn’t “buying a baby”! What the fuck are you talking about?!

So much ignorance about infertility and IVF on this thread. IVF is paying for a process to help you conceive your own child. And good for you @SirChing that you don’t agree with IVF, thankfully your opinion didn’t count when my kids were born.

Bloody judgemental crap.

@ItWillBeBetterinAugust so are you against all cell donations? Blood? Tissue? Organs?

Women can do what they want with their bodies leads to the nightmare of the prostituted teenager.

There is always a socioeconomic context.

Drug addicted 16 year old who has been in care since she was 11, when she was sexually abused repeatedly by her foster father for a prolonged period leading to alcohol and then drug addiction - is she making an empowered free choice? Of course not!

Few prostituted women are making a free choice, and the same is true of reproductive comodification - most young women are not told what the consequences could be.

If we're honest most women don't truly understand the consequences of pregnancy and childbirth even when we enter into them freely to have our own children because birth injuries such as incontinence and ongoing pain, sexual disfunction and occasionally death are taboos.

I wonder if it was in the UK or USA?

Fairly sure they'll have done it in California - I believe they're still based in LA although back and forth all the time. Commercial surrogacy is legal there, the surrogacy contract is fully enforceable, and the state will automatically issue the birth certificate in the couple's names. California is a bit more expensive than the other US states that allow commercial surrogacy, since the demand is so high - but that's not an issue for this couple.

I have a feeling they went for sex selection as well. They have girl, boy, girl, boy. Seems like a bit too much of a coincidence.

The two surrogate babies are only 17 months apart too. Same surrogate.

RedPandaFluff I'm a pragmatist. When you're dead you don't need your organs. Giving a pint of blood has no reprocussions - as long as you're healthy.

As soon as the negative consequences are babies who become adults psychological problems, adults with psychological problems, women with serious health problems, infertility as a result of fertility drugs to stimulate egg production, hysterectomy to deliver someone else's baby, a mother dying to give a couple baby and leaving her own children motherless - I'm against it, yes.

IVF with your own gametes and your own womb has nothing to do with surrogacy.

I don't personally have a problem with surrogacy in principle (though I think there are problems with the law around it). I REALLY have a problem with people having 4 singleton biological children, it's enormously selfish.

But let's face it Robbie Williams has never exactly been someone deserving of respect so I can't say I'm surprised.