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

Although a baby can't remember it's early experiences, they are effected by them. Children removed from abusive households before they are even a year old are still effected by the trauma, even though they have no recollection.

We can't really say whether all the children of surrogates have been effected or in what way because we don't know how different that same child would be or their life if they had been born and raised the conventual way. But some people have come forward and spoken against surrogacy who are themselves surrogate children.

And lastly we can't ask a baby what it would like. But I think it's safe to assume that the baby would like to stay with the woman who in its eyes (and mine) is its mother - the lady who grew it in her womb. And as the baby is a human, not a toy, we should do what is in the baby's best interest.

Bbq1 surely you can acknowledge that not everyone loves being pregnant? Or maybe they can conceive but can't carry to term? Or maybe she has birth injuries which prevent further pregnancy from being safe? Maybe they've had lots of miscarriages and don't want to go through that again? Maybe she has hyperemesis gravidarum? Or pregnancy brings her crippling sod or migraines. Maybe she would need permanent bed rest which would be unfair on their current children? Sooooo many reasons someone wouldn't want to be pregnant again but doesn't feel their family is complete.

I don't feel my family is complete with one child, surrogacy has never and will never be something we would consider.

Grow a baby, pay nannies to take care of them, nice easy life ?
Oh to be a celeb, I think there's something missing from their lives

Whilst I think surrogacy to enable a woman to have a child who would not otherwise have one is admirable, once money changes hands it becomes a commercial transaction which makes me feel very uncomfortable. The idea of buying a baby is abhorrent.

I don't know if that happened here but if Ayda could not have another child naturally then she already has children - I can't see the need for surrogacy in this situation.

Isn't the attachment between mother and baby made in that "golden hour" after birth? So if the baby is born and has skin-to-skin contact with the adoptive/non-biological mother, instead of the birth mother, all the psychological trauma discussed wouldn't occur?

Has it even been proven that the psychological trauma does occur? Are there any studies?

I also ponder (having had DD two months ago) whether the baby even knows who its mother is in those early days - DD was and is just as happy and content on DH's chest as she is on mine!

Look the Daily Mail as a trusted resource.😂

Not in California, the laws are different.

And re trauma from separation from abusive households. The trauma is from the abuse and lack of care.

It makes me horribly uncomfortable. I can understand surrogacy when a family member carries a child for another family member or friend, and no money changes hands.

But surrogacy for money? I can't help but feel it's buying a child.

And I really don't see why people have 4 children to raise them with nannies. It seems indulgent and selfish to be honest, and given Robbie's addictions in the past and their odd behaviour, I'm not so sure those kids are getting a stable upbringing.

Gr3yCl3y the mail article is based on this research carried out by Golombok at al at the university of Cambridge and originally published in the journal of child psychology and psychiatry.

Seeing as you appear unable to address complex ideas or mulipart posts I thought the Mail article might be more your speed, but here's the original academic article - I'm sure you'll read it in full before responding to the issues raised:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23176601/

Wow your past defines you as a parent.🤔Define stable, aren’t they homeschooled so they can avoid being apart.

Should all parents be judged?I can think of a few who haven’t become parents by surrogacy who are far more worthy of judgement.

It is very sad when a baby is taken from it's birth mother, for medical reasons, or because the mother is unfit to care for it as described up thread. It's true that the baby won't remember, but it's still only done when absolutely necessary. But to deliberately create a baby to take it from the woman who has grown it in her body and given birth to it is a very cruel thing to do.

I don’t really get the nannies comments - I’m pretty sure that most of the people on mumsnet either use a nanny, nursery or childminder while they work!!! There’s pros and cons for all types of childcare and I don’t think you can judge Robbie and Aydas parenting based on the fact that they will need to use nannies while they work. Equally thier past doesn’t really have any bearing on thier ability to parent. There’s plenty of people with past addictions etc that go on to be great parents.

Why is it cruel? They don’t give a shot as long as they are fed and cuddled. My dh did most of that after my 3 were born.

And sorry but that study looks devoid of detail and due to maternal distress, keeping things secret which they clearly aren’t doing.

In my experience pregnancy and birth side effects are something you might not experience for years.

Back and pelvic pain
Prolapse
incontinence
Varicose veins

Is the surrogate compensated for that?

Morally I see it up there with buying a kidney. Often people donate a kidney to close family members . They do it altruistically and no payment takes place.

We don't allow that ethically so I don't see why we should allow commercial surrogacy

Using this analogy they would be paying a poorer person to make their ok kidney function a bit better, and put someone through pain and he risk of possible complications just to make their lives just a bit more shiny. Money talks doesn't it?

I don't object morally to altruistic surrogacy but this seems about as far from that as you can get. Dystopian.

Up to her to ensure.

I'd be annoyed if it were a dog or a cat
Thankfully women can consent whereas a dog couldn’t... I can’t really understand this comparison

If you can't see that it's cruel to take a newborn baby from it's mother, (ie the woman who's body grew and nurtured it)and for no better reason than someone else wants it, then you can't see it, it doesn't mean others can't see it, and be dismayed by it.

The consent issue isn’t very clear cut though, is it? Is it still consent when money changes hands and she needs the money? Why don’t rich women act as surrogates for poor women?

What do they tell their other children Those they have given birth to? Even saying it allowed stinks of something only rich people do. Will the daughter think its normal?

Why don’t rich women act as surrogates for poor women?
Perhaps they do. You’re assuming that surrogates are poor but there’s nothing to say that Robbie and Ayda’s surrogate was poor.
In fact with the obesity, smoking and drinking rates in the poorer areas of society, I think a surrogate coming from this demographic would be more risky and much less preferable.

Isn't the attachment between mother and baby made in that "golden hour" after birth?

No. Attachment is a process, not a one time thing that happens in an hour. It begins in utero and continues throughout the child's life, developing most strongly in the first two years.

Removing newborns from their mothers sometimes has to be done, to protect the child. There are many accounts of adoption trauma in people who never even experienced neglect as they were removed immediately. Of course many children don't experience discernible effects from this separation - there are many factors.

Creating a baby deliberately to remove it from its primary attachment figure at birth is the ultimate in capitalist, individualist commodification of women's reproductive labour and of children's lives and it's horrific.

It’s primary attachment figure is the biological mother who if gets handed to.

the surrogate was presumably a volunteer?

I thought the 'sisterhood' supported free choice? Maybe not.

four kids is two too many for the planet, but Williams doesn't appear to be one of the 'do as I say, not as I do' eco celebs so up to him and her.

I dont understand, the surrogate is an adult making an informed choice, no one is forcing her to make this decision