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

Choice doesn't exist in a vacuum.

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

What if poverty forced her. Or in the case of "altutistic" what if her family pressured her?

How can you be sure it was an informed choice.

How can you be sure it wasn’t.

Buying babies. What a world we live in when the rich can purchase children. We will look back one day and wonder how we got to this point.

The right for a small number of women to make a freely informed choice does not trump the right of vulnerable, disadvantaged women not to be exploited. It's a bit like the argument that 5% of prostitutes love their job and face no risk of rape and abuse therefore we shouldn't regulate prostitution. IDGAF about the tiny number who aren't exploited. I care about protecting the majority who are. Surrogacy should not be mainstream.

"I don't see the issue.
Adoption through the normal route isn't suitable or possible for everyone"

The reason why adoption isn't "suitable or possible for everyone" is that not everyone can pass the SS background checks
and / or they want a newborn only

This isn't just a woman choosing to do something with her own body; she's choosing what happens to a baby - a separate human being - for the next 18 years

If surrogacy continues, then those who want to use it should at least be subject to the same checks as adoptive parents

Being able to buy a baby should not mean avoiding these checks
The baby after being purchased at least deserves parents who are fit to be parents

There have been dreadful cases of perverts & pimps using surrogacy to obtain babies

• with money being the only criterion, this will continue to happen, as well as alcoholics and dopers etc

There have been dreadful cases of perverts & pimps using surrogacy to obtain babies
Sadly more likely to be biological parents.

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

No.
The babies primary attachment figure may become the biological mother but when the baby is born the primary attachment figure is the birth mother.
The woman who grew and nurtured the child for nine months.

At birth, the full term infant is attracted to the mother's voice and smell, including the scent of amniotic fluid3,4. This attraction to the mother's sensory stimuli is the first sign of the infant's attachment and bonding to the mother. This attachment begins during the last trimester of pregnancy, when auditory and olfactory systems become functional, allowing the fetus to learn about the mother's voice and odors. In the womb, the fetus is suspended in amniotic fluid, causing the olfactory mucosa and its receptors to be bathed in waves of this fluid during infant swallowing and thumb sucking. While the uterine acoustic environment is dominated by the rhythmic sound of the mother's blood flow, the mother's voice is carried through her bones and amniotic fluid to the fetal ears5. We know that fetal experience with these stimuli is important in shaping the newborn infant's response because experimental manipulation of the amniotic fluid's smell and of sound exposure have profound effects on the newborn's response to these stimuli6–8.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223373/

This article discusses this in more detail.
Removing dc from this support should only ever be a last resort and not something people can buy.

BigChocFrenzy there are other reasons that adoption through normal channels is not suitable for everyone beyond them not passing the checks.

I'm infertile and think surrogacy is despicable..

IVF is completely different, there’s generally no third party involved and even if you do use a sperm or egg donor, I doubt they felt forced to do it for financial reasons. Why would anyone be a surrogate unless they were desperate for cash? I can’t see another reason to do it.

They weren’t infertile, she carried two children to term. I don’t understand why they needed to do this.

Nowayorhighway those who I know who've done it have done so for mainly altruistic reasons. Yes they've been paid but not massive sums, just sufficient to cover loss of income and cover expenses.

I agree that you get in to murky territory when using foreign surrogates, or where agencies etc are involved but I don't think surrogacy in and of itself is necessarily awful.

www.nature.com/articles/442607a

www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/11eggs.html#commentsContainer

There certainly are serious risks to egg donation, and donors are not always fully aware - indeed the scientific and medical community are still researching the full extent of the risks of the procedure.

In America large amounts of money changes hands for the most sought after eggs - young women are recruited on university campuses with more paid to student women with high test scores and a certain type of physical appearance. Often these young women have not had children and sometimes they are left infertile or with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. There is ongoing research into links to increased incidence of cancer.

Gr3yCl3y presumably thinks these donors are the biological parents of babies resulting from implanting their fertilised eggs into other women's wombs. Or perhaps not...

Surrogacy is a vile & abhorrent practice & should be illegal.

Gr3y so using your code of ethics it's ok to exploit people if they agree to it.

I'll go and hang around outside a food bank or Jobcentre, get myself a cleaner for £2 an hour from someone desperate enough. Buy someone's bone marrow from a supported living centre. Maybe hang around in a deprived area and get a kidney. I found the toddler stage more fun, so perhaps I can find someone with pnd I can convince to sell me their 2yr old.

Oh no, silly me, they're all exploitation and we have laws to prevent me using my privilege to take advantage of people that may be vulnerable. Unlike the noble cause of buying a newborn.

Unless you think the law should be changed so I can legally do all the above, and you'd be quite happy for me to exploit your dc/dp/ parents/ siblings then it's hypocritical to agree it's ok to buy a newborn.

Bollocks to it being about the genetic parents.

Do you think someone that gives birth to a baby as a result of embryo transfer would hand them over cheerfully in the event a mistake had been made and it wasn't their biological child?

'Expenses' are a joke too. If surrogates were people like me they wouldn't really have any. Enhanced maternity package would cover loss of earnings, so a three figure sum at most for maternity clothes and travel costs. Except that's not how it works, because financially comfortable women aren't surrogates for strangers.

Vile. I find surrogacy in general to be abhorrent but the circumstances surrounding these two just beggars belief.

A decent dog breeder allows a bitch more than a few months rest between litters.

TrainspottingWelsh expenses vary from person to person. I have a good job, but I'd still loose earnings from maternity pay as although enhanced it's only about 60% of my pay averaged out. I'd also be less likely to go for promotion, so there'd be loss of potential earnings.

So you wouldn't lose anything, I would.

I am not saying that I agree with this at all, I’m still forming an opinion, but...

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

My friend is currently looking after a baby removed from her mother at birth because she was unfit to look after her. By all accounts; there will be about 20 weeks of fighting and appeals and then my friend will know whether the baby stays with her; goes back to her mum or is put up for adoption. Do we celebrate that?

I’m a child who wasn’t removed at birth. I was one of my mums “chances” to do better. I went into permanent foster care at 13 but never had a settled family and was too old to be adopted. I’d rather be Ayda & Robbie’s child, who they have confirmed is biologically theirs, then have a childhood like mine.

Surrogacy and gamete donation should be entirely banned.

99 but you wouldn't need the full maternity package, just a few weeks would do it. Take maternity at 38 weeks and back in work a week or two after a textbook vb. There are no sleepless nights to worry about if someone has bought the baby.

Of course, shit goes wrong sometimes, difficult pregnancy, complex birth, major surgery, injures that take weeks or months to recover from if they ever fully recover at all. But we've already decided that none of the usual risks of pregnancy and birth apply to surrogates, childbirth is akin to giving blood so a few weeks is more than ample.

Not forgetting that surrogates are just as likely to be wealthy women able to absorb the cost as part of their altruistic act.

Except we all know that's bollocks.

TrainspottingWelsh depends how well you recovered. I think you'd have to plan to need the whole time, rather than having to ask for more money after the fact.

"Plus the woman who gave birth was not the baby's biological mother"

She would be listed on the birth certificate as such. At least in the UK. And rightly so.

Adoption isn’t any better in my opinion. I hate how it’s often trotted out as this lovely selfless act and oh how lovely for the child to get a better life. I’m one of those who’s adoption was a complete failure. Not everyone is cut out to be the parent of an adoptive child - even if they are great parents to their biological offspring.

I think an interesting case is Caprice. She went through surrogacy after infertility issues and then fell pregnant herself just after the surrogate. So she now has a 2 children that are biologically hers. It one was born through a surrogate. I wonder if there’s any difference in her relationships with the children? If you can tell which is which ( I think she never told and said she’d never tell the kids)

My friend is currently looking after a baby removed from her mother at birth because she was unfit to look after her. By all accounts; there will be about 20 weeks of fighting and appeals and then my friend will know whether the baby stays with her; goes back to her mum or is put up for adoption. Do we celebrate that?

What a strange question. The adopters May celebrate becoming a family or bringing a new child into their family but I doubt any of them celebrate their child's difficult start in life nor that they couldn't be raised by their birth parents. As a society, of course we don't celebrate removing babies from their mothers at birth. We do it rarely and only when nothing else will do.

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?

Babies aren’t just a “biological commodity” though, that’s the thing. Organ donation, IVF, whatever, that’s fine- it’s not like sperm is going to be missing the ballsack it came from. There’s loads of research that babies know and are bonded to their mother in the womb. Being separated from their birth mother is acknowledged as being a trauma for adopted babies, even if it is ultimately for the best. But when money’s involved, it’s suddenly fine? Makes no sense to me.