Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Famous men and surrogacy

660 replies

Annasgirl · 04/10/2019 10:43

OK, so this is not to bash the specific person involved but last night I was heading to bed and a story came up on my phone - a person from Westlife was announcing the birth of their baby - through surrogacy (he is gay) and showed a pic of him, his boyfriend and the baby - there was no mother.

So, I totally lost it and poor DH had to listen to me rant for about an hour - but when, oh God, when, are we going to stand up and be counted and take back the rights of women and children?????

DH mentioned that there will always be women poor enough to agree to do this and I countered that you cannot sell a kidney (legally) or buy one so why should you be able to buy or sell a baby???????

BTW, DH agrees with me, but why do I feel I am the only person alive who is angry about this?

And I live in Wokesville (AKA Ireland) and I am worried that we are so keen to be woke and the most liberal place to be gay in the world, that we will soon legalise surrogacy or at least make it easy for people to legally buy a baby overseas and then take it home here. That is what the person was arguing for on his gushing post.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
KettlePolly · 08/10/2019 22:56

bringing a much wanted and loved baby into the world

Intentionally without a birth mother.

Bringing into the world for who?

TruthOnTrial · 08/10/2019 23:00

bringing a much wanted and loved baby into the world

Yes, yes, but ignorant of the harms to the baby, nothing but selfish interests.

nonsenceagain · 08/10/2019 23:19

All of you defending surrogacy: please try to get your priorities in order. This is not primarily about the surrogate (though I do believe surrogacy is a form of exploitation of women) and still less about the people paying her. It's first and foremost about the child.

You can kid yourselves on that the baby will be fine with its 'parents', but please look at the research on children removed from their families - primarily their mothers - at birth or beyond. Move beyond the myth that the early removal of a child will always - or even often - mitigate against long term attachment issues, or even that love and patience can overcome attachment problems.

Removing children is not done to order when potential parents are ready for a child. It's meant to be and should be about what is best for the child. Removing a child should only be done when it's absolutely impossible for the child to stay with its birth family, not because some people can afford to pay for its removal.

womanaf · 08/10/2019 23:33

another at what age does it stop being okay to give away a child?

loopsdefruit · 08/10/2019 23:55

I am genuinely asking for more information because from my current knowledge and understanding of child development and attachment some of the claims on this thread just don't make sense, however I may be wrong and am happy to admit that.

I will say that I don't disagree that the law on surrogacy needs to be strengthened in some way to ensure vulnerable people are protected, but I don't currently feel it needs to be banned.

So, lots of talk about attachment. This is what I currently need to better understand from posters who mention attachment problems.

  1. Attachment is not immediate, babies develop attachment over the first few months of their lives. This is why newborn babies are pretty content with their care happening from multiple familiar people. An attachment relationship forms as a result of consistent care being provided to an infant and the infant then learns they can rely on their caregiver to meet their needs promptly and all the time. If a child's parents do this, then will the child not form an attachment to them, even if they are not the biological mother?
  1. What do you mean by attachment difficulties/problems? Do you mean reactive attachment disorder? Or do you just mean an insecure attachment? Because again from my understanding of attachment around 40% of all adults were insecurely attached to their primary carer as children. Not 40% of Looked After Children, or adopted children, just all people. But reactive attachment disorder is incredibly rare and almost always a result of abuse or neglect.
  1. The studies you mention. Do they specifically study children born via surrogacy or are they studies that explore 'children not being raised by their biological parents' or even 'children not raised by their biological mothers'. I ask because unless the study parameters are very specific, I would imagine there's a lot of confounding factors that would impact those results. In the UK for example this is what I can think of:
  • Were the children removed as newborn babies. If no, did they experience abuse or neglect prior to being separated from their birth mother/family. If removed as babies did they experience any complicating factors in utero (alcohol or substance misuse by the mother that caused FASD or NAS).
  • When the babies/children were removed, did they go to foster care and then onto adoption/a long-term foster carer? Multiple moves would definitely complicate any studies on the children's ability to form attachments.
  • Were the babies/children told repeatedly during their formative years that they had lost something or had something taken from them. Many children whose parent/parents died are told about their deceased parent (as they absolutely should be) and their lost parent becomes an important part of their lives as they learn where they came from and their life story. However this also means they are constantly aware of a loss in their lives, which could impact on their mental health and feeling of 'loss'. Equally, adopted children or children who are Looked After also learn about their birth families and often continue having contact with their birth parents and siblings...this could also impact on their feelings of attachment to their adopted or foster families, and contribute to their feelings of loss.

Of course life happens, and children born via surrogacy could experience loss or could be exposed to something in utero, or could end up in foster care or being moved from one home to another, but unless the studies account for all of those impacts then it'd be hard to say that surrogacy in and of itself causes attachment 'problems' (again, what are you classing as a problem considering it's likely a lot of us on this thread were insecurely attached as children and presumably are doing ok).

Again, I agree that the law as it stands is not doing a good enough job at protecting vulnerable people within surrogacy arrangements and it doesn't prevent abuse as has been shown by the AB X Z judgement.

Fieldofgreycorn · 09/10/2019 00:12

This is why newborn babies are pretty content with their care happening from multiple familiar people.

What makes you think they’re ‘pretty content’?

Babies form an attachment first with one person in line with their cognitive development. That’s why they should be fed consistently by one person, preferably their mother for the first 6 weeks or so.

Once they form a secure bond to one person they can start to develop relationships with others.

loopsdefruit · 09/10/2019 00:31

Sorry Field but again, not what I have been taught about infant attachment.

Up to 6 weeks babies show no particular attachment to a specific caregiver. From 7 weeks they start to show a preference for a primary and secondary caregiver, but they do not develop a discriminate attachment to their primary caregiver until around 7 months of age. (This is when separation anxiety can start)

www.verywellmind.com/what-is-attachment-theory-2795337 This is a reasonably easy to understand link and has a visual as well as more in depth about the research.

Of course, if you actually can evidence what you just said that would be helpful.

loopsdefruit · 09/10/2019 00:34

But even if what you say is correct, the "one person consistently feeding them" could literally be anyone and they would then form an attachment to that person. So if it was their adopted (or intended) parents, then the baby would attach to them...which again would not support the idea that babies born via surrogacy would be insecurely attached.

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 00:47

researchers measured heart rate variability in 2-day-old sleeping babies for one hour each during skin-to-skin contact with mother and alone in a cot next to mother's bed. Neonatal autonomic activity was 176% higher and quiet sleep 86% lower during maternal separation compared to skin-to-skin contact.

Dr. John Krystal, Editor of Biological Psychiatry, commented on the study's findings: "This paper highlights the profound impact of maternal separation on the infant. We knew that this was stressful, but the current study suggests that this is major physiologic stressor for the infant."
An excerpt.from the abstract www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111102124955.htm

This is about physiological benefit/harm, not behavioural. Its a physical bonding between mother and infant, before, and after birth.

Read research around the profoundly benefical effects of akin on skin contact leading to significantly improved outcomes for neonates, esp. preemies.

These are the basic building blocks of behavioural attachment that we see expressed as secure/avoidant etc later on, and separation anxiety.

Babies instinctive fear response can be lack of response, as well as screaming and crying fretfully.

They don't consciously know, but they are unconsciously affected.

Look also into adopted children etc. Even as babies they have been observed to have this syndrome.

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 00:55

The intrauterine environment presents a rich array of sensory stimuli to which the fetus responds. The maternal voice is perhaps the most salient of all auditory stimuli. The following experiments examined the movement response of the fetus and newborn to its mother's voice and a strange female's voice and to voices speaking normally and speaking 'motherese'. Newborns (2-4 days of age) discriminated, as measured by the number of movements exhibited to the presentation of the stimuli, between their mother's voice and a stranger's voice and between normal speech and 'motherese', in both cases the former being preferred. Fetuses, 36 weeks of gestational age, evidenced no ability to discriminate between their mother's and a stranger's voice played to them via a loudspeaker on the abdomen but did discriminate between their mother's voice when played to them by a loudspeaker on the abdomen and the mother's voice produced by her speaking. The results are further evidence of the ability of the fetus to learn prenatally and indicate a possible role for prenatal experience of voices in subsequent language development and attachment.

Abstract from: Journal
Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology
Volume 11, 1993 - Issue 3

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02646839308403210

Note specifically... subsequent language development and attachment.

loopsdefruit · 09/10/2019 01:00

Truth I'm struggling to see the relevance of comparing a baby with mother and a baby left alone in a cot with a baby who is being cared for by another human who is not the mother.

They do not seem to have compared that. Probably because the aim of the study was to challenge the practice of separating newborns from their caregiver and taking them to a well baby nursery.

Do you know if they have done a study which compared autonomic activity and quiet sleep when baby was held by mother vs another caregiver that is not the mother?

What 'syndrome' are you talking about? Are you meaning an attachment disorder? Insecure attachment is not an attachment disorder, again, almost half of all human beings were insecurely attached as children.

I discussed the confounding factors regarding adopted children in my post, especially as almost all adopted children in the UK are removed following abuse or neglect by their birth parents (and very few are removed at birth, even fewer are then immediately placed for adoption and never have another move or change of caregiver).

Fieldofgreycorn · 09/10/2019 01:00

I agree later separation anxiety can be more traumatic. But this whole developing discourse is yet more about undermining the role and value of breastfeeding.

Virtually the first thing a baby does after birth is look for the breast (within the context of the 9 stages). It’s first relationship is with the breast, and the person it’s attached to. That mother baby relationship is the first crucial one. I’m not saying if that doesn’t happen it’s catastrophe. There is a wider window for attachment as well. But we’re talking about the ideal here, and why shouldn’t we?

gpifn.org.uk/secure-attachment/

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223373/

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1459116/

Babies recognize their mothers at birth and at delivery healthy babies placed on the abdomen of their mother will crawl up onto her chest and, locating the nipple via its familiar smell [63], will attach to her breast and suckle [64,65]. Newborn infants desire to remain with their mother and if removed from skin-to-skin contact with her will give a specific "separation distress cry/call" as an appeal for reunion [66]. Maternal separation is stressful for infants [25,66-69], and all adopted children have experienced the loss of their birth mother. Some believe that this loss can impede the development of later relationships even where the birth mother is quickly substituted with another caregiver [70].

Not a journal but interesting blog womenshealthtoday.blog/2018/05/12/physiological-breastfeeding-patterns-and-establishment-of-secure-attachment-systems/

Fieldofgreycorn · 09/10/2019 01:02

Agree Truth the 3rd ref I quoted also discusses the bonding process beginning in utero.

Fieldofgreycorn · 09/10/2019 01:04

*meant the second one sorry

loopsdefruit · 09/10/2019 01:10

"Possible role" being the salient point there. Yes babies can recognise their biological mother's voice. But as has previously been shown, newborn babies do not exhibit specific attachment to one caregiver at birth, and they only begin to show 'strong' (discriminate) attachment to their primary caregiver at around 7 months of age.

You're not actually providing any evidence that children born from surrogacy have attachment "problems".

Are there any studies that show that children born via surrogacy have a higher rate of attachment disorders? Or even that the secure attachment/insecure attachment breakdown in the population of "children born via surrogacy" is different than the 60/40 breakdown in the general population?

I find the insistence that biological mothers need to be the primary caregivers for children or the children will face some unnamed attachment "syndrome" deeply unfeminist... you don't need a woman there 24/7 for a child to develop normally and form secure attachments in their childhood.

Also, given (again) that the proportion of all people who were not securely attached to their caregivers as children, what's the problem with insecure attachment...unless the cause of that insecure attachment was abuse of the child?

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 01:25

The physiology between mother and baby is as significant as saving lives..

This, [from a meta study research abstract]

Kangeroo mother care... (Mother and baby skin to skin, breast-feeding, early home discharge)
effective in reducing the risk of mortality among preterm and low birth weight infants.

it goes on to say, also reduces the risk of hypothermia, severe illness, nosocomial infection, and length of hospital stay, and improves growth, breastfeeding, and maternal–infant attachments

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4871067/

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 01:28

... and before you say it yet again

The significant impact is upon the baby by its mother, not 'father' or 'random'.

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 01:32

Are you trying to discount the profound physiology, that is as profound as to increase and decrease neonate mortality?

You seem to be significantly missing the points in each research relative the to impact upon a baby of its mother.

Such things as cognitive development that speah will evolve relative to its mother (in utero) - language patterns and sounds.

A baby is developed attuned to its mother.

Noone can discount that without risking babies lives and wellbeing.

loopsdefruit · 09/10/2019 01:33

Ahh well Field I don't actually think breastfeeding is all that important. Feeding yes, of course, but breast or bottle is basically equal in a developed country with clean water.

Bottle fed babies have the same breakdown of secure/insecure attachment to their primary caregiver that breastfed babies have. It's 60/40, for everyone.

The blog actually isn't bad. The cited research around attachment is high quality, and it's accurate, but none of that research mentions breastfeeding being necessary for the attachment relationships to form. Where the blog veers a bit is this:

"Thus, research on infants, children and parents indicates clearly that parental sensitivity to child cues plays a central role in facilitating healthy social emotional development. Another important implication of this research is that acts that take place during parent-child exchanges may contribute and enhance vital functions. Breastfeeding exemplifies a context that facilitates the development of sensitivity in parents with positive implications for child development (Epstein, 1993; Epstein-Gilboa, 2006, 2009)." - My emphasis

That's all fine, but the study quote is "breastfeeding exemplifies a context that facilitates the development of sensitivity in parents"

Yes it does. But it is a context, not the only context. Feeding a baby with a bottle if you hold them in your arms and look at them and talk to them and are responsive to their cues also exemplifies a context that facilitates the development of sensitivity in parents...as do multiple other parenting tasks that loving and responsive parents do.

The breast crawl is awesome, and great if you have the option to do that. It isn't indicative of attachment though, just a primal need the baby has to Not Die. Also the infant does not form an attachment relationship to a breast, because the breast does not provide a secure base or a safe-haven...that's the caregiver, whether they have a breast/breasts or not.

Anyway, I will come back tomorrow (after work) but it's 1:30am and I actually do need to go.

Seriously though if there are any specific studies that evidence that children born via surrogacy (in particular surrogacy not adoption or death of a parent etc...) have higher rates of attachment disorders or a different level of secure/insecure attachments than the general population I'd be happy to look at those.

Maybe it genuinely is an area where more research is needed. I think if the argument is that surrogacy harms babies even when it all goes 'right' then we probably should have some evidence of that. There must be enough children at this stage to be able to study it.

loopsdefruit · 09/10/2019 01:54

Truth Kangaroo Care for premature babies is absolutely fantastic and does improve outcomes, and breastmilk has significant protective qualities against NEC which is incredibly dangerous in premature babies (that can be donated breastmilk and often in very small babies it's given to them via tube rather than directly from the breast, still just as good).

It has nothing to do with full-term healthy babies. It's another confounding factor to consider when assessing attachment formation and secure/insecure attachment. A NICU stay is absolutely likely to impact on the attachment relationship between a child and caregiver, and is a risk factor for postnatal mental health difficulties which in turn can make it harder for a mother (or father) to consistently recognise their baby's cues and meet their needs (crucial for attachment formation).

The bottom line is still the claim that any of this actually proves that children born via surrogacy will face long-term, lasting, attachment "problems". What are those problems? Where is the evidence? We have a reasonably large number of children now who have been born via surrogacy, are they any worse off than anyone else or do they have the same amount of secure/insecure attachment as people who were raised by their biological mother, or by both their biological parents.

I think if we don't know, that's ok but I think we should know...it's important for children that we know. It's important for law making and decision making and child welfare that we know. You don't seem able to actually provide any evidence that specifically compares the key demographic (people who were born via surrogacy compared to people raised by their biological parent/s).

Surrogacy either is always damaging to children, even when it all goes smoothly, or it isn't. If it is then yes it should be banned because it is creating children to harm them. If it isn't, then it should be regulated to protect vulnerable adults from exploitation and understood to be another way of having a family (alongside egg and sperm donation, adoption, and fostering).

Right now there isn't the evidence that that is harmful, or specific evidence that it isn't. There's just general theoretical understanding of how secure attachments are formed and what impacts insecure attachments can have (not always that significant in most people).

I think we need to know more.

AugustL · 09/10/2019 02:08

week of pregnancy :
18 Baby starts to hear sound.
24 Baby is more sensitive to sound.
25–26 Baby responds to noise/voices in the womb.

"Around week 25 or 26, babies in the womb have been shown to respond to voices and noise. Recordings taken in the uterus reveal that noises from outside of the womb are muted by about half.

That’s because there’s no open air in the uterus. Your baby is surrounded by amniotic fluid and wrapped in the layers of your body. That means all noises from outside your body will be muffled.

The most significant sound your baby hears in the womb is your voice. In the third trimester, your baby can already recognize it. They will respond with an increased heart rate that suggests they are more alert when you’re speaking."

www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/when-can-a-fetus-hear#2

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 03:20

Studies conducted on animals, particularly other primates, indicate that there may be a biological basis for what Verrier calls the primal wound. Reite in 1978 demonstrated that when monkey infants were separated from their mothers they experienced decreases in body temperature and sleep pattern changes, even when the separated infants were immediately adopted by another adult female. Reite suggests that these physiological changes are not due to the physical absence of the mother, but are caused, at least in part, by the perception of loss of the mother on the part of the infant, i.e., the cause is essentially psychological.

Studies in primates show that if an infant is deprived of its mother soon after birth, the infant’s brain does not develop normally. For example, the number and sensitivity of the infant’s brain receptor sites for endorphinsthe internal morphinelike chemicals that affect moodare diminished .” (Dossey, 1991; Nieuwenhof, 1994)

Separation of newborn babies from their mothers causes a high secretion of the stress hormone cortisol. (Bowlby 1980; Noble 1993) There is physiological evidence from studies of laboratory rats that the level of maternal care given to the infant influences its response to stress: the more care, the lower the levels of hormones like adrenaline in reaction to stressful circumstances. People who are highly reactive to stress are at greater risk for the development of depression, and drug and substance abuse problems, etc. Adopted people have a greater vulnerability to stress, and are also at greater risk for depression and drug and substance related abuse problems.

The few months after birth together form what Kitzinger (1978) calls a fourth trimester of pregnancy. These months are part of a continuum, in which the infant remains psychologically merged with the mother. Interruption of this continuum, by taking the baby away from the mother at birth, has a profound effect on the child. The child loses not only its mother but also part of the self. (Verrier) Yet, when it comes to adoption, Verrier wrote in 1991, there is a kind of denial that at the moment of birth and the next few days, weeks or months in the life of a child, when he is separated from his mother and handed over to strangers, he could be profoundly affected by the experience.”
From adoptionbirthmothers

Australia adopted a widespread adopton programme of taking infants immediately from their mothers, to new adoptive parents. Over the ensuing years age related suicide data for the infants and mothers revealed a doubling of both suicide rates.

This even though the babies were taken straight from their mothers, apparently before they would 'know'.

There are common adolescent affects. ODD, ADD, RAD...suicides....

Stop treating babies like objects with some magic formula that you think you can control.

To do so risks a human life, every time.

Its extremely short-sighted and laughable really that anyone can believe psychological damage from separation can only happen if a child is old enough to be in determined 'attachment' stage.

Pretending a baby is absent of deep physiological relativity to its mother, when its evident in saving lives of neonates, and much more, is foolhardy at best. To deny this and actively remove babies from their physiological mothers is cruel.

I don't know how its contemplated, let alone defended!

Baseline.

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 03:28

You discount everything except your attachment theory.

Huge deep psychological and physiological interactions which affect babies biological brain development and its basis for well being.

breast or bottle is basically equal

Not in any way shape or form.

TruthOnTrial · 09/10/2019 03:44

Hpw does it help a baby to create a life purely to deliberately separate it from its mother?

I feel sick and sad that our laws currently legitimise this totally unnecessary suffering of an innocent life.

With our increasing knowledge of the harm the baby suffers this practice should be banned.

Not everyone can have children, and noone has the right to have children, no matter how much you might want them.

Children are twice as vulnerable to abuse when with non-bio parents. They come to greater harm and are at greater risk of being abandoned.

FannyCann · 09/10/2019 06:42

*Sury the precedent should be- as in family law - that the best interests of the child are paramount?

And given that family law also holds that generally it is in a child's best interest to be raised by its birth family (where adoption can only take place after all possible options with a birth family have been exhausted) how can any surrogacy meet that standard?*

Excellent point ShesDressedInBlackAgain

Swipe left for the next trending thread