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

You shouldn't assume. Could have been an egg donor

And? A donated egg doesn't grow itself. Still needs a mother to grow it with every part of her body, risk her health and life, give birth to it. Then the potential for post natal complications.

How patronising of you to dictate how this woman should be allowed to use her body. I think if I was younger I could happily act as a surrogate and would be proud to do so. She may well not want to be mentioned in public and we have no idea how they all interacted in private and quite frankly it's none of our business.

@floorplan - not sure if your comment was directed at me as user name is wrong but sounds it?
But I didn’t say ‘give the couple a child’. I said give the couple the ‘opportunity’.....

If the mother did not want to have a child then you are not taking the baby away?

Honestly, who are we to judge or speculate when we know nothing about this situation.

There are many many types of surrogacy. Of course some are wrong and illegal and completely take advantage but others are loving and legal and an amazing thing to do for people who are desperate for children but unable to produce themselves.

The baby was both deprived of its mother and abandoned by its mother. That this happened was planned. I consider that to be child abuse.

So you feel the same when a woman gives up her baby for adoption?

That was meant to be “do” not “so”

Still needs a mother to grow it with every part of her body, risk her health and life, give birth to it. Then the potential for post natal complications

Do you think this surrogate is so thick she doesn't understand all of that? People do more risky things than pregnancy (if she's a surrogate it's likely this isn't her first pregnancy and she's probably low risk). Why do you think you know better how she should use her body than she does?

It's perfectly possible to maintain anonymity and say

'The mother of our child is recovering well and we would like to offer our heartfelt thanks for carrying our baby for nine months and taking all the health risks involved. We are respecting her privacy but we are so grateful'.

How hard is that? Took me 90 seconds to type.

Frankly, their entitlement makes me sick.

A simple "thank you to the wonderful woman who carried this child" would have been something.

As for anonymity if this baby was born in the UK the name of the woman who gave birth has to be on the birth certificate. So far as the father's name presumably the usual rule for a mother not married to the baby's father applies? Namely his name is listed only with her agreement?

A simple "thank you to the wonderful woman who carried this child" would have been something.

Why do you get to dictate how this woman is publicly recognised. If I were her I'd much rather have less attention drawn to myself and if I was to be thanked I'd like it to be in private.

No, I don't think the surrogate is thick. I don't think page three models and prostitutes are thick either, or teenage girls who send pouty selfies. It's called class exploitation. All choices are made in a context. Class exploitation is the context.

Some of you are just determined to be offended. I would not want to be spoken about in public if I was the surrogate. I would not consider a public thank you to be genuine in the slightest. If you want to thank me do it privately not via a newspaper. Stop dictating how other people interact. You have no idea what this woman wants.

You take an incredibly patronising attitude to this woman. She should be banned formatting as a surrogate for her own protection. Ridiculous.

This wasn't altruistic surrogacy, with somebody giving them a baby out of the goodness of her heart. This was commercial surrogacy, they paid a woman in the US to do this, having given interviews bemoaning the fact that UK surrogacy laws are too strict. And there are many concerns in the US about low income women being exploited in this way.

They also state they have no intention of finding out which of them is the father which flies in the face of advice from organisations working in this area about the best interests of the children.

Yes, it is the absence of the mother in all the newspaper coverage, like the adopting parent had the baby themselves. Because that is how surrogacy works, isn’t it? A woman has the baby and the couple then adopt? So the headlines that X couple had a baby are just wrong!
Nothing to do with same sex couples, just more erasing of women and their biological functions. Pregnancy is uncomfortable and can be dangerous, it changes your body - but hey, X couple had the baby.

Yep, irks me too.

or is this story really a problem for some people because it’s for a same sex couple?

Nope, don't remotely care about whether it's a same-sex couple or not. Commercial surrogacy is morally abhorrent no matter who's renting the womb.

Why do you get to dictate how this woman is publicly recognised. If I were her I'd much rather have less attention drawn to myself and if I was to be thanked I'd like it to be in private

You are missing the point quite spectacularly.

"offended"? I'm not "offended"!

I just don't like the exploitation of women's bodies.

Agree commercial surrogacy is completely unethical. Capitalism is voracious, it has sold people as slaves without qualms. It has to be regulated.

Its so sad to take a baby from its mother like that. How brutal.

It's so offensive to women and mothers the way these 2 men are carrying on too. Renting a womb like that and buying a baby.

The reason why the baby is American is because it is legal to rent women and buy designer babies there. It isn't legal here. For a good reason.

Why no one is mentioning that they are getting around UK law bothers me. Is that going to be Stonewalls next target? Paid surrogacy in the UK?

Not naming the woman = fine.

Pretending like there was no woman involved and the baby was dropped by a stork = not fine.

Really not that hard to see the distinction.

Pitter my comment was in response to another poster appearing to dismiss the idea that this woman is the mother because an egg donor may have been used. Reducing the role of the mother in the process of reproduction to that of gamete supplier massively underplays the enormity of carrying and birthing a baby and all of the involved risks. And no, I don't think a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body. I don't think we should be allowed to sell our organs either, do you?

They did say thank you: “Welcome to the world little Robbie Ray. Thank you for bringing so much love and light with you. And thank you to those who helped make our dream of having a family into this wonderful reality.”

You know nothing about what the woman wants and it’s nothing to do with you.

Paying to use another persons body...is that ever ok?

I'd like to repeat SoupDragon's question. For those crying child abuse, what do you think of adoptions where the child is given up at birth?

FWIW I have a lot of concerns about surrogacy, and I don't like the fact that they've not mentioned the surrogate. But this hysteria seems to me to be taking away the surrogate's agency, not supporting her.

'Hysteria'? Really?