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

Wow some of the comments here are awful, I totally support sugary, when people are not able to have children. I personally am thinking about becoming one. There are various sugary situations, when friends or family have become surrogates for their loved ones unable to have children, or enabling a childless couple to become parents for the first time. I doubt they feel exploited!

And thank you to those who helped turn our dream of having a family into this wonderful reality from the news report tweet - is that not a thank you?

It encompasses the entire medical and technical team. No- not a thank you for the mother.

PitterPatterOfBigFeet, surely you can see the difference between naming the individual woman and acknowledging that there was a woman involved, that the baby didn't parachute in from the ether.

I think babies relinquished for adoption at birth is different. In those cases the mother got pregnant but didn't feel able to keep the baby for whatever reason, so they relinquish the baby to what they hope will be a better life.

With surrogacy the intention to relinquish is there before the baby is even conceived.

I can see both sides, the pain of infertility & longing to be a parent.
But also the deep sense of 'loss' my youngest feels (into care before she was 1) for the birth mother she doesn't know.

Aeroflotgirl altruistic surrogacy is legal in this country, shopping for women to rent in a brochure to buy a designer baby is not.

It encompasses the entire medical and technical team. No- not a thank you for the mother

How do you know that? you're reading something in to it that that you want to read? It doesnt say medical or technical it says 'those' - everyone is included

I am sure the public know how the baby was conceived, and tgat tge baby fairy did not just give them a baby🙄. You don't know the situation surrounding it, maybe the surrogate mother wanted to be private and not all over tge media.

EveningHare

wondermark.com/1k62/

This baby exists because the fathers wanted it and took steps to bring him into the world. The 'mother' chose to have the baby for them - it was never her intention to have a baby for herself. Therefore it is totally inappropriate to use emotive language about taking a baby from its' mother or equating it to child abuse. No one is harming this child - he will be raised in a loving family by parents who desperately wanted him.

Presumably the surrogate is UK based. It's not the same as going to India and exploiting some poor woman who may not have a real choice. Lots of surrogates derive genuine joy at what they do and we have strong legislation to protect from exploitation.

MaisyPops and when mothers try to shut out the fathers they have legal remedies. Even the most abusive men usually get some form of contact because it is considered to be in the best interests of the children to know their biological parents and where they come from. In this case it is possible that the US surrogate has no rights, as many states have prebirth orders that remove the right of surrogates to their baby.

We also know that it is important where possible for babies to be kept with their mothers and SS will bend over backwards to facilitate this bond. But in the case of surrogates the removal of babies from their mother is sanctioned, and celebrated.

We also know that it is considered important for children to know their parentage. But this baby will be born to a surrogate, via an egg donor, and not know which is his biological father.

I said this on the other thread but it is shocking how everything we know about what is best for babies and children can be just disregarded and ignored because it's 'surrogacy'.

Putting 'mother' in inverted commas is a bit weird. She went through pregnancy and gave birth to the child. She may not be its legal parent, but what is she if not a mother? 'The temporary service facility'?

The baby is American

@JohnnyFinland, I"ve thought about what that price might be too, and decided eventually that it'd be such a high figure that nobody would pay it.

What would your price be? and your rationale for arriving at the figure.

I agree IWanna. Sorry surrogacy, not sugary doh😬😬😬

When every single child in the world who doesn’t have a home has been adopted, come back to me and talk about surrogacy. It’s so disgustingly end game capitalism to pay a poor woman to have a baby for you because babies are cute so that’s nicer for YOU than adopting someone who is living in care. So if that poor woman had a baby and it somehow ended up in care, you wouldn’t want that one, because it hasn’t been expressly created with you in mind? So that baby can stay in a children’s home for the rest of its life, cos you want a shiny new one. Doesn’t sound like loving parents to me. Sounds like self obsessed wankers who see having a baby as a treat for their gigantic egos.

IWannaSeeHowItEnds, no, the surrogate is US-based. They have a very different system. This is why the couple chose to do this over there.

Seconding Floorplan. Removing an infant from its safe sensory world and plonking it into an entirely alien new one has the potential for profound damage, no matter how much the new parents love and care for that child. Worse, it's the kind of early pre-verbal damage that's so hard to 'get hold of' and articulate in later life. Having children is not a right, and babies and children aren't commodities to be exchanged between adults to fulfil their desires.

Nobody is suggesting the woman go to the media saying I'm the mommy what posters are saying is Tom and Husband failed to acknowledge a woman female person was used to give them a baby they just act like the surragacy company produced him from thin air.

How do you know that? you're reading something in to it that that you want to read? It doesnt say medical or technical it says 'those' - everyone is included

Er yes - that proves my point
"Those" is plural and non- specific. 0nly one person carried and gave birth to this child- the mother.

I find the lack of even an acknowledgement for the woman in most of the coverage very distasteful.

Its perfectly possibly to do that without breaching her anonymity (its hardly secret that it takes a woman to bear a child).

Using US surrogacy laws to bypass the UK laws suggests the woman's situation was not high in anyone's consideration.

I didn't realise there were 20 years between the two men. Not that it matters, but what an age gap.

It doesn't sit right with me. I don't feel sorry for the 'mother' but I do for the baby.

This thread is basically a homophobic attack on a couple who love each other and love their child

Oh bore off. I would everything I have said if it were a heterosexual couple.

Yes, what is sea lion Iioning?

MrsSnooty this wasn't UK surrogacy, it was commercial US surrogacy.