Famous men and surrogacy

[Annasgirl]

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.

@NotTonightJosepheen

I don't know why you are so angry about it, I'm sterelised so can't have any more children, my friend was a surrogate for her sister and received no financial game for doing so and I know or 2 other women who have done so I don't know the ins and outs of how it went about with them so can't really comment.
if my daughter wanted to do it I wouldn't stop her

I do worry about the potential abuse in a surrogate situation. But actually, if I was a surrogate I know the only way I could it would be if I gave birth and did not take any maternal involvement whatsoever. I would not want the parents to include me in pictures etc. I would want them to be appreciative of me etc of course.

The biggest issue for me is that by definition surrogacy assumes that pregnancy is inconvenient but low risk. I have had v difficult pregnancies and dangerous births so the idea of surrogacy scares me.

Unfortunately NotTonight it meant I didn’t really want much to do with her at all for the first 6-12 months (pnd)
She’s 14 now and we are very close fortunately

@yulet
I wasnt comparing the two, I was responding to the posts about how it's terrible for the baby not to get these things from the surrogate, and saying the baby would not suffer from not getting skin to skin or breastmilk etc
as some mother's cannot give them after birth

Where is this photo that everyoe has seen except me???

I think many people, men especially, and even many women, don't or can't comprehend the bond that grows between a mother and her baby during pregnancy. And even if the mother doesn't feel it, the baby certainly does.

...you would probably be taking your life into your hands to disagree with the wokeratie in Ireland. Luckily I live in a very uwoke, rural part of Ireland. The shit hasn't hit us yet. But even when I've been to Dublin, I haven't seen any of it. Single sex loos wherever I've been (mostly the airport!)

*unwoke

Was the woman who gave birth the child's mother? Or was the egg donor? All this 'concern' for a baby who will probably only ever know total love and adoration from its Daddies. Surrogacy in the developed world is an act of kindness and selflessness. Women aren't doing it because they are being forced, they are giving a gift and most are not giving away their own biological child because an egg donor is used.

Buying a baby, literally.

I saw the photo yesterday too.
I did make me feel sorry for the child. No matter how much love two loving fathers can give the child, it will never match up to the bond between mother and baby. We don’t seem to hear of women being surrogates for ‘normal’ men. Perhaps the fact that they are famous encouraged the women to do it? It does seem to be becoming more common.
I have a gay friend who has sought to adopt with his long term partner, thinking he would not be considered. He was told that although it isn’t commonplace that a gay couple would be considered, there are children who will flourish with male role models because of a bad past. He was given an example of a mother who had severe mental health issues and didn’t recognise her child as her own. The child was fostered to a single male. Why can these famous couples not adopt needy children instead?
I absolutely accept and respect the gay community but there are times when I feel we have nature an injustice. Science is wonderful but not when it is possibly detrimental to the child. That baby will never know the maternal bond and love it naturally craves. That makes me sad.

Really no need to apologise NotTonight x

I offered to carry a child for a friend who lost her only child and was unable to have any more. Had I been younger, I'd have offered an egg as well. Her husband would have been the biological father. Not all women are forced or persecuted, you know, so it's not all 'other' women. I have a friend who's been an egg donor multiple times, she never wanted to give birth to a child or parent, but she was fine with donating her eggs, it's had no ill effects on her. She knows her donations have resulted in 4 live births.

Clearly uninformed on this issues so sorry if this is a stupid question. But I thought the only money allowed to change hands was for medical bills? I am ok with altruistic surrogacy - within families/friendships.

I cannot see how it is ever ok to ‘buy’ a baby though.

UK is consulting on surrogacy right now, closing date 11th October, so if you want to respond better get on with it.

(On my to do list for this weekend.)

www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/surrogacy/#surrogacy-consultation

In the UK it's currently forbidden to pay the woman who carries the baby more than 'expenses'. In the US though she can be paid a substantial sum of money. In many other parts of the world there is also outright payment to her for going through with the pregnancy and birth. Nothing altruistic about it at all. I don't think that Daily Mail article says where the baby was born, does it? Don't know the law on this in Ireland.

Saying that some babies don't get the best start in life so it doesn't matter if even more are short changed is not a very good argument. If a mother is ill after the birth and can't be with her baby, that's unavoidable and means she should get the best support available to try to help get things back on track when she's well again.

Even where a woman has gestated a baby created from an egg from another woman, the birth mother has still been the one providing all but the first few cells of that baby's body from her own body. The baby has grown hearing her heartbeat and voice. To remove the baby from her immediately after birth is just wrong. It may be what the birth mother wants, it may be what the parents who are going to bring the baby up want, but it's storing up potential problems for the baby. Nobody has a right to a child. The baby's needs should be at the forefront.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/secret-diary-of-a-surrogate-mother This article by a surrogate mother is challenging reading. It was recommended on another thread about the current storyline on this subject in The Archers.

timshelthechoice

This is a youtube video about egg donation and the side effects that can have lasting damage just for a bit of balance. For me commercial surrogacy is the biggest issue compared to aultristic. In Ireland from what I understand, for the moment at least, the woman who gives birth is the mother whether gestational or not. www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/surrogacy-in-ireland-there-is-no-legislation-its-a-grey-area-38354856.html

I think though, this won't be for long, there have been a few high profile surrogacy stories in the last while.

I am torn with altruistic surrogacy, and feel i would support that when there will be aome sort of relationship with the birth mother.
However i am against paid commercial surrogacy, that is womb renting and reducing carrying a baby to a simplistic scientific proceedure.
The article annoyed me as the birth mother was inconsequential, for all we know she may not have survived the birth.
The pictire is available online.

That Guardian article is painful to read.

This is the photo for those who were asking

In surrogacy, significant rights are surrendered, and that’s usually by the birth mother. I’m surprised at the rose-tinted view here, as if it’s such a wonderful loving act; it may be in some cases, but in the context of the whole world, it’s the financial and physical exploitation of poor women for the benefit of rich couples (of any sexual orientation). Any relaxation of laws around surrogacy would only increase this.

The biggest issue for me is that by definition surrogacy assumes that pregnancy is inconvenient but low risk.

There have been enough surrogate births now for some compelling research that all surrogate pregnancies are high risk, especially when a donated egg is used, as is most common these days. Roughly explained it causes an immunological reaction in the mother similar to a transplanted organ, and this creates changes in the placental interface..

This study suggests a 35% risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in donor egg pregnancies compared to 17% in IVF pregnancies using own egg and about 5-8% in naturally conceived pregnancies.

Hypertension in pregnancy is dangerous and can only be finally resolved by delivering the baby(ies).
So this presents risks to the mother of complications of raised blood pressure (stroke etc), LSCS, haemorrhage for starters and premature birth of the baby(ies).

obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1471-0528.13910

Then there all the additional risks, for instance figures from the HFEA showed 23% of surrogate mothers were aged over 40 in 2016. Add in multiple births. The surrogate mother in the Guardian article above was aged 48 carrying twins. How very predictable that it all went pear shaped at the end with raised blood pressure, early LSCS and poorly babies.

I think it is completely unacceptable to expose women to these risks. (Quite apart from other issues).

And of course it is the NHS that has to pick up the pieces of these high risk pregnancies.

My hospital in the SW had to transfer a baby to Edinburgh last year as that was the only unit with a NICU cot available at the time! The NHS really doesn't have capacity for a large increase in these high risk pregnancies.

I think it's incredibly difficult to determine that there hasn't been any coercion in altruistic surrogacy. Do they apply the same safeguards that let an altruistic organ donor say they are incompatible to altruistic surrogates?

That photo with the them dragging the baby along the corridor, arms in the air just made me dreadfully upset and full of anger.