Mark Feehily wants surrogacy to be cheaper and accessible for everyone

[Wouldloveanother]

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11141771/Westlifes-Mark-Feehily-discusses-privileged-expensive-surrogacy-journey-welcome-daughter.html

Why are men so entitled?

To be fair nobody knows if they have the skills to be a parent to their own biological children until they try. Its all a big roll of the dice.

To turn your logic on its head, why didn’t they adopt a newborn from somewhere like the USA where it is easy to do so? What would be the material difference for them? There are lots of healthy newborns for adoption in various countries around the world. They were clearly happy to go the international route for their surrogate baby, so you can’t say ‘hassle’ or anything like that.

😔😡

No, it is really not that simple.

There are lots of people who are perfectly suitable to raise their own biological child but who do not have the skills or approach needed to raise an adopted child.

Then they adopt or accept they can't have a child of their own. They don't use a surrogate. There is never, ever, ever, ever an excuse for surrogacy. Ever. I am sorry if a woman has cancer or doesn't have a womb, however that still will never justify surrogacy. Ever.

Adoption is absolutely not an alternative to having a baby. I wanted to be a mother but I would not have considered adoption. People have their own babies because they want a genetic connection.

Theyre not ‘having a baby’ though are they?

And I’m always 🙄 when people say they want the genetic connection. Why do they want that? Could it be because biology matters? Yet when it comes to this baby knowing it’s mum, suddenly biology doesn’t matter and ‘love is all you need’.

Then they either have a biological child with a woman they are in a relationship with and who will raise the child, or accept they can't have a child at all. Again, it really, truly is that simple. There is never, ever, ever any excuse for surrogacy. Ever .

Yet when it comes to this baby knowing it’s mum, suddenly biology doesn’t matter and ‘love is all you need’.

Exactly this. Funny how the hypocrites then turn what they previously said on it's head. Either biology matters for the child, or it matters for none.

A baby created then birthed to be deliberately taken from its mum.

Its unnatural and so wrong. FFS even puppies stay with mum a few weeks.

So now you think someone who is suitable to have their own biological child might not necessarily be suitable to adopt?

You're flip flopping all over the place now, which just proves my original point: you were spouting off about adoption without knowing what you're talking about.

Comment not about article specifically but...

I know someone who has been a surrogate several times for infertile couples. She is absolutely passionate about advocating surrogacy. So I find it really difficult to equate this experience of such positivity with some of the opinions on this thread.

I have a biological child but have investigated adoption previously. Personally I didn't feel the need for a biological connection to feel love for a child, which is why I looked into it. But (although a generalisation), adopted children can be extremely challenging due to the majority having experienced trauma or having disabilities. People are very naive about this.

Of course they are having a baby.

We know this because they now have a baby. Pretty obvious really.

And personally I don't think the desire to have a genetic connection is a particularly strong reason not to adopt. But the inability to meet the parenting needs of an adopted child, which I would suggest most people cannot, is a very good reason not to adopt.

I don't think gay couples or infertile couples who are not suited to adoption should necessarily be excluded from parenthood.

Why do adopted children have parenting needs (if adopted from birth as I suggested) that surrogate babies don’t?

I don't think gay couples or infertile couples who are not suited to adoption should necessarily be excluded from parenthood.

But they are biologically excluded from parenthood. The only way they can access parenthood is by renting the womb of a fertile woman. The ethics of that are what's in question. It's sad for people who can't have children, of course, but it's not a human right.

So now you think someone who is suitable to have their own biological child might not necessarily be suitable to adopt?

YOU are the one who said that, I never said that at all.

Why do adopted children have parenting needs (if adopted from birth as I suggested) that surrogate babies don’t?
Because of the type of parents they have. By definition they have the type of parents who have had their baby taken away. They’ve inherited the genetics and personality traits of those parents. I don’t have the capacity to cope with a child who has inherited their parents problematic personality traits.

So now you think someone who is suitable to have their own biological child might not necessarily be suitable to adopt?
I do think this. Absolutely 100%. I’m a great mother to my kids but I’m not suitable to raise an adopted child because I couldn’t cope with their additional problems.

Exactly this. Is he suggesting that we legislate for the accessibility of fertile women? Twat.

Almost no baby is adopted from birth. Babies removed at birth can usually only be fostered until a judge makes a placement order allowing them to be placed for adoption.

Sometimes, those children may be placed with foster parents who are also intended as adoptive parents, subject to final court outcomes, which does improve continuity for the child if they go on to adopt, but which carries its own particular demands of parents.

So to answer your question, a parent adopting a child needs to be able to:

(a) manage often very significant health uncertainties - the baby is more likely to have had a difficult birth or suffered a birth injury, more likely to be born to parents with genetic disorders which may or may not be inherited, more likely to have had a concealed pregnancy which meant proper medical care wasn't provided during pregnancy. For many of these, the impacts may not be known for several years. A parent adopting a very young baby needs to be able to live with the uncertainty, and then needs to be able to parent whatever needs emerge because of these factors.

(b) parent a child that has often experienced significant in utero trauma - this could include exposure to drugs and alcohol, exposure to domestic violence, or persistent heightened stress and anxiety with attendant changes in cortisol levels by virtue of being carried by a mother whose circumstances almost certainly cause significant stress.

(c) manage the role of an often extended birth family in their child's life - managing contact, sometimes written and sometimes in person - with siblings, half siblings, grandparents and birth parents. Sometimes, this can come with safety and security concerns where a birth family is known to be violent or to be intent on tracking down the child. Being able to manage that in a way that does not instil shame or fear in a child, and lets them explore and understand their life story is extremely difficult.

(d) if you're talking about placement for birth, then the parents also need to be able to parent as foster parents for potentially up to a year before they can be matched for adoption. This means always holding in the back of the mind the potential that the child may not be adopted and may be removed. It means facilitating contact with birth parents. It means trying to balance building a bond and attachment with the child with the potential of them being removed hovering over you.

Are you starting to see why comparing surrogacy to adoption is so wide of the mark yet?

But they're obviously not excluded from parenthood then.

You want them to be, but I don't. And right now they are not - but they are placed in a difficult and precarious position because of the lack of regulation.

I agree.

The poster I was responding to started off by saying that gay or infertile couples who want to be parent should just adopt.

When I pointed out that not everyone who would be a good biological parent would be a good adoptive parent, she claimed that if you're not suitable to adopt, you're not suitable to have a child by surrogacy (which is nonsense - people who are unsuited to being adoptive parents could still be very good parents to their own biological children).

Then she flipflopped again and claimed that gay/infertile couples who are not suited for adoption but want to be parents should have a child with a woman who will raise the child.

How would you be certain of these things with an egg donor? They could have all kind of personality problems that they wouldn’t disclose on the paperwork.

The only one who is flipflopping is you. My position has been consistent. That surrogacy is wrong, not matter what.

Your position is that if a person doesn't want to adopt, then they should access surrogacy because they are unable to handle an adopted child, but can handle a surrogate child. You're the one flipflopping here.

But they're obviously not excluded from parenthood then.

They are without recourse to other peoples bodies.

It's one of these situations where I think we'll look back in horror at how fertile women were treated as commodities and babies needs disregarded for the desires of 'commissioning parents'. Hopefully sooner rather than later.