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=

*or other abusive means. That should have said.

So a woman can choose to give away her baby... thats fine.

As long as it is an unplanned pregnancy, and she gives the baby to strangers who she'll never meet.

But she cannot plan a pregnancy and choose to give that baby to someone she knows.

SO it isn't that a baby is without its birth mother that is the issue.

Nor is it that she's giving away a baby. Both those things are absolutely fine.

So ... what is it? The pre-planning of this? The production of a child who is wanted by all involved?

Ok....

Those of you who are against surrogacy but say they should adopt instead, what's the difference? If you believe that a baby is being "ripped" from their mother in the surrogacy situation then isn't it the same when a child is removed for adoption?

I have a relative who was born from surrogacy. The husband of my aunt had sex with another one of my aunt's (the sister in law of aunt 1 who was married to aunt 1's brother). She became pregnant then when my cousin was born aunt 1 adopted her, husband didn't need to as he was the biological father. Growing up my cousin always knew the circumstances of her birth and there were many years where she struggled even considering aunt 2 (the biological mother) to be her mum and wanting to reject the mum who adopted her. It was a lot for a child to deal with but to her credit she is now a healthy happy adult who has travelled, worked and is planning her marriage and is now close to her mum. It was such a messed up situation and I don't think anyone stopped to think about the impact it would have had on her.

@ThirtyThreeTrees do you not see the irony of saying posters on here don’t understand the pain of not being able to do the most natural thing in the world of getting pregnant and carrying a baby while not giving a damm about the most natural thing to a newborn baby - staying with its mum. I suppose that’s not all about you though so it doesn’t bother you!

@wentoschool well yes it was pretty heartbreaking to me that my baby was separated from me at birth and brought to NICU for 4 days - did it not bother you to be separated from your baby? but it was essential for my babies health and I was down with my baby as much as possible. It was also upsetting when there is research that shows babies who have to spend time in SCBU or NICU are at higher risk of developing attachment disorders and are less likely to cry for attention as they are used to their immediate needs not being met. But again this is essential for the babies health so nothing can be done about it. Surrogacy is not about what the babies need unfortunately it’s about the parents wants.

@Ella28_ adoption is absolutely nothing like surrogacy. I can’t believe that you need this explained to you.

How is that a baby's problem? Babies are not props or accessories made to order. Surrogacy is in no way good for the baby. If you can't naturally create a child as a couple because you are the same sex, you can adopt.

Why are people so lazily entitled? You can't always get what you want. Surrogacy is cruel to babies.

Sorrogacy is cruel to babies

This is an opinion and not one backed by scientific study. That its cruel to surrogates is a far more convinced ong

I agree with you 100%. Surrogacy should be illegal.

There is plenty of scientific research into the harm caused to babies removed from their biological mothers early... so it follows that surrogacy - intentionally causing harm to a baby by removing it from it's biological mother - is cruel.

Intentionally causing harm = cruel.

For those who think a woman and a couple - regardless of sex or sexual orientation - should be able to enter an agreement for surrogacy, answer these questions:

If a severe abnormality is found on NIPT or the 12 week scan, who gets to decide what to do?

If the woman wants to abort but the intended parents don’t (this is Ireland after all), whose wishes matter most?

What if the intended parents do want to abort because they don’t want to look after a child with a severe disability. Should the mother be made to undergo such a procedure?

What if the mother suffers a complication resulting in death or disability? Who will look after her in the event of the latter?

What if there is an accident and the intended parents die, say in a car crash, before the baby is born? I remember a surrogate posted on MN once in an “Ask Me Anything” style. She was asked this question on page one and despite already having the embryo implanted, hadn’t even considered this possibility. She came back later with “put the baby up for adoption” 😵‍💫.

Essentially there is a multitude of potential complications for both the mother and the fetus/baby, both antenatal, perinatal and postnatal: who has a say over what? One contract in California stipulated that the intended parents would get final say over the withdrawal of life support for the mother should there be the possibility of keeping the fetus alive long enough to reach a viable gestation. Is that reasonable to have that control over a woman’s body instead of her family?

Why does support for altruistic arrangements always assume that nothing will go wrong, the parties won’t fall out, and it’s only possibly to have a positive outcome?

How do you create a framework that legally or morally protects all three parties involved? Or is it just a case of “hope for the best”?

Because at the moment this is what is deemed a success: the mother and baby fortunately got through relatively unscathed (I say relatively because pregnancy has a 100% complication rate) and the baby hasn’t yet demonstrated any signs of the potential lifelong trauma. Is this “success” to you? That “thank god nothing went wrong and they all seem happy”?

As a society we have to create such a framework that deals with those scenarios where it doesn’t: where there’s disagreement that develops, where there are complications, where there are unseen consequences, where the child’s rights are considered. Show me your framework that factors these things in to allow for such problems, which can then support the cases where everything goes swimmingly.

You can either come up with a legal and moral framework that covers all eventualities for all three parties to ensure protection for all three parties or you acknowledge that such a framework is not possible and successful surrogacy relies on a good deal of luck. Which is it?

argument . It would be really maladaptive of anything as entirely vulnerable and helpless as a newborn infant to evolve a preference as to who takes care of it, esp given historic rates of maternal mortality. Babies need love and their needs met.

Surrogacy is human trafficking, and it should be banned. If you have no problem with people buying newborns surely you are ok with parents selling their older kids too

@MightbeMaybe no there really isn't. Research all relates to adoption and prenatal harm, and multiple changes of primary carer following birth. There isn't any evidence that a child who undergoes a healthy gestation and who is then immediately looked after by non birth parent suffers any harm at all.

If there was ever an indication of the entitlement of intended parents, it’s the fact that there are now hundreds of babies in Ukraine in orphanages akin to those seen in Romania under Ceaușescu whose intended parents couldn’t get them as newborns due to Covid border restrictions and the war. They’ve reached an age where the intended parents don’t want them, because they want a little cuddly newborn instead 😡.

Yes there are. There are plenty of studies into early mother-child separation that don't relate to adoption or multiple changes of primary carer.

There are in fact studies into early mother-child separation where the child goes back into the mothers care after various lengths of separation.

Even a quick google will bring up a bunch of links to papers written about them.

Because a surrogate Carries a baby not a ten year old you have to grow them first

I was beside myself I'm traumatised
I've got ptsd
I had sepsis

So on this basis you aren't pro choice?baby does not have right to life either?

Someone carried the 10 year old. At what age does it become trafficking? I can collect a pre-ordered baby from its mother as a newborn but at what age does it become unacceptable? A month? 6 months, let them get through the sleepless part then collect them? School age? Where’s the cut off where it’s not surrogacy anymore and it’s trafficking?

I think you're right here

If the surrogate isn't willing

I couldn't do it for any one except my sister

@NotBadConsidering

I think the point of surrogacy is that the child is biologically related to the adoptive parents or whatever they are called

If you could adopt a ten year old that was biologically yours then probably in theory you would be pro surrogacy. Im not sure,
I think the point is to raise the baby from birth and it's very very hard to adopt the baby. You don't know also what condition that child was raised in and also about the mother or surrogate who Carried the baby and how she took care of herself and that baby during the pregnancy example drug abuse. I don't know, I would not want to adopt a ten year old I would be very worried they would have major attachment and other behavioural issues

If the baby goes right into loving arms and you raise it you have more control over the outcomes

Well no you definitely don't want to spend all that money and end up with a sub-par new toy... um dog... sorry purchase .. no wait... child! Sorry took me a moment!

I find people endlessly fascinating. On the one hand ignoring all the clear evidence showing early years development being key, then on the other offering it as a reason why you wouldn't want an older child. They don't even see it.

Because the point of surrogacy is to raise a baby (your own one)

And that's why it's elective just like adopting and fostering? Do you have hundreds of kids in your home who are in need? At least the child is really really really wanted unlike others I see tragically treated

It's ok to bring life into the world. I think surrogacy as long as consensual is ok.

We are asking a chicken and egg question @MightbeMaybe because then would you be ok with just having your ten year old from, ten, not knowing how they had been raised? It's not a charity case it's an intentional process, like IVF or making a baby when you're married and choose to have a baby.....

Not all surrogacy is biologically related to both parents. With gay men, of course that’s impossible.

So in that instance, when does it go from surrogacy to child trafficking? If it’s donor egg and donor sperm and not biologically related to either intended parent are they trafficking a newborn?

This