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

I don't see the issue.
Don't want to see, or because you aren't looking hard enough?

From what I gathered, she was very close to them throughout the pregnancy but didn't want her name in the press.
From the PR I saw in the paper...

To answer the question of who is the mother of TD's baby, I think the closest thing he has to a mum is the egg donor.

The child has a mother. She is the woman who gestated and birthed him, not the woman who donated her gametes.

Do not make the mistake of reducing the female reproductive role to the male one (gamete supply). Although this of course is what the surrogacy industry is trying to do, which is why they typically split the female reproductive role between two women.

In her brilliant book on prostitution and surrogacy, Katja Ekis Ekman notes that in the early days of surrogacy, the pregnant women were referred to as 'surrogate mothers'. As the practice expanded, the word 'mother' was quietly dropped. It needed to be, in order to disconnect pregnancy and birth from motherhood for the commissioning parents' comfort.

BTW Ekman makes a good case against ALL surrogacy in her book. She argues that 'altruistic' surrogacy should also be banned because: a) it is so uncommon (almost no women want to do it) that its main function is to provide a cover for the establishment of commercial surrogacy; b) surrogacy is intrinsically unethical, regardless of whether money changes hands. There are some things you should not ask another human being to do: going through pregnancy and birth, and then handing over the resulting child with no right to contact with him or her, is one of those things; and c) altruistic surrogacy functionalises motherhood, making it into a service that a woman performs for others.

www.feministcurrent.com/2014/10/06/surrogacy-is-child-trafficking-an-interview-with-kajsa-ekis-ekman/

As I noted above, we've seen also how surrogacy degrades and erases the female reproductive role, reducing it to that of the male, so that people seriously believe that a woman who has gestated and birthed a child is not the 'biological mother' of that child or any kind of mother at all. Even though pregnancy is a biological process - indeed the most complex and involved biological process on earth, and as mammals we evolved to depend on the maternal body before and after birth. In this insane patriarchal schema, pregnancy and birth is irrelevant to motherhood - all that really 'counts' in the creation of a child is gamete supply. It's the Ancient Greeks' "woman-as-merely-the-soil-in-which-the-seed grows" all over again.

Long before men could do this, gay couples did have babies with lesbians. And some gay couples fostered kids. There are other ways of bringing up children without exploiting women and ignoring the needs of kids.
But why on earth would a gay man force himself to have sex with a woman he is not attracted to for the purpose of reproducing suggesting that gay men and lesbian women should just have sex with each other if they want a kid is a bit ridiculous. If a woman was unable to have children you wouldn't tell her husband to go knock up some other woman... because that would be surrogacy no? And apparently fostering/adoption is too traumatic for the child because they don't have access to their mother...

Look, I'm against surrogacy(except altruistic). But some people on here don't realise just how hard it is to gay couples to have children. It's the hardest for them because none of them can carry the baby, and they can't inseminate like lesbians can. And it's even harder for homosexual couples to adopt sometimes because the like couples to have raised children before, which obviously they can't do! I get that what is best for the child obviously has to come first. But some people on this thread act like gay couples have a plethora of options, just choose to use a surrogate for the fun of it because they love seeing women exploited.

You don't have to have sex. All you need is a wank and a turkey baster.

And yes gay male couples have few options. That is biology. Not a reason to exploit women and buy her baby.

Donkey giving birth to a baby, using another woman's egg isn't a natural thing. Historically it was impossible to say which part defined 'mother', the egg or the pg, since women did both and there were no variations to that. I agree that in surrogacy egg donation is used to separate the woman carrying the pg from forming emotional attachment to the child, since genetically it isn't hers. The exception is when couples use their own genetic embryo but the woman cannot carry the pg herself.
I don't see the carrier as the mother. I just dont. DNA is important. Passing on genes is at the core of why everything on the planet reproduces. Yes, the woman who is carrying the pg is using her body to grow and sustain life - it couldn't happen without her. Women are more important than men when it comes to making babies, since women have 2 jobs and they only have 1. But 'mother' to me is about DNA primarily.
Or in the case of a woman using a donated egg in order to have a baby for herself, 'mother' is about the intention to love and nurture that child for its whole life.
A surrogate using a donated egg has none of that.

You don't have to have sex. All you need is a wank and a turkey baster.
But then I'm assuming they would co-parent between the four of them including their partners? I don't think there's a lot of gay people that would be happy to parent their child with two others in which they have no romantic connection with. All I'm saying is that there aren't a lot of options, with people now saying that being brought up without a mother is child abuse, which rules out adoption. And gay people are just expected to take co parenting with a lesbian over having a family of their own.

TacoLover People have and do do it. And yes of course there are less options if you are a gay male couple. Tough. That is reality.

But some people on this thread act like gay couples have a plethora of options, just choose to use a surrogate for the fun of it because they love seeing women exploited.

Exploiting women, is not justifible simply because you have no other option.

EVER.

The emotional blackmail of 'but they are gay and don't have other options' does not trump the rights of the child nor the vulnerability of a woman who is not as priviledged as the rich gay couple.

Don't hide behind it. Its not progressive. Its bullshit.

Having children is not something that is open to everyone, and the idea that you should be entitled to having one is part of the problem.

It comes from people who are used to getting everything else in life, because they can afford it.

Children are not part of that. Otherwise they are exactly what others have said on this thread; commodities for consumers or worse - slaves to their parents' emotional desires.

"I want, doesn't get" is the phrase aimed at spoiled children I believe.

Sometimes, just sometimes, life sucks.

The regulations in this country exist for a reason, not just to be an inconvience nor are they somehow 'homophobic'.

I had a gay friend who, despite being an atheist lefty, felt that gay men should just suck it up and do it the old fashioned way if they wanted a baby. His reasoning was that you shouldn’t get to dictate that nature bend to your will just because it doesn’t suit you.

He did in fact have a child with a woman, with whom he lived with, with his partner and the three of them co-parented the child. It was a very specific set of relationships dynamics that would not be available to everyone but his example shows that it is possible at least, for gay men to have a biological child without using a woman as a bio-incubator and without denying the child a mother.

Why does the fact that options are limited for gay couples make it okay for women to be exploited? Sometimes we can't get everything we want especially when that comes at a cost to other people and that is just life sadly. It isn't the job of women to be put at risk in order to make up for the fact that two men can't procreate. There seems to be the suggestion that buying the services of a surrogate is inevitable because well what else could they possibly do. Well plenty of gay men don't choose to rent women's bodies.

I never said they should do it and I'm not hiding behind anything I've already said that I'm against surrogacy. I was just saying that the attitudes of some people on this thread have suggested that gay people have the same opportunities as everyone else to have children, and they don't at all. That's all I was pointing out.

I don't see the carrier as the mother. I just dont.

I wonder how the child feels?

To me, the fact my mother carried me in her womb, gave birth to me and gave me life is the key part that makes her my mother - it's the bit that gives me a more profound connection to her than my dad, even though I have inherited more of my dad's mannerisms and interests. My dad is just a dad- contributor of gametes and enthusiastic parent. A mother is something else entirely.

I don't think there's a lot of gay people that would be happy to parent their child with two others in which they have no romantic connection with.

Why does them “being happy” trump a child’s right to be parented by both of its biological parents wherever possible?

I think the term “tough shit” applies here. Yes, nobody choses to be gay and therefore they don’t chose to be relationally infertile but that consequence is not of women’s making and it is not women’s responsibility to fix it. If gay men want children than they are going to have to make compromises that centre the child’s wellbeing, however “unfair” they seems. It’s about being an adult and accepting reality as it is, not as you wish it to be.

You know what, sometimes just admitting that not everyone has opportunity in life to do everything, and you know what thats just how it is. No one's fault. Not prejudice. Just an acceptance of the reality that life can suck.

We shouldn't try to justify the unjustifable - which you did by saying that some people on the thread don't recognise the lack of options gay men have.

And yes it was emotional blackmail by saying that others are not sympathetic to the lack of options gay men have.

As I say, should we be providing surrogacy on the NHS for gay men because not all gay men are rich enough to buy a baby?

Where is all the sympathy for women who can't have children because they live in an area where IVF isn't provided by the NHS?

When its women, fertility treatment is described as a life style choice. When its gay men, it gets framed as a 'right'.

The ethics over this should NEVER be minimised. There are always at least three parties involved in this situation. I saw you talk about the lack of options for gay men. I didn't see you talk about the lack of options for women who do commercial surrogacy. I didn't see you talking about the lack of options over who the child sees as their parents. Thats all decided by the ones who pay.

surrogacy degrades and erases the female reproductive role, reducing it to that of the male, so that people seriously believe that a woman who has gestated and birthed a child is not the 'biological mother' of that child or any kind of mother at all. Even though pregnancy is a biological process - indeed the most complex and involved biological process on earth, and as mammals we evolved to depend on the maternal body before and after birth. In this insane patriarchal schema, pregnancy and birth is irrelevant to motherhood - all that really 'counts' in the creation of a child is gamete supply. It's the Ancient Greeks' "woman-as-merely-the-soil-in-which-the-seed grows" all over again.

Fantastically clear and insightful.

If a woman uses donor eggs to conceive, then why is she her child's mother and this woman isn't this baby's mother? Of course she is. One thing is for sure - we are all born of women, all of us, no matter who we're parented by. Erasing Robbie's mother as an inconvenient truth is horrific.

Given that self-insemination is perfectly possible, I suppose altruistic surrogacy without official involvement would be possible and if you were then allowed to adopt your sisters/friends baby by mutual agreement after birth.............Although would require I assume normal checks around adoption. But I guess what I really disagree with (which goes along with the 'payment' even just expenses) is the agreement before birth that a child will be handed over. It turns it from a mutually-agreed trust-based arrangement between relatives/friends to a legally-binding transaction. It turns the baby from a person to a commodity (and we have already seen what happens when that 'commodity' is seen as sub-standard and was rejected before hand-over.........).

"I don't see the carrier as the mother."
I know you were probably trying to be careful with language, but 'carrier' is a really bad choice of word, and doesn't really get across the actual enormous thing this woman is doing. What comes after the birth in terms of parenting is something that lots of people can do and want to do, but the progression from fertilized egg to baby, you only ever get one of those! Calling that woman just a 'carrier' indicates passivity and so many other negative things (like 'carriers' of disease?).

Just because gay men are male, I don't see why that gives them special dispensation to exploit womens biology. Unless you can convince a friend or relative to do the job out of love (and be prepared to deal with it if they don't want to give up the baby etc etc) -- you should not be able to 'buy' that kind of service, cos it isn't a service.

I think the term “tough shit” applies here.

Quite.

Harsh but true.

I never said they should do it and I'm not hiding behind anything. I've already said that I'm against surrogacy. I was just saying that the attitudes of some people on this thread have suggested that gay people have the same opportunities as everyone else to have children, and they don't at all. That's all I was pointing out.

Reposting this because it's obvious that people haven't read what I wrote properly. No, it's not emotional blackmail to point out that people have suggested that gay couples have the same opportunities for children when they clearly do not

No, I don't support surrogacy on the NHS because I have already said multiple times that I'm against surrogacy! I also didn't talk about the lack of options that women in commercialised surrogacy have because... you guessed it... I've already said that I'm against surrogacy and the lack of options has already been discussed in great length on this thread.

bangs head against wall

The ethics over this should NEVER be minimised. There are always at least three parties involved in this situation. I saw you talk about the lack of options for gay men. I didn't see you talk about the lack of options for women who do commercial surrogacy. I didn't see you talking about the lack of options over who the child sees as their parents. Thats all decided by the ones who pay.

Hear bloody hear.

Even if you are infertile, even if you are gay - buying children is immoral.

I used carrier to differentiate her from the woman who donated her eggs (who I would consider the mother out of the two).
I am not meaning to minimise her massive contribution - without her there would be no baby.
I think it's a fair point that at this stage, the baby would consider her to be his mother, if he was in a position to say.
I do also agree that in separating the egg part from the pg, by using donors, it does smack of men reducing women to spare parts for their convenience and I do agree that children should have the right to a clear definition of who their parents actually are and egg donation is muddying the waters.

@DonkeySkin

Thankyou for your post. I've ordered that book, it looks like a very interesting a worthy read.

I am against surrogacy but I couldn't see a reason why alteristic was wrong even though it doesn't sit right with me. Your post perfectly explained why all surrogacy is bad for women and society.

We are not just vessels to carry children, surrogacy reduces us to no more than that.

I'm sorry some people can't have kids, that must be really hard, but life fucking sucks sometimes and we don't all get what we want all the time.

Oh and mother by UK law is the woman who births you.

Reposting this because it's obvious that people haven't read what I wrote properly. No, it's not emotional blackmail to point out that people have suggested that gay couples have the same opportunities for children when they clearly do not

Oh I read it ok. I still think you are minimising and used blackmail.

You didn't read my reply about how women who can't have children are viewed in a different way, and how the choices of surrogates and children were not even in your post.

mother by UK law is the woman who births you

The law is insufficient if eggs and birth are two separate processes now.

The information in your dna is not unimportant from a health POV.

Yes it is right that who gives birth to you is legally your mother. But the striping of the DNA part of the process, when it must be documented by a company who facilitates your birth is also morally wrong to withhold. (See sperm donors).