The mother of Tom Daley's child

[Pratchet]

Congratulations on a healthy baby! Hope the birth went safely and that you are recovering well.

I just hate surrogacy in case you can't tell

OP:

So no one on this thread is being homophobic?

"I hate how surrogacy for gay men erases women from their life-giving role in humanity. "
-- 2up2manydown

(And @hallie29 you do realise just shouting "homophobia!" at everything doesn't constitute an argument, don't you? Just thought I'd let you know, I'd hate for you to look stupid)

I consider a woman who freely enters into this arrangement for money and has no bio link to the child to not be any kind of mother, genetic, birth or legal

Well neither biology nor law supports your argument. So far as biology here is just one example nutrients and oxygen from the mother's [gestational carrier's] blood are transferred to the fetal blood, while waste products are transferred from the fetal blood to the maternal [gestational carrier]blood, without the two blood supplies mixing. The placenta is expelled from the uterus in a process called the after-birth. I've edited to suit you.

If it's "child abuse" to birth a child for your own benefit, knowing it will go to a loving home and significantly improve the 'parents' lives, is it child abuse to kill a baby for your own benefit through abortion (assuming there are no underlying health issues)?

I'm interested to hear how the more critical poster feel about this.

They say they were texting her and in contact every single day of her pregnancy, perhaps she wants to keep her privacy?

If it's "child abuse" to birth a child for your own benefit, knowing it will go to a loving home and significantly improve the 'parents' lives, is it child abuse to kill a baby for your own benefit through abortion (assuming there are no underlying health issues)?

What an excellent and relevant question. Let me answer it with another set of related questions. If all lions are cats but not all cats are lions, then how long will a manned mission to Mars take?

No-one forced the mother to be a surrogate. She chose to do a wonderful thing for someone else.

No-one forced the mother to be a surrogate. She chose to do a risky thing for money.

Fixed it.

They say they were texting her and in contact every single day of her pregnancy, perhaps she wants to keep her privacy?

For the gazillionth time no one said she needed to be named- acknowledging the debt they owe her as a woman (and not just a generic "those who helped) is the point here.

Kyra Banks did this gracefully and humbly whilst protecting the surrogate mother's privacy.

It is homophobic to assess that someone would be an unfit parent because they are homosexual, I haven’t seen any evidence of that discussion on this thread.

It is not homophobic to discuss the implications that gay men using a surrogate could potentially erase women from their ‘live-giving role’ in humanity. Men can’t birth babies, I fail to see how that is homophobic to point that out.

@GMale
"Loving homes" unfortunately don't cut it. If only it was that simple.
The child abuse comes from knowingly and intentionally inflicting the trauma of separation from biological parents onto a defenceless child.
If people better understood just how life-changing this trauma is on the child, they may think differently.
The effects on the child are essentially the same as those who have suffered traditionally defined forms of abuse.

It is incomparable to abortion in countless ways, and I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make. Could you clarify please?

Nobody forced the mother to be a surrogate.
Everybody involved quite literally forced the child to undergo trauma for the mutual benefit of numerous adults involved.
The medical staff and surrogate all profited financially from this baby's lifelong trauma.
The father's gained a child at the expense of it's best interests.

The whole situation is evil beyond words.

MargaretCavendish

Broadbeans.

I'm just reflecting on whether 'abandoning' a baby (as some have called it) is worse than entirely removing its chance at existence in the situation that both acts are undertaken for the benefit of the mother.

And I don't mean to avoid severe health complications, more situations like "I can't have a baby at this point in my career" (incidentally why my wife was given up for adoption by her birth mother).

I don’t understand why “It’s morally reprehensible to pay another human being for the use of their body” seems to be such a controversial stance to some posters here.

I also don’t understand why “It’s exploitative and misogynistic to pay poor women for the use of their wombs as if they are nothing more than livestock or incubators” is homophobic.

I mean, it seems pretty straight forward to me that commercial surrogacy is exploitative, misogynistic and morally reprehensible.

It's amazing how many aspects of women's rights are shouted down as 'xxphobic' when their erosion benefits men.

Lass, it's only dehumanising if you don't know the original use or don't think of the surrogate as being an equal participant in the process.
I still think that it's the closest phrase to describing what her role was. She hasn't embarked upon pg with the intention of loving and rearing a child. The child only exists because the fathers wanted it. She has rented out her womb for money and that's the long and short of it really. Now it is a big thing to do, it comes with risk and her contribution to helping them have a family means they owe her their gratitude, their public acknowledgement and not just their money. It is rage inducing when men (especially) and rich people either have no idea (or care) about what pg can entail, take the surrogates involvement for granted and treat it as no more than any other commercial transaction. I vehemently disagree with Brits going abroad to deliberately circumvent laws which protect the surrogate from exploitation and where they do treat it as if they were buying a car! Acknowledging her role is the least they can do, even if they are thinking of it in transactional terms, because without her they'd have no baby.
But do I think the surrogate is in any way a mother? If it's not biologically her baby, then no. And I think that we can't assume she a victim - she used her own body as she saw fit. You don't get rich women doing it except for a loved one because they have money already. Money is a motivator, no denying it. Which is why is should only be done in countries where people don't have to choose it to feed their kids or pay for medicine and where all concerned are properly counselled.

Look up the outcomes in life for adult adoptees. The figures are absolutely horrendous.

Oh for the love of Gawd.

Children who are adopted have worse outcomes across a number of measures because:

Many were harmed by alcohol/illegal substances while in the womb
Many were abused or neglected
Most spent time in the care system which is very destabilizing for children
Their genetic parents are far more likely to be "problematic" people (flakey/addictive/irresponsible/impulsive/tendency to get into terrible relationships and make poor decisions in life/etc.) than the genetic parents of the average member of the population--and that's just talking about personality traits. Large numbers of people who have children removed from them by social services have things like borderline personality disorder, intellectual disabilities, mental illnesses that are difficult to treat/manage and other phenomena. Kids don't get removed unless there are some quite serious issues in the biological family these days.

If adoptive children turn out to have more issues on average (teen pregnancy, dropping out of school, difficulties in educational attainment, higher rates of criminal or otherwise "difficult" behavior), don't fall over in surprise.

And don't start blaming it on some ridiculous "primal wound" crap about how it all stems from the moment they were removed from their biological mother etc. etc. or "it's caused because they were traumatized by being raised by people with different genes/physical features from them!" Bollocks.

Looking at adoptive children tells you nothing about the long-term outcomes for children born through gestational surrogacy.

To learn about the long-term outcomes for children born through gestational surrogacy you need to look at, well, children born through gestational surrogacy.

The data is still a little bit limited because gestational surrogacy is new and rare. As the data trickles in, however, it appears that GS surrogacy kids do fine. They seem to be turning out about the same as the children of any other stable middle-class couple (this being the demographics of most couples who manage to make surrogacy work), and their outcomes are looking nothing like the challenging and trouble outcomes that are sadly common among adopted children.

academic.oup.com/humupd/article/22/2/260/2457841

www.researchgate.net/publication/258823021_Children_of_surrogate_mothers_Psychological_well-being_family_relationships_and_experiences_of_surrogacy

psych.cf.ac.uk/home2/shelton/IJBD_2009.pdf

There is a lack of "gay men" couples in the data--however, given that adopted children of gay men seem to turn out about the same as adopted children of straight couples, I would be surprised if there were any major differences.

I do not deny that there are very some significant ethical concerns about surrogacy--on balance, I am against commercial surrogacy (although I could be persuaded if I heard good enough arguments and data), and think that surrogacy is probably best left to altruistic arrangements where surrogates get expenses-only. But the children born through these arrangements will almost certainly turn out fine.

Some of the comments here have had me thinking "With feminists like these, who needs misogynists?" I am thinking of the comments which seem to think that children will be traumatized by being cared for by anyone except a biological mother, or that not giving a child breastmilk is some sort of abusive act.

GMale I'm adopted, it could be argued that this is a better outcome than my mother having a termination however if she had then I wouldn't exist to know about it.

As it stands I do exist and live with the consequences of not being part of my bio family. The ideal situation would have been for me to stay with my birth family.

Unfortunately I was adopted in an era where the general advice was not to be open about the situation and keep everything hushed up. So although I was told at a young age I was adopted it was never referred to beyond that and I was never allowed information.

Things have changed significantly now and adopters are encouraged to be honest and provide a child with all the information about who they are.

I agree with Broadbeans that there is a theme that adopted or surrogate children should just be eternally grateful for the situations they are born into and not criticise the actions of the adults involved (especially if those adults were well meaning.)

I haven't read the whole thread but 'gift of a baby'???

Fucking hell, imagine if you were that baby 'gifted' by your mother. Child abuse.

But many gay couples don't want to 'share' if that makes sense; I don't know many people at all who would be willing to co-parent a child with someone that they have no romantic connection with.
However you have children, if you are not in a romantic relationship with the biological parent(s), it's hard. You have to deal with them. Your child needs to know about them and will probably want to meet them.
If your ex buggered off or is abusive, if you adopted, or if you are a gay or lesbian couple who used a donor and/or a surrogate, you can't pretend the biological parent(s) don't exist.

And don't start blaming it on some ridiculous "primal wound" crap about how it all stems from the moment they were removed from their biological mother etc. etc. or "it's caused because they were traumatized by being raised by people with different genes/physical features from them!" Bollocks.

Glad my experiences are ridiculous to you. Do fuck off.

@GMale you're not my husband posting at work are you

An interesting discussion point I guess, abortion would produce less trauma sure.
It feels like the equivalent of discussing whether it's worse to abuse or murder a baby though.
To me, both are pretty reprehensible solutions (minus, as a caveat, a very small and specific set of circumstances).

it's only dehumanising if you don't know the original use

No, it is dehumanising even without that knowledge. It just requires a bit of thought.

or don't think of the surrogate as being an equal participant in the process

Oh that's funny- the fact "gestational carrier" is considered an acceptable term for "woman" kind of indicates that is exactly how she is being thought of.

I didn't read the rest of your post. I'm not wasting any more time on your apologia for this.

I agree with Broadbeans that there is a theme that adopted or surrogate children should just be eternally grateful for the situations they are born into and not criticise the actions of the adults involved (especially if those adults were well meaning.)
Yy. I will personally hunt down and pin to the wall anyone who tells my children they are "lucky".