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

I can’t express how uncomfortable I feel about this. Something very wrong with using another woman’s body in this way. Mrs Williams keeps her figure and pelvic floor and the other woman.....?

RedPandaFluff the same level of psychological testing as is involved in a living organ donor making an altruistic donation (kidney) perhaps.

However the rights of the child should be paramount, and they aren't in a gamete donation and/ or surrogacy arrangement.

It's not just the woman's body but the human baby who has full human rights from the second of birth, yet is the only human it's still legal to sell.

As another poster says, the "commissioning" couple should go through all the same checks all other adopters are subjected to.

On the psychological health of the person made to order via surrogacy - no good dog breeder removes a newborn puppy from its mother, no matter how well they've vetted the new family. Why are human newborns accorded less care? Added to which the issues experienced by teens and adults created in this way have never been properly, objectively studied.

I feel that nobody should tell me what I can and can't do with my body, my organs, my cells; as long as I understand and accept the risks.

The government puts laws in place to stop people doing things that are harmful to themselves and/or wider society. Seat belt laws, drug laws, organ donation, heading balls in football is about to be minimised or banned. In my view surrogacy and egg donation should fall into that catogary.

You can't just do what you want in this country and rightly so. If I sell some eggs, then get breast cancer and die from the side effects of the drugs - my children would rightly question why there were not laws in place to protect me and stop me putting myself in harms way, regardless of my reasons or desires.

no good dog breeder removes a newborn puppy from its mother,

A fucking good point. We recognise that animals are best off cared for by their birth mothers - yet don't seem to understand the same goes for humans - even those we are more emotionally and intellectually aware and so surely more effected by being removed from our mothers.

The surrogate didn’t sell her eggs, they used their own eggs. The risk was for the woman the eggs were harvested from, not the surrogate.

If you can prove a child is biologically your child which is pretty easy to do I see no need for child protection laws and vetting unless all parents should go through the same.

Are you honestly saying there is no risk to the surrogate?! No she didn’t undergo the egg harvesting but what about child birth... or is that suddenly completely risk free?!

Gr3yCl3y the risk was to both women. Or are you under the impression that pregnancy and childbirth are risk free? Have a look at MN's own campaigns for better postnatal care, and the section on birth injuries.

The baby was born in America, where pregnancy and childbirth kill 700 - 900 women per year directly. At least another 50,000 women in America have significant complications such as major hemorrhage and organ failure.

Better healthcare would prevent some of those deaths, but not all, and surrogates are as likely to die as any other mother:

www.foxnews.com/health/california-mom-surrogate-dies-giving-birth-familys-child

www.npr.org/2017/12/22/572298802/nearly-dying-in-childbirth-why-preventable-complications-are-growing-in-u-s

Most women on the planet choose to go through childbirth. It was the surrogate’s choice not your choice as it was her body. The same way every woman chooses to give birth. Pretty sure she had better care and lower risk than the vast maj of us giving birth on the NHS.

You’re just frothing over nothing. Her body, her choice.Her body isn’t something for you to all pick over.

Gr3yCl3y her body is only one part of the reason surrogacy is unethical - it's not in the best interests of the child, as is discussed in the parts of the posts above you are ignoring.

There are so many reasons it's unethical for rich people to commission babies and have them removed from the birth mother at birth, and most are already mentioned up thread.

As another poster has said very relevantly - nobody can just do what they want with their own body in the UK without eventually crossing a legal line. Living organ donation is perhaps the closest comparison.

Nothing happens in a vacuum and surrogacy has a ripple effect of consequences and is a complex psychological, ethical and medical issue not addressed by empty sound bites like "her body, her choice".

Clearly they can quite legally in California.

Just seeing a load of shouldn’ts which yes I’ll ignore as it’s just opinion.

And as for not in best interest of child. Not seeing that sorry.

Gr3yCl3y you're not seeing it because you choose not to think about it and prefer sound bites and slogans, I can't help you with that.

As always in these debates, the focus is entirely on the rights of the 'parents' or the surrogate. The reason I am utterly against surrogacy in any form is because the rights of the child are completely invisible in this - utterly ignored.

Commercial? Altruistic? Whatever... at the heart of the process is a baby who has been created with the sole aim of separating it from its mother from the moment it is born. Disgusting

Oh for goodness sake, said baby won’t remember which womb it came out of or care. All it will care about is having loving parents which it clearly has.

I think the circumstances does make a difference-it’s not as black and white to me.

If I or any other offers to carry a baby for a relative/friend who can’t, then it’s a choice made with free will and a beautiful thing

As soon as there is any money involved, at whatever stage or whatever reason, then the free will and choice is muddied and it becomes more of a commodity issue.

I feel the same with abortion; I agree with it in cases of assault, where the child has complicated health issues or wouldn’t survive etc, but I don’t feel women should have multiple abortions if they get pregnant and it doesn’t fit in with their plans (I don’t know whether this actually does happen though).

A blanket ban on either is not required, but regulation and difficult conversations are needed

It's not all just about DNA thought, according to epigenetics, the nutrition and metabolism will definitely influence a surrogate baby even if genetically the baby is genetically not hers.

All I say is money talks.

Oh for goodness sake, said baby won’t remember which womb it came out of or care

Wow. You're right that the baby won't remember but that doesn't mean she won't be affected by the separation from the most important attachment figure in her life. Babies aren't machines, commodities or toys. They have feelings and needs. Being close to and cared for by their mother is the primary need of all newborns. Separating them from that woman and disrupting that attachment is harmful.

It’s mother in this case is the woman whose egg it was created from. Plenty of babies are separated at birth for whatever reason and don’t suffer attachment issues. In this case the baby has a loving mother the minute it came in to the world. It isn’t in an orphanage cot with no main carer to attach to.

It's mother, as far as it is concerned, is the woman who gave birth to it.
Your cavalier attitude to the rights of infants is shocking.

I can't comment on my views about whether I feel surrogacy is valid or not. But I feel I can comment on my personal experience of being a pre birth adoptee who was removed from biological mum at point of birth. I have no psychological or physical development delays nor lasting effects from it. I cannot recall that time, nor being temporarily cared for by nursing staff, foster mum, adoptive mum (at a few weeks old). Obviously I'm not advocating that children should necessarily be actively born to 'supply a need', but I do think those arguing the case a baby whose then passed to another primary carer would be scarred for life are talking about something they have no real concept/experience of IMHO.

No Code as far the baby and the law is concerned the mother is the person raising it. I was in ScBU for a week with a seriously ill mother unable to visit. No recollection or attachment issues what so ever. Why would I have?I can’t remember it and the minute she was well she cared for and raised me superbly. That is all I remember.

I'm somewhat surprised to find I have two very strong reactions to this. Surrogacy for infertility in the UK - fine if everyone fully understands the risks. But surrogacy cos you don't fancy giving birth - terribly wrong. It seems very hypocritical of me.
Also adore Robbie but I really don't think they'd be cut out for parenting an adopted child and meeting their needs.

Gr3yCl3y why do you believe that you know what adults born via donor conception and/ or surrogacy care about? Do you think that by making statements you make things true? Have you done any research? Have you engaged your brain and tried to empathise with teenagers and adults created in this way?

www.wearedonorconceived.com/

www.cbc-network.org/2019/07/bigfertility-exposes-ways-surrogacy-harms-children/

www.genethique.org/en/surrogacy-you-cannot-replace-suffering-adult-suffering-child-68431.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2344362/Surrogate-born-children-likely-suffer-depression-carried-real-mother.html

www.researchgate.net/publication/319308292_Mother-newborn_separation_at_birth_in_hospitals_A_possible_risk_for_neurodevelopmental_disorders

No Code as far the baby and the law is concerned the mother is the person raising it

Do you know anything about PR and the children act? The mother automatically is the person who gives birth to the baby. PR can be conferred to others through birth certificate or order and can be removed through order only. It cannot be removed from the mother until at least 6 weeks post birth.

The person raising the baby is only the mother in law if they have given birth to it or obtained a parental or adoption order.

@jellycatspyjamas Are you suggesting my parents don't love me as much as their natural children? Because I can assure you that is not correct.

Also, to be clear to some of the PPs... I was "ripped from" my Mother at birth and have turned out just fine thanks!!

Call me naive but is this presumably because Adya just doesn't want the mess or hassle carrying another baby? Or can Ayda/Robbie no longer conceive? Oh no, can't be that as it's biologically their child. I say mess or hassle because I assume that's the only reason a celeb would want to avoid pregnancy. I loved being pregnant, every minute of it.