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.

RedtoothBrush .. it's ironic that you're doing the very thing you're spouting with your trojan horses and straw men .... Happen much?
NOtTonight: I agree with your definition of exploitation, but argue that it doesn't apply to UK surrogacy, hence the questions I'm repeatedly asking around people's actual exposure to surrogate families.

she had been ripped from her mother's breast at birth. So she won't be getting breast milk which is the best start for her she won't be snuggled with her mum which is what all babies want for the first year of life

You realise this is the experience of many babies born sick or premature? And that many of those mothers are unable to breastfeed for a period of time, if ever.

You can have a problem with surrogacy, but don't you dare suggest that what happens to families all over the world, through no fault of their own, often in circumstances which are very traumatic will inevitably cause some kind of long term problem for the child. That's an added level of guilt preemie parents should never be expected to live with.

Hi GardenMan, welcome to the feminism and women's rights board, where mansplainy males get their arses handed to them.

Hi all ... I've just read the comments above and it seems that there's a lack of acknowledgement that men in general can also be parents.
Just silly, so silly. Not a strong start. Men can be parents, they cannot be mothers, they cannot birth babies - they can only share them with, or take them from, women.
We don't do fawning caveats.

Some might even think that there's a slightly anti-male flavour in the thread.
if you read pro women and children as anti male, that says more about you than us, mate.

Unresolved anger perhaps?
Patronising misogyny much?

Additionally, the dismissal of gay-males as parents is homophobic.
They are not mothers. They are shit parents if they think removing a newborn baby from the only connection she has ever known is a triumph.

Perhaps even more importantly, I'm curious to know if those of you who have voiced such anti-Surrogacy views, have ever actually met a surrogate, or met parents whose child has been born through surrogacy, or indeed an actual person who was born through surrogacy?
I'm curious about why this is the more important question. Have you met any of the women forced into birthing farms in India or Nigeria? Maybe you've spoken with the family who lost their wife and mother to surrogacy (linked upthread)? You don't get to white wash exploiting women's bodies and trafficking their babies here.

Of course, each of us is entitled to our opinions on any matter. However, righteous indignation that lacks any meaningful experience of an issue, simply comes across as prejudice and discrimination against people whose lifestyles we don't understand. Thus, such opinion is ignorant and offensive.
We aren't ignorant just because you say we are dude. And implying that we should have an appropriate emotional response is manipulative bullshit.

Laughs loudly and longly!
Good luck all!

Lol, not immediately submitting to your scolding =/= angry. Feel free to fuck off tho!

MintyMabel, premie babies weren't conceived with the express purpose of immediate and complete separation from their mother. Premie babies usually have their parents visiting, talking to them, kangaroo care holds, sometimes expressed breast milk. Premie babies usually still have the woman who birthed them close by. The key is that decisions about being separated from mum are done in the baby's best interest, not because they were commissioned solely to fulfill another adult's desires. Premie mum's aren't celebrating not being able to do the 4th trimester things with their baby. Its about prioritizing the baby's needs.

GardenMan - any bloke who continues to use misogynistic slurs on the feminism board deserves to be ignored. Plenty of previous threads around here on surrogacy, feel free to educate yourself before bothering to continue pontificating. Bye.

GardenMan1 - I don't have any friends who have bought babies, no. Given I fundamentally disagree with surrogacy, that would be a bit hypocritical of me, no?

We are talking about surrogacy because there is a big push to make commercial surrogacy legal in the U.K.

I don't think that is in the best interests of the babies who are created to order or for the women who are putting their health at risk to bear children for those who can't or won't do it themselves.

Children are not commodities to be bought and sold.

Minty there's a big difference with premature babies - their mothers aren't deliberately denying them the opportunity to breastfeed for financial gain. Nor do their mothers conceive them with the intention of them being born premature and poorly. Guilt is rarely susceptible to logic, I know, but the mothers of premature babies you mention are putting their child's interests first.

We're not allowed to be angry now? Fuck that.

I did respond on your point about surrogacy families Garden - to your point I thought about being a surrogate myself once, I didn't go through with it though. During my research and since I've done research into facts and stats which gives me a general overwork of information rather than taking anecdotal evidence from a 'surrogate' or 'surrogate family'.

I suggest you do some research yourself and as Vitriol says, if you know anything about the changes in the law in India or the case of the UK mother who was taken advantage of by the intended parents (who won the parental right to raise her disabled child with her partner) or the boy who will never know his twin sister as their parents dashed back to Australia, leaving him alone or the little girl left behind in the Ukraine, do tell us.

Rules of misogyny #2, #3, #5, #9, #13

Pretty good going GardenMan1, not long now and we can call bingo...

Oh and mothers of premature babies can express milk or columstrum and this is often encouraged for the health of the baby and to establish a milk supply if the mum wants to breastfeed in the future.

No one is judging a mother's choice here.

all shamefaced over here, hysterically screaming is so very unseemly, whatever will the neighbours think?!

Gosh, why do people come on to feminism boards to sprout the same old misogyny? I don't go on to the INCEL boards to rile them.

The place where "mansplainy males get their arses handed to them" and, ironically, respondents habitually and angrily scream 'misogyny', and becomes furious about the mention of anger! You're point NotTonight seems apt ... you really couldn't make this up!! ... Totally Hilarious ... I'm literally rolling around the floor laughing!! ... My mistake, I thought I'd come to discuss ...

I wonder if anybody ever has "literally" rolled around on the floor laughing? My flat is quite small and I'm tall, so it would be problematic for me. I suppose I'd have to go and do it in the car park.

As you asked, I'm sat on the floor cross-legged with my computer in front of me, so I didn't have far to fall back and start rolling! Also tall and in a smallish space, but no injuries!

I agree with your definition of exploitation, but argue that it doesn't apply to UK surrogacy, hence the questions I'm repeatedly asking around people's actual exposure to surrogate families.

We are talking about - in this thread
a) Celebrities who might be British but have circumnavigated the law in this country because they are rich.
b) How those celebrities going abroad are effectively 'normalising' that exploitation through their celebrity status and their relationship with the press that silences women.
c) This has nothing to do with anyone's direct experience of surrogancy in the Uk as the thread is about CELEBRITIES and their effect on the surrogancy debate.
d) Whether UK law even as it stands is ALSO exploitative as it involves the deliberate conception and planned removal of a child from its mother, and how this can put women at risk - eg whether they might feel coercised to do so by a family member and whether surrogancy really has the child's wellbeing and best interest at its centre from conception.
e) How changes to the law, which are being influenced by Celebrities who have used surrogancy abroad and their ability to lobby government via the media and through their personal relationship, which ordinary low class women (who are primarily surrogates) do not have equal ability to do so due to their status in society.
f) How surrogancy differs from adoption but still has commonality. We don't really fully appreciate the psychological effects as their are few adults who are the result of surrogancy who are able to explain how being a surrogant child affected their understanding of their identity. We do know that there are some problems with adoptive children even if they have been brought up in loving and wonderful families. Our desire to know where we came from, is something we do understand to be a natural human desire and part of identity formation.

RedtoothBrush .. it's ironic that you're doing the very thing you're spouting with your trojan horses and straw men .... Happen much?

You are failing to explain how I'm 'spouting trojan horses and straw men' by just accusing me of doing it. Your lack of substance to your argument and reversal accusation is laughable. Don't try it on, as I can see this crap a mile off. I, once again, refer to the title of the thread being specifically about famous men and therefore this thread centres on that and the effects of that, which very much relates to lobbying and PR over a systematic and thorough examination of the subject which acknowleges those who are most vulnerable at its very heart. Gay men (or Straight men) with lots of money (particularly those who are able to do this across international borders) absoluetely ARE NOT vulnerable even though they might have status as a minority due to their sexuality.

There is this idea that just because someone has a certain identity, that alone defines whether they are vulnerable or not. This is not true. Children ALWAYS come first in this test because they are unable to represent or advocate for themselves, and women (particularly if they are already economically disadvantaged) often have a greater vulnerability due to the physical nature of reproduction (which involves danger to life at its most extreme). Let me spell this out in simple terms: No gay man has ever died because they weren't able to have a surrogant child.

And you have the nerve to go on about how there is prejudice to gay men when we talk about surrogacy? No, if we fail to stress and centre the needs and risks to children and women we are not adequately understanding vulnerability and exploitation which can happen both abroad AND in this country - in the context of the past, present AND future.

You are speaking to me in a manner I consider to be downright superior and condesending and accuse women on this thread as bigoted merely for advocating for themselves and for children, rather than for bowing to the Rainbow PR machine.

No. Just no.

The place where "mansplainy males get their arses handed to them" and, ironically, respondents habitually and angrily scream 'misogyny', and becomes furious about the mention of anger! You're point NotTonight seems apt ... you really couldn't make this up!! ... Totally Hilarious ... I'm literally rolling around the floor laughing!! ... My mistake, I thought I'd come to discuss ...

Nope. You came here to tell women they were wrong and bigoted.

HTH.

I am having a good laugh at gardenman mansplaining away, so amusing that he thinks calling us “furious” and “angry” will have us all quivering with shame and getting our smiley Stepford faces in place.
Snort.