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

Horrific

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?

I'm gobsmacked by this. It doesn't need to be picked apart does it? I mean it's obvious it's nonsense.

Also worth pointing out, how implanting multiple embryos is very common in these cases to maximise success of getting pregnant/ reduce cost of having a family for the consumer.

The result of that is also increased risks during the pregnancy for both the mother and babies.

It is such a callous view of the growing foetus who definitely sees her as it's mum with its every survival instinct.

It's not "callous" at all--it's a valid way of feeling about pregnancy.

Some women feel very bonded to the fetus in uteri.

Then there are people like me--I am someone who takes good care of my pregnancies but can't feel a "bond" or think of the fetus as being a real person until they come out and I start looking after the baby.

And there are other women who don't feel attachment during the newborn phase either--for them maternal love is something that develops slowly over the weeks and months, as they get over the shock of birth and new motherhood.

They are all "normal" ways to think about motherhood and all the above kinds of mothers are likely to be good and affectionate mothers in the long term.

Again, I am very worried about some of the attitudes towards motherhood on this thread--implying that women are hardhearted people who have got something wrong with them if they don't instantly "bond" with their fetus in uteri, or that mothers are the only proper caretakers for children, or that not giving a child breastmilk is some kind of infringement of their human rights.

For most of our history as a species, around 10% of all pregnancies which made it to the end resulted in a dead newborn, and then at least as many died during the newborn period. It makes sense that feelings of attachment are fragile and develop gradually for most women.

how implanting multiple embryos is very common in these cases to maximise success of getting pregnant/ reduce cost of having a family for the consumer.

That may be the case when commercial surrogacy takes place in some countries, like India, where there is not a lot of regulation going on--I don't know the details.

In the UK (where surrogacy is altruistic anyway), I believe that best practice these days is to put in only one blast at a time. The techniques in terms of selecting the best eggs and sperm are massively more sophisticated than they were even 15 years ago, so there is far less need to stick in a whole bunch of blasts and hope that one pans out. Putting in more than one blast can still happen, but it is now quite unusual.

Germany has excellent laws on the commodification of women's reproductive human rights and selling babies, US doesn't. This paper expounds some of the reasons why.
Weimar was a lesson for the former, slavery wasn't for the latter.
digitalwindow.vassar.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=senior_capstone

Again, I am very worried about some of the attitudes towards motherhood
What is it about women's human rights which worries you kokeshi?

Again, I am very worried about some of the attitudes towards motherhood on this thread--implying that women are hardhearted people who have got something wrong with them if they don't instantly "bond" with their fetus in uteri, or that mothers are the only proper caretakers for children, or that not giving a child breastmilk is some kind of infringement of their human rights.

Kokeshi123, no one here is criticising your feelings or choices regarding motherhood, which is what you seem to be defending here.

Bindel artlcle on Surrogacy Hostels. Husbands give permission for women's bodies to be 'rented'. Breast milk is sold. etc
www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/apr/01/outsourcing-pregnancy-india-surrogacy-clinics-julie-bindel

Again, I am very worried about some of the attitudes towards motherhood on this thread--implying that women are hardhearted people who have got something wrong with them if they don't instantly "bond" with their fetus in uteri, or that mothers are the only proper caretakers for children, or that not giving a child breastmilk is some kind of infringement of their human rights.

I don't think anybody is saying that. What they are saying is that the maternal-infant bond is incredibly important and that that bond exists pre-birth. Not all mothers may feel it (I certainly didn't feel any particular bond with my children when pregnant- nor did I feel the much vaunted 'rush' of love), but the infant certainly does. That's the key point. The infant is bonded with its mother from before birth. To conceive a child with the intention of breaching that bond at or very soon after birth is unfair to the child.

kokeshi

Feeling no concern or responsibility for your babies and selling them is not normal.

That is a very cold-hearted role to play. You are engaged in people trafficking of the most vulnerable. The ones you yourself brought to life.

This is very different from a lack of connection which often develops slowly over the first year in people who own responsiblity for their babies and keep them.

Not being given away by/taken from mother at birth is a better fate for a baby and separation is far from ideal. It should only happen when it is in the best interests of the baby, not the adults.

The fear of upsetting adoptive parents or people who have sold or bought their babies is not reason to silence discussion about this complex human rights issue in depth.

I suppose there is a difficulty (or an opportunity?!) for some people when considering pro-choice - a woman's body being her own.

I am almost gut-thinkingly pro-choice, yet... very late abortion of healthy child? No. And using your womb as a host purely for money and giving your child away to whoever? No.

Yet some (indeed men) are arguing that part of pro-choice involves being able to perform commercial baby farming.

Cor... that Never Let Me Go book is coming true... babies, kidneys, legs, arms, hearts...

You may feel you do not have natural maternal feeling and had to work at bonding with your baby - but you would probably feel differently if someone tried to take your baby away from you.

Mothers are chemically bonded to their children so that we protect them and make sacrifices for them. Yes the love in the human context comes later, but if you had to put yourself in danger to save your newborn your more than likely would. It's instinct. Giving away a baby goes against instinct.

The fear of upsetting adoptive parents or people who have sold or bought their babies is not reason to silence discussion about this complex human rights issue in depth.

Yy.

I’m reminded of the adoption trade in newborns in say the 1950s/1960s. Large numbers of girls and women shuttled off quietly into mother and baby homes, then pressured into giving up their babies to ‘deserving’ infertile middle-class couples. Sometimes outright forced, but more often coercively pressured by the society they lived in as much as anything. (After all if keeping your baby means your family disowning you, nowhere to live, poverty and stigma, that’s not much of a free choice.)

We know now that was horrific. We know it has caused lifelong damage to many of the mothers and many of the babies, right into adulthood. But it didn’t stop back then because the only way for infertile couples to adopt pre-fertility treatments was to have this supply of available babies/children.

Probably most of those adoptive parents were great and loving parents. The system that provided them with babies was still a horror show though. We can’t say: well infertility sucks, well the adoptive parents were loving, well the teenage girl who gave birth had agency over her body (did she?), so therefore nobody’s allowed to point out the horrific brutal system underneath this.

Not all mothers may feel it (I certainly didn't feel any particular bond with my children when pregnant- nor did I feel the much vaunted 'rush' of love), but the infant certainly does. That's the key point. The infant is bonded with its mother from before birth

Fetuses do experience "stuff" before birth (they can recognize their mother's voice, for example), but if there were any important or lasting bonds from the fetus to the mother, we would expect to see data coming back showing that children created through gestational surrogacy have higher rates of psychological issues.

They do not appear to.

(See links posted upthread)

So far, the statistical outcomes (things like rates of trauma, behavioral issues, school dropout rate, criminal behaviors, going off the rails as a teenager) of GS kids appear to be about the same as those from "regular" families of similar demographics, and do not at all resemble the complex issues and challenges which tend to be widespread among adopted children, which suggests that the higher rates of issues found among adopted children are caused by other things (issues in genetic bloodlines, abuse/neglect, alcohol and substance injury in utero) and not by disconnection from the birth mother per se.

Surrogacy is quite new and I suppose it's possible that these GS kids will suddenly start developing terrible psychological issues in their 20s or 30s or whatever, but frankly, if that was going to happen I would have expected to see some sign of this by now.

I suspect that as the data continues to show GS kids turning out just fine, most of the objections to altruistic surrogacy will fade away (just as opposition to things like gay parents adopting have gradually diminished as the data has come back showing that they turn out no different to those adopted by straight couples).

Commercial surrogacy is a different matter, but I think the issues are about women's bodily autonomy rather than potential psychological issues in the kids. The kids themselves will likely turn out just fine.

We can’t say: well infertility sucks, well the adoptive parents were loving, well the teenage girl who gave birth had agency over her body (did she?), so therefore nobody’s allowed to point out the horrific brutal system underneath this.

Yy

Surrogacy is quite new
Nope, it's a well established system of coercive control of women and ethnic minorities. In recent history see white european and US slave 'trade' and the Weimar Republic.

It's an old trick, in new clothes.

I agree, surrogacy isn’t new. However, IVF, which is, historically speaking, quite new, has created a whole new world of surrogacy possibilities.

true user . It leads us back to the plummet in western fertility rates and the ethical issues round commodified use of IVF and surrogacy.

Hearing and sight are the last things a foetus develops. Born too early, hearing and sight becomes problematic.

placemats

I'm not sure about sight but hearing is developed very early around 16 weeks gestation I think. I think sight continues to develop after birth.

which suggests that the higher rates of issues found among adopted children are caused by other things (issues in genetic bloodlines, abuse/neglect, alcohol and substance injury in utero) and not by disconnection from the birth mother per se.

That's a very detached view. Adoptees often suffer a gnawing sense of betrayal, abandonment, guilt, low self-worth, lack of resolution, etc, which colours their entire life - simply because they were 'given away' by their birth mother and they wish on some level they had not been. Obviously there will be exceptions.

In regards to the child's wellbeing, I think if both IP's gametes are used, and skin on skin bonding is established with the IP's straight after birth, its unlikely the child would face trauma due to being the product of suragocy. Its unlikely they would even know about it.

But in many cases such as with Tom Daley, the child is being denied both the biological and the birth mother - I think that would cause in alot of cases psychological problems for the child.

Dustin Lance Black is appalled at UK surrogacy laws and thinks it’s a shame how we are so progressive in others areas but lacking in this one.

It’s hard for him to raise a child here given the bad feeling but he thinks the UK would hate him more if he took Tom Daley from us. He’s doing us a favour by allowing us to keep our national hero 😂

He is obviously a child-hating, entitled misogynist wanker then.

Lance is quite fond of himself isn't he Has tom retired from diving ?