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

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...

It's not lack of knowledge, but pure patriarchal politics! Let's start with Genesis as one example, where for woman/Eve (apart from being created from Adam's Rib, so Adam himself being the only and first true human) one punishment for her transgression was that she would have pains of childbirth. Indeed, childbirth in terms of Cain and Abel only came after expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

As regards women as earth, well from an ancient ignorance point of view, what women had to do with the whole process was obvious, but how they became pregnant perhaps not so?

The father being the one true parent, we have this documented in the set of plays the Oresteia from 458 BCE, where Orestes is being tried for killing his mother Clytemnestra (okay, she did have affairs whilst hubby Agamemnon was off swanning about at the Trojan wars for umpteen years, and murder him when he got home. But he had sacrificed their daughter...........). The 'one true parent' line is introduced to 'justify' Orestes killing his mother because she killed his father, and the father is then described as the one true parent (and she is just an incubator):

"Not the true parent is the woman's womb
That bears the child; she doth but nurse the seed
New-sown: the male is parent; she for him,
As stranger for a stranger, hoards the germ
Of life....."
[This defence speech by Apollo got him off BTW.]

I guess the 'germ of life' being the all-powerful sperm! 'Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good........' (sing along now folks!). Zeus himself after all gave birth to Athene from his thigh. Venus borne on/born from the waves, pretty in an enormous scallop shell according to Botticelli, but ancient greeks said she was born because Cronos threw his dad's severed testicles into the sea (that must have been a hell of a bad beach holiday!). Again, male sperm is the one 'vital spark', a suitable growth medium seemingly does the rest.

This isn't 'simple' ignorance, this is a sophisticated patriarchal attempt to 'usurp the mother goddess', to claim that the male is the one true parent, and woman is just a suitable pot plant, if used at all.

And who could have guessed that modern day surrogacy would continue if not revitalize this ancient notion! The purchaser seems to be the one true parent here.............

Donkey
promotes the lie that humans are somehow, uniquely, outside of nature.
This is key to so much.

RTB wow, you should be required reading

I don’t get the outrage over this. Everyone knows there was a woman involved. It’s not being denied and doesn’t need to be confirmed. It’s a fact. This woman made a choice. Let’s not paint her as a poor exploited woman - does anyone think a couple as well resourced as these two would turn to a desperate woman with the potential for increased health risks?

Is it selling a baby when it's going to its boligical father? Is it her baby if its not her egg?
I can respect why people disagree but it's not my view.

somedyke sperm (or rather semen) was visible, the egg was not. I suspect that had a fair bit to do with the notion that it was the male contribution which made babies.

I don't think the patriarchal notions of people living in 458 BC are relevant tbh. We now know what it takes to make a baby - men can't deny it. I think there is something in the point that some men would like to and erase the truth, which is why this process, if it is to happen at all, should be properly regulated.

Is it selling a baby when it's going to its boligical father?

Did money change hands?
Is it normal for money to change hands if a father gets custody?
Is it normal to employ a woman and buy an egg?

Yes it's selling a baby.

Donkey skin. That has to be the sickest, saddest thing I have ever read.

It does however demonstrate the dangers of men sidestepping the precautions and checks involved in adoption by obtaining children through surrogacy. Beyond appalling.

does anyone think a couple as well resourced as these two would turn to a desperate woman with the potential for increased health risks
Like buying a lame horse?

I think other successful and long lived past and current matriarchal cultures than ours are completely relevant. Iwanna Minoans from the past had a long lasting and matriarchal set up. Celts too. From a purely unscientific observations, I see much more respect and value placed on women's autonomy and mothering in many other non US/English countries..

Monetising and trying to control our fertility, maternity and their perceived entitlement to sex with a woman is the final death rattle of the increasingly impotent western male. And they know it, otherwise they wouldn't be pulling these tricks.

So it's only acceptable if it's normal?

Money changes hands for most things in life. Adoption isn't free, there are fees, is that wrong too?

Adoption isn't free, there are fees, is that wrong too?
Adoption in the UK is free.

It's not really selling a baby if I talk about it a certain way and use some cuddly language. It's almost something that everyone would do if they too had the money.

Jesus where does it end.

We have to consider the feelings of the gay men who have no other option but to buy a baby. Cos it'd be homophobic not to.

We have to accept it's the woman who initiated the surrogacy, and believe that money isn't a motivating factor and that the 'choice' is really Hobson's.

We have to discuss the linguistic definition of what's human trafficking and what's not, because if you are rich enough you can do the same thing in plain view and then do a nice fluff piece in the media about how unfair it is that ethics made it difficult.

We have to erase the concept of biology because one of the parents might get upset at reality. The child of course just gets told the reality of the biology that their parents can't handle, really doesn't matter after all.

We have to go with the bollocks that men have a right to children, whereas women only have children as a lifestyle choice.

We have to be blind to the rigorous process of adoption, but not blink at the total lack of safe guarding if you just buy a kid off BuildYourOwnBaby.com.

We have to listen to all manner of discussions about how the woman was just being kind and giving a wonderful gift, without asking too many questions about why someone would go to those physical extremes to do that.

But most of all we are not supposed to think about the siblings of surrogate children or the sense of self of the surrogate children.

The whole thing is about the suspension of thinking and asking questions you'd ask of normal relationships. It's all about turning a blind eye to a pile of things which otherwise you'd read as red flags which were hiding something.

This.is.not.ok

You can try and justify, defend or otherwise minimise this but no, it's not just something people selflessly do.

RTB
I’m joining your fan club too. That might be the best post I’ve ever read on MN.

Money changes hands for most things in life. Adoption isn't free, there are fees, is that wrong too?

Well a. No but you're wrong as Besmirching said and b. Potatoes aren't free, they cost money, does that make surrogacy ok?

Redtoothbrush. You don't have to accept anything, nobody is asking you to be a surrogate, if they did it would be your choice to say no.
Just like you don't get to decide what other woman can and can't do with their bodies.

"I don't think the patriarchal notions of people living in 458 BC are relevant tbh..."
I find it scary how long-standing these ideas are, which makes it totally relevant for me.

"Just like you don't get to decide what other woman can and can't do with their bodies."
Babies aren't bodies and aren't possessions either. It wasn't the pregnancy per se that was the problem, it was what she did with the product of that pregnancy.

But nice try with the personal autonomy argument! Except it reduces to 'my body, hence my babies, hence I'll sell them to who I like......', or the pro-prostitution argument for surrogacy, in effect.............

Society does get to decide what people can do with their bodies. We don't allow the sale of organs or of blood in the UK, when you could similarly say that people ought to be allowed to do that with their bodies if they choose.

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.

This is why it is obscene for women to sell their babies (incl not her gametes). They have no guarantee about the fate of these innocents that they happily sell to the kind of people who think farming/buying babies is acceptable.

Is she in any way morally culpable if she unwittingly sells them into sexual slavery, for example? How about other forms of abuse? Nice if it it pays for an extension on her house though.

People have bsbies all the time with no safeguarding. Adoptipn is different because those children have often already experienced trauma and need to be placed with parents who can offer the best care for their particular circumstances. Which is entirely different from a bsby being raised by one or both of its own genetic parents.

Somedyke. Not really, I don't see it as being her baby in the first place.

Commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK so we do say women can't do that with their bodies. I'm very uncomfortable that this couple are able to circumvent the law because they can pay.

Of course it's her baby. She's made it out of her own body. It wouldn't exist without her. It cannot be anyone else's baby, unless she relinquishes it for adoption or has it removed.

People have babies all the time with no safeguarding

The natural mother child bond is the safeguard in most circumstances. And 'women' have babies, not 'people'.

Redtoothbrush. You don't have to accept anything, nobody is asking you to be a surrogate, if they did it would be your choice to say no.
Just like you don't get to decide what other woman can and can't do with their bodies.

I'm going to repost this just for you:

have to say that we seem to be living increasingly in a world where denial of reality is more and more acceptable. Saying that black is white and getting people to repeat this is a sign of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism goes hand in hand with blindness to ethics.

Anyone saying this is 'none of our business' is complicit with it and sees some humans as having a lesser value to society than others.

And the minute you start to do that, and start down the road of saying that humans have a value, and don't have an issue in the buying and selling of humans in any capacity it's not far to go to saying, that if a human has no value or they are costing society, we'd be better just 'improving our balance sheet' or 'writing off our unusable stock'.

If you this is hyperbolic, you need to wake up to the direction in which wheels are turning.

Historically science fiction has always carried elements which have been remarkably astute in predicting the future. We are going through an era of huge amounts of dystopian fiction rather than a more positive sci-fi based on building a uptopia society which had been more common. It's not simply a matter of trend or taste. Future fiction is a reflection of the time we live in and what we are capable of, and its power is in just how much be believe in that as reality. It's not just the obvious handmaid's tale either.

A celebrity buying a baby and normalising it, and having the defence to protect against criticism by going 'don't be homophobic' (where have we seen this dynamic before?) most definitely should be something we should be talking about and saying "Er no, that really bloody unethical and wrong", without question or cavet. Hiding behind being gay, as some kind of symbol of progressiveness is bollocks. It's just a smokescreen for quite the opposite.

The erosion of human rights.

Don't minimise or ignore this shit. Scream out what it is.

IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT WOMEN CHOOSE TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. THIS IS SELLING A BABY FOR THE ENTIRITY OF THEIR EXISTENCE!

Don't give me shit with twisted linguistics to disguise the practice of surrogacy being the sale of babies.

And yes since it's human rights, it bloody well should be everyone's damn business.

Dyke arguably the surrogate wouldn't see it as selling a baby. She is selling the use of her body for a temporary period of time (which is why I don't consider it comparable to selling organs btw, which entails permanent deprivation of said organ) . You might not agree that she should do this, but in the end it is her body. If her decision is freely made, that's her prerogative . She would likely see it as providing a baby to a loving couple who might otherwise not have a family and the money os to comprnsate her for her time, loss of earnings and the risks inherent to pg.
The most compelling argument I have seen here against surrogacy is the fact that the child has no clearly defined mother, no info about his/her genetic background or family and this may well be damaging to the child. I do agree that the child's interests should be paramount.

Lunatrap... Who is we in that scenario?

There are plenty of laws that a lot of people won't agree with. Prostitution, medical marijuana, gender recognition.

They have not broken the law, here or there.