Celebrity surrogacy - find this a bit heartbreaking

[Nowyouwillfeel]

Irish ‘celebrity’ couple with a new baby via surrogacy. The surrogate was one of the couples sister. They have put up pictures and stories all delighted and excited but I just see raw emotion on the mothers face in the second picture and in their stories the baby is clearly rooting for her mothers breast. I have a two month old who always does this and honestly it’s breaking my heart seeing the baby search like that while the dad doesn’t even notice and that she isn’t with her mother. They took the baby home before the mother was discharged and she is nowhere to be seen.

seems so unfair on both baby and the mother who doesn’t have any children of her own.

instagram.com/bprdowling?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

The worlds your oyster if you’ve got bags of money, you can buy anything you want.

Did the couple consider adopting a child?

Genuine question - how would you even know?

meeting someone at work or school would the first thing be “I’m xxxx and I was born by surrogacy?”

maybe if close friend of family actually thinking as I type sorry

same as adoption. Not that it’s something that should be kept secret but it’s not usually the first thing that people say.

Yes. You can assume that a woman who is undergoing ivf has accepted her circumstance. She is fully aware that there is no guarantee she will have a baby despite the medical intervention. Just a chance.
What does this have to do with using a woman's body to grow a baby exactly?

That wasn't the poster's point. Hers is there in black and white

No-one is entitled to a baby
It is not an inalienable right to be a parent.
Sometimes, why not just accept your circumstances rather than demanding someone do something to meet your (selfish) wants?

I replied to that. Make all the arguments against surrogacy you want, but, unless you are willing to apply it to every woman who seeks fertility assistance, that one has the holding power of a tissue in a hurricane. No one gets pregnant out of altruism. It's always either an accident or a selfish want.

Rioting is an instinct. It’s not because the baby is missing her mother. It’s for food. Are you suggesting that mothers are less if they don’t then give the breast? If they feed formula?
You are judging these people horrifically. Leave them alone.

It’s incredibly rare for a newborn baby to be forcibly removed from its mother for adoption in the UK. It has to be mandated by a court because it’s such an extreme thing to do, it’s usually only because one or more babies have DIED in the care of that woman.

Its done to save the baby’s life, as a desperate last resort. Not to serve the needs of some rich men. it’s a terrible thing, not a wonderful thing.

Its not photographed as a cool fun thing and put all over social media. it’s kept confidential.

If anyone from the baby’s birth family is able to adopt it, it will be placed with them. It only goes to adopters if there is no one able or willing to do so.

The adoptive parents are very carefully selected and trained. They are very aware of the loss to the birth mother and the trauma to the baby. They are not boasting about how great she is and what she has done for them.

Adoption starts from a place of loss for everyone involved.

Adoption is not a wonderful cool fun thing. It’s the lesser of the two evils of leaving children to be neglected, abused or killed by parents who cannot safety care for them. It had better outcomes for children than foster care or residential care.

Its about finding homes for children who don’t have one. It’s not about making babies to be provided to rich and famous men.

Its deeply insulting to adoptees, birth parents and adopters that you can’t see the difference between adoption and celebrity surrogacy. perhaps you could think first before posting such heartless and insulting comments.

I had my first baby 24 years ago and at my booking in appointment the midwife at one point took me into another room away from my DH on the pretext of weighing me and there asked me some gentle questions to establish if I was being subject to any form of abuse by my husband and told I could ring the team at any time if I needed help. There was also a section in the standard pregnancy and birth guide all pregnant women were given at the time giving details of how to get help in a domestic abuse situation. This was standard for all the other pregnant mothers I met at the time. Also happened with my subsequent pregnancy 3 years later.

So measures to pick up domestic abuse in pregnancy have been standard in the UK (and probably in a lot of other countries) for at least 24 years. Either you had your baby a long time ago or you live in one of the few countries in the world that don't take domestic abuse seriously. Either way your experience is not the norm today so isn't really relevant to the argument.

If the baby was born in Ireland then legally she's the mother and infact if she's married then legally her husband is the father. He'd have to go through a process to declare that it isn't his child. There is no process for the mother to do this.

Surely this framework breaks down all the time in traditional pregnancy/family/couple arrangements? Who gets the say, who has rights in various unplanned complicated situations is the basis of legal wrangling, relationship and family breakdowns every day.

I've been on the fence about surrogacy for a while now, but I agree with this. The interests of the child should be paramount.

Poor child, just so these two men can have a plaything

This isn’t fair. Whatever you think about the means of surrogacy, this doesn’t mean the intention of a gay couple when they want to be parents is to have a ‘plaything’. I know a number of gay couples with children (by adoption) and they absolutely adore them and care for them as well as any other parents I know.
The implication that 2 men only want children as an accessory is actually bordering homophobic and playing into stereotypes of gay men.

I'm infertile and think surrogacy is disgusting because of what it does to the birth mother, and how it affects the baby. I'd ban it for all couples.

Having a child isn't a human right.

This is going to be controversial but I don’t believe men can parent a newborn in the same way a mother can. They don’t have maternal instincts and there’s no chemical bond between them. They’ll do an adequate job probably, but it won’t be the same as with a mother.

I don't think that's controversial at all. Babies need their mothers and the fourth trimester is real and important.

Plus anyone, male or female, who would buy or procure a baby in such circumstances is not a fit person to be a parent in my opinion. They lack a basic understanding of infant and child development. They are selfish.

It’s really abhorrent to rip a baby from it’s mother.
Goodness knows what the child will feel her upbringing as an adult.
I know a Gay man who “ Donated” to a Lesbian couple, so say was “ Only donating “ but fell in love with the children-and actually is their Dad now- But the babies lived with their mothers.

The baby will be fine. You are overthinking it it. The birth is fairly traumatic for babies. So when they they wind pain. This is life.! In my grandmas day the babies were taken to a nursery for two weeks. I’m not saying this is right. but what I am saying is there’s nothing to worry about. Chill out!!

The sense of entitlement is off the scale, isn't it? Men can't have babies. That's how it goes. Being gay is neither here nor there. If you live your life with another man, you won't have babies. Being gay doesn't give any male the right to use a woman's body this way. Even if she was 'willing'. The baby cannot be. The baby has been expressly created, isn't in need, is literally a commodity. The damage of removal at birth is scientifically documented. Absolutely disgusting trying to frame the objection as homophobic. There are men now buying babies to abuse. This is happening. Surrogacy is just too problematic.

As an aside I know of two children who have two sets of parents. A lesbian couple and a gay couple. It has worked amazingly. It can be done and has been done for many years, and is not done by cutting out the mother. Going down that path as a regular, normalised process is never going to end well for women.

No-one is entitled to a baby
It is not an inalienable right to be a parent.

I agree with this because of the principle of 'fertility equality'.
The principle goes that everyone has the right to a family, everyone has the right to a baby, everyone has the right to assistance in achieving that baby and that family.

Sounds great? If a woman can't get pregnant because of medical issues, there is medical assistance. If a woman can't get pregnant because of lack of suitable sperm (same sex relationship or partner has no viable sperm), sperm donor. No eggs, egg donor. No womb, ask to loan one (altruistic surrogacy). No womb to loan, rent one (commercial surrogacy), no money to pay for surrogacy, tax payer funded commercial surrogacy but keep the price down (ukraine and india), no women willing to put their life on the line for small pittance to rent their womb, force them (happens in India).

Where oh where to draw the line? If everyone has the right to a baby, then you have to go all the way to forcing women to be pregnant with the sole purpose of providing someone else with a baby. If you are not ok with that, then not everyone has the right to a baby. Sometimes things are black and white.

I used to think like this until I read more and did more research around the opposing side to surrogacy.
The carrier mother does have biological links because being formed in the womb literally creates biological links with the woman carrying the baby.

Babies need their mothers.
Babies know the smell of their mother, her voice, everything about her is security to the baby.

It is deeply selfish to rip a baby away like this-
Adopters of young babies know how distressed such children can be, and how unsettling for the child to realise her mother gave her away at birth.

Like a Brood mare.

But in choosing to undergo IVF, she has not accepted her circumstances. She has turned to medical intervention in order to attempt to change her circumstances in order to have a baby to 'meet her own (selfish) wants'. It is a reply to the argument put forth above.

The surrogate IS the Mother in my opinion.
It is her body that gave the foetus , then baby nourishment grew as a part of her.
They day they didn’t meet or even see a pic of the egg donor- That sounds highly unlikely.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of surrogacy, young babies do root for the breast whoever may be holding them - it’s an innate instinct. FWIW, I have seen a young baby niece who was bottle fed, root while held close by the late 80s 2nd husband of my granny.

As my DM said at the time, amid general laughter, ‘You won’t have much joy there!’

I don't think it's as bad as usual at least Brian's sister has chosen to be their surrogate and will be involved somewhat in the babies life. Better than the couple's who hire women in Ukraine only care about the foetus then take the baby away.

IVF treatment is using medical advances to aid a woman to become pregnant.

Surrogacy is using medical advances and the body of a woman to allow a third party - a straight couple, a gay couple, a single man - to become parents.

It’s the “using the body of a woman” part that makes it different.