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

It bothers me that any talk of the special nature of women's reproductive biology, any celebration of it is framed as mean and likely to make people feel bad, i.e:

It is homophobic because men can't carry and give birth.

It is sexist because some women choose not to become mothers.

It is insensitive because some women are unable to conceive or carry.

It is antifeminist because abortions and birth control are key to women's liberation.

It is cruel towards children because not all children are raised by their birth mother and may make them feel freakish.

It is cruel towards adoptive mothers because it is saying that they aren't 'real' mothers.

Etc
Etc
Etc
Etc

Well the truth is that:

1. women and only women can gestate and bear children.

2. the relationship between natal mother and child is the most profound bond among human relationships.

3. a child being raised by someone other than their birth mother is not ideal.

Sorry if that is upsetting for anyone, but it is true.

How can I be using blackmail and minimising if I agree with you about surrogacy?! My post was specifically pointing out that many people on the thread have suggested that gay men have the same opportunities and chances to have children as other couples. I said that this is not the case. How is that emotional blackmail and minimising the effects of surrogacy when I have already said that it's wrong?

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.

IWanna, pregnancy is not a 'job' and the male and female reproductive roles are not comparable. Fatherhood, as a biological phenomenon and to a large extent socially in highly patriarchal societies, is about DNA primarily. Motherhood never has been, in either the human or non-human animal worlds. It is scientifically and historically illiterate as well as grotesquely misogynistic to claim otherwise. The same kind of misogyny I suppose that prompted you to write this:

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

Describing pregnant women as 'carriers'. Once again we are back at the female-body-as-inanimate-object, woman-as-soil myth. This belief goes deep, right back to the start of Western civilisation, and is founded on the most profound disrespect for female biology. A disrespect that is and always has been a REVERSAL, since it is males who are largely expendable in the continuation of the species. If almost all men dropped dead tomorrow, the world could easily be repopulated. No one would miss their (in your eyes) all-important DNA. If almost all women dropped dead, it would be the end of the human race. Men invented the belief that women were nothing but 'soil' and 'carriers' to cover up their insecurity about their own insignificance to the reproduction of the species.

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.

Your belief that a woman will not form an emotional bond with her fetus unless she knows that her gamete was involved is bizarre. And it flies in the face of mammalian biology as well as sociology. Mammalian pregnancy and birth (not knowledge of gametes!) has evolved over millions of years to bond the mother to her offspring. That's why the birthing mother produces so many powerful hormones, as well as the only food her offspring can consume. OTOH, knowing that they have supplied the gametes for a child has never bonded fathers to their children. Fewer than 10 per cent of male mammals have anything to do with their offspring. Fatherhood is a social and cultural institution, not a biological one, precisely because gamete supply on the part of the male requires no emotional or physical commitment.

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!

This is not true. There is no requirement to have kids already. I don’t even think it’s considered desirable.

This is not true. There is no requirement to have kids already. I don’t even think it’s considered desirable.
It took me a very long time to adopt after accepting I wouldn't have my own(after two stillborns). Multiple people through the process told us that they normally looked for people that had children already so that they would know what it's like. I finally managed to adopt after a 3 year process but I was told this many times. There isn't a requirement per se but people who already have children are favoured by many.

When was that Taco (approx)?

I’ve heard recently they prefer no other DC (in recognition of the trauma most AC have).

I certainly only have AC and next to no childcare experience.

(And 💐 for what you went through.)

If you are going to hark back to what people historically believed, I would imagine that the view of women as soil in which the seed grew, came from lack of knowledge about the existence of the egg and it's contribution to the resulting child.

I used 'job' to mean role - I think you are being unnecessarily nit picky there.

It's also wrong imo to negate the importance of fathers. Mine is loved as much as my mother, despite his meagre contribution to the whole process! And the fact is we do need both men and women in order to make babies. Having significantly fewer men would just narrow the gene pool and is a daft argument to make as justification for why mothers/women are more important.

The fact is that many surrogates prefer not to use their own eggs. Couples who cannot have a child by themselves, prefer to use their own eggs/sperm if possible. If it was all about the pg and not the genetic link, no one would give a shit.

Not everyone is the same - there are women who donate eggs and do not view the resulting children as in any way theirs and women who act as surrogates and also view the baby as entirely the child of the couple they are helping.
Other women do bond during pg, but I expect these are not the ones who become surrogates (in properly regulated countries).
In the end, I am uncomfortable about women telling other women what they are and are not allowed to do with their own bodies and what they should feel about pg.

I don't know why some men feel that biology doesn't bond them to their children. Some men are shit - I can't speak for what they think. I only know that it hasn't been the experience amongst my friends or family.

Once upon a time if you already had DC no-one would consider you as a prospective adopter (perhaps unless the DC were grown up)

Then things shifted such that it wasn't an automatic bar, but there are still various rules and policies, such as at least a two year age gap between the youngest birth child and the adopted child (and preferably more). And a commitment not to have any more birth children.

When we adopted 8 years ago, we were very unusual to have a birth child already, but it has become more common - perhaps as the age of first time mothers has crept up, those of us unable to have a second birth child has also increased?

Anyway, I don't know of a single agency who would require prospective adopters to have birth DC already, and there are still plenty who will refuse to consider you because frankly it makes it much, much harder to place DC (particularly sibling groups, who tend to wait the longest in the care system before being adopted, along with DC with complex health problems). What they are all clear on, however, is that you must have hands on experience of looking after DC, whether that's as a teacher, girl guide leader, actively involved aunt or similar.

2) the relationship between natal mother and child is the most profound bond among human relationships.

Yes, Where, and it is very disturbing and anti-human that Western societies seem to be trending towards making this fact unspeakable.

I understand why some women are leery of talking about 'the special nature of women's reproductive biology', given how men have coerced us into pregnancy and motherhood and shut us out of other roles throughout history. And of course there are many women who either can't have or don't want to have children. But the problem with pretending that female reproductive biology is of little significance to our lives, that woman are just 'people' who happen to have slightly different body parts to men, is threefold:

1. It alienates women from our bodies, which are the only way we have to experience the world.

2. On a related note, it alienates everyone from our existence as biological entities and promotes the lie that humans are somehow, uniquely, outside of nature.

3. Men are never going to regard female reproductive biology as unimportant. They create myths that say that it is, but as I mentioned above, this is a reversal. Women might wish to forget that we are female animals, but men never will. They are never going to forget that we can do this very important thing that they can't.

So women need to be cognisant of the significance and uniqueness of our reproductive role, and to think and organise accordingly. I'm not talking about some kind of deification of motherhood or mother-goddess worship, although I also think awe and pride at what our bodies can do are fine . But mostly I think we need conscious thought and awareness.

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

God yes.

RedToothbrush do you have a fan club I can join?

A fourth and disturbing problem that I forgot to mention above is that woman have always been the gatekeepers to children, and children are less safe whenever maternal bonds are severed.

We can see this directly with the surrogacy industry, as there have been documented cases of male pedophiles 'commissioning' children of their preferred sex to rape. God knows how many of these men are right now accessing surrogacy services. Previously, to get access to children, especially very young children, pedophiles usually needed to get themselves into a position of authority, or to form a relationship with a woman and get the child out of her care long enough to carry out the abuse. Now any pedophile with enough money can 'commission' a child who then legally belongs to him - the child is brought into existence solely to be raped, and for the production of child pornography.

www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-19/victorian-man-jailed-for-sexually-abusing-surrogate-twins/7428720

woman have always been the gatekeepers to children, and children are less safe whenever maternal bonds are severed

Yes. Throughout history, probably right up to the post war settlement, children sans a mother's protection were always commodities for sex or labour.

I think there are many women who realise the special connection between mother and baby which is why they choose not to have children. Those who choose not to have children understand the commitment. And they also know that many men simply are not trustworthy enough to make that commitment. I remember talking to my sil regarding her two gorgeous boys. She told me that although she loved them and would do anything for them, and she is a brilliant mother, she hated being a mum and felt forced into motherhood. Had she had the choice, she would never have gone there.

Happy to put straight about this, but can't help saying how this occurs to me: I don't like commercial surrogacy (and US adoption which is pretty commercialised and is continually promoted by pro-lifers as the alternative to abortion), but I'm a bit about the idea that all commercial surrogacy is exploitation. There are women who do it because a) they enjoy pregnancy and have completed their families and b) they aren't poor, but it suits them as a way of raising a lump sum it would be more difficult to raise by other means and c) they get something out of making the parents happy. There are sex workers who are completely bemused by the idea they're exploited, even though many are. Anyone who is an employee sells their bodies in a way. Tom Daley made his money from his body. Why do we draw the line at sex work and surrogacy? Is that maybe a bit Victorian?
And the idea there is something mystical about being a birth mother - would we be saying that to a father who had to take on the primary carer role as his DP had died in childbirth? Or to adoptive parents?

Allthatmalarkey. My thoughts exactly, it seems the view is that it doesn't matter if the surrogate feels exploited or not. Other people just assume she is or assume she should feel she is. It's her body, it's her choice.
If she is being exploited then it's wrong, if it's a free choice then good for her.

Also, as someone who had children very easily, I don't like saying to someone who can't, suck it up buttercup - tough shit if you are gay. Which this thread seems to be doing.

they aren't poor, but it suits them as a way of raising a lump sum it would be more difficult to raise by other means

I know, I'll use my body and risk my health and potentially my life to buy some Christmas presents or a new car. Without any thought as to how this might affect my other children.

My other children who have god knows what feelings about the brother or sister who is being given away by their mother.

Yes, this is perfectly normal and just like any other career...

It's amazing how people will try to normalise the sale of a baby as just a commercial transaction just like buying a packet of crisps.

And the idea there is something mystical about being a birth mother - would we be saying that to a father who had to take on the primary carer role as his DP had died in childbirth? Or to adoptive parents?

I'm both a birth parent and an adoptive parent. Yes, people have said words to the effect of the relationship being different with "your own child" to me, many times. And yes, of course the relationship is different - DD looks like me, but shares no genetic material with me, has no shared medical history with me, and she has a large bio family who continue to exist and with whom she has a relationship.

Your point is...?

It's her body, it's her choice.

And when does the baby get the choice. They are human too and are not consenting in this act.

Yes some prostitutes are happy, some people donate organs happily, some women surrogate happily - but the industries as a whole are immoral and exploitative - the experiance of a few does not negate the experiance of the many.

And when does the baby get the choice.

When does a baby ever get a choice?

There is no ethical human trafficking whether you do it for love, or pity, or money.
Selling yourself into slavery does not make slavery ethical.

That depends on your definition of human trafficking and slavery. I don't see this case as either, but I see why others feel the way they do.

That depends on your definition of human trafficking and slavery

There's a definition different to one which involves the sale of a human?

I'm sorry but if you are selling one person to another for money, there is no ambiguity or grey area. Just santitised language to make the sale of humans more palatable to polite society.

When does a baby ever get a choice?

Most children do not have to make a choice, as there are never up for sale.