to be offended by this T-shirt?

[parklife1]

I saw a post on social media today. It was about two gay men becoming fathers of twins via surrogate. There was a picture of the two men in "DAD" T-shirts. The pregnant surrogate stood in between them with a T-shirt saying "NOT THE MOMMA".

I'm not even against surrogacy perse, but I found this picture offensive.

I understood why she was wearing it - she wanted to display that she doesn't want to have a mothering role in the children's life.

I still think it's a slap in the face of women, we go through so much during pregnancy and labour. Giving birth can be life-threatening, I lost 2.1 litres of blood during my first birth and 1 litre of blood during my second birth.

Many women have postpartum depression after birth and the hormones are on a roller-coaster.

My body will be forever marked by giving birth (stretch marks, C-section scar, mum tum).

To me this picture is just offensive, because it sort of portrays women and our bodies as a commodity.

AIBU?

Nobody here has been homophobic. Nobody is against them adopting, or any suitable couple adopting to become parents, it's specifically surrogacy which actually is popular with heterosexual couples.

So long, joey.

So you have limited anecdotal experience of a foster child decades ago, that’s not experience of the level of additional needs children through adoption need.

Children aren’t really relinquished in this country, they come into care from parents who often take drugs or drink during pregnancy, doing extreme damage to their babies in the process, from violent homes and older children who have been abused themselves in multiple ways.

A conservative published estimate is that 40% of children who are adopted or up for adoption have additional needs. Do you know the chances when looking at biological children? A fraction of that.

it’s well documented children taken at birth suffer less trauma than those who have broken attachments, that’s why foster to adopt is becoming more and more of a focus for local authorities.

I stayed over her house all the time. I've seen and witnessed things.

Again, you are desperately looking for excuses for why rich people want perfect babies. Pure, clear and simple.

There’s also the option of coparenting. I know of one gay couple who had a family with a single (heterosexual) woman and the three children are currently on their way to secondary school. All involved seem pretty happy despite having minor disagreements over parenting ethos along the way. They work a 50/50 system similar to separated parents. All three adults are equally invested in their family.

removal from the mother at birth or in the months after is automatically traumatic for a baby

Do you have any links to studies about that? I was asking upthread - where it's shown that it's the removal from the mother itself that is harmful rather than what happens later? Thank you

There’s also the option of coparenting

That's a good idea too, this never enters my mind. Guess it's not as visible in the media compared to surrogacy

@cognitivedissonance1
Nearly all the costs you list are for the commissioning parents to pay. They pay for the clinic costs, the counselling, the drugs etc
And if the surrogate mother is in work she is entitled to the same maternity benefits as any other mothers, including time off to attend appointments and maternity pay.
Granted if she is self employed or for some reason doesn't qualify for maternity pay then she may need to top up her pay by claiming it as expenses.

Totally agree.

www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/how-mother-child-separation-causes-neurobiological-vulnerability-into-adulthood.html

this is a brief article that touches on newborn separation and links studies (sorry, I don’t have time right now to trawl further but it’s not a bad starting point).

granted on the scale of trauma it’s not right at the top and if handled sensitively, taking into account the babies needs, can be mitigated but it’s still a trauma that babies with immediate, secure access to their birth mother don’t experience. There are lots of factors to unpick how it may affect any one person in later life but imho it shouldn’t be taken lightly or dismissed. Newborns are biologically driven and behaviour is instinctual,

it’s not a massive leap to conclude that an interruption to fulfilling that instinct is a point that needs to be handled sensitively with that knowledge at the forefront.

Completely agree with this.

it’s a badly judged photo and raises the concern that none of the adults involved have researched or are even thinking about the child themselves who might not agree with them.

Everything about the photo screamed "LOOK AT US! WE'RE SO SPECIAL!" Attention-seeking and self-obsessed - I don't think it bodes well for the baby. It suggests the child will be an accessory.

And I agree with everyone who is against adoption being made easier. It's not so very long ago that a couple could literally turn up at a children's home/orphanage and walk away with a baby. Can you imagine the risks for the child?

We certainly don't want this again.

Again, limited anecdotal evidence of spending time with a child in FOSTER care,

You have 0 understanding of adoption, not least adoption in the 21st century.

im not looking for anything, no one wants a perfect baby, just some people aren’t capable of parenting children with extreme needs. Which you have to prepare yourself for when adopting, it’s odd you don’t understand this.

Did you even read the link you posted?

the early separation impact when tested in animals (this needs to be clear here too as it’s not a human study) was down to missing warmth and nutrients, this isn’t the case for foster to adopt children nor is it the case for children delivered via surrogate.

babies don’t fully attach to their primary caregiver for 2-4 months. The biggest trauma in separation is due to broken attachments when looking at human children, with surrogacy an established attachment isn’t broken.

Yes I did @VeryTrying22, did you? As I said the article itself briefly touches on the babies bonding with its mother beginning in the uterus and continuing after birth. Is that the bit you’re taking issue with?

The breaking of that bond immediately at birth is a trauma. And, as I also said, those effects can be mitigated to some extent with awareness and effort. What can’t be totally quantified due to other environmental factors is whether those mitigations will absolutely avoid any consequences in the future. It’s perfectly possible a baby will have no problems but an older child/adult will recognise an issue rooted in their conception and/or birth.

I’m not here act as a personal gopher digging out links to studies that are readily available to everybody that scientifically back up biological processes and instincts that have existed as long as humans and are well documented.

If you’re that bothered go research yourself, come back and tell us why in the UK adoptions ensure information for the child about their birth family is recorded and available to them, why egg donors and sperm donors have to be contactable to any offspring resulting from their donation.

Thanks cornetto - unfortunately that study isn't what I'm after as it's not a human study and doesn't distinguish between mothers and other caregivers. Well actually it suggests that baby rats become attached to a neutral scent soon after birth (ie for these rats they attached to a scent that wasn't their mother's) and that is the beginning of attachment. And then there's a load of stuff about what happens when that attachment is damaged or broken at various times later.

We know that babies have needs that are innate rather than learnt but I haven't seen any evidence that there is trauma if those needs are satisfied by someone other than the mother. There are consequences associated with no attachment and with forming attachment that is later disrupted but not that the mother must be involved. That's what I'm wondering about!