Robbie Williams and surrogacy

Supportive of whom Gill ? Commodified women or rich entitled celebs with two children of their own renting a womb?

I can't believe this has gone on for 10 pages!

But it’s been a very wide ranging mostly interesting thread

I do remember reading about surrogacy in The Bible - Rachel couldn't have her own child with Jacob, so she did so through her handmaiden Bilhah. Sarah couldn't have her own child with Abraham, so she had a child through her handmaiden Hagar. The two handmaidens were slaves so, presumably, had little say in it. At least surrogates these days do.

The way I understand it is that these two children are biologically Robbie and Ayda's. The surrogate was implanted with the fertilized eggs.

There is some twaddle written on here about adoption.

why didn't she have the children herself. Was she unable to. Introducing a third person into the birth of a child is wrong. Who is really the mother. The egg donor or the woman who carried the child

I have not read all the posts but am sure there is negativity and condemnation against people that nobody on here knows.

What has this got to do with anyone but those involved
.
It seems that social media has contributed to another suicide,who knows how many there are that are not news worthy.

There are kinder ways of saying you dont agree with something.

I am discussing surrogacy, not particularly Robbie Williams, or anyone else, all sorts of things could be seen as nothing to do with anyone else, divorce, parenting, etc. Its partly how we as a society establish laws.

There is some twaddle written on here about adoption

Specificially?

‘I have not read all the posts’ ......

In which case, why not refrain from posting rose until you have?

Many surrogates get immense joy from enabling a family to have a child

So I ask again, if its such a joyful choice, why don't we see rich women opting to carry babies for poor/ordinary families hmm? Surely if surrogacy was about the fulfilling experience and not the money, rich women would be lining up to do it? Dont the well off love a "meaningful experience"? They'll pay gweneth paltrow £££ to learn how to put jade eggs in their vaginas after all

Familial surogacy aside.

A worthwhile comment from rosenoir, regardless of whether all posts were read or not read.

The only post I’ve read was the last one ... yours susiewoozie.

"Children for sale"? Ye gods. Honestly, how judgmental people are! Give them a break and step away from the Daily sodding Mail. Surrogacy is a generous and loving act (certainly in this country where you can't be paid for it). The babies in this case are unrelated to the woman who carried them. Do you know if Williams's wife can actually carry babies herself? Maybe she can't.

I suppose all you 'judges' don't approve of gay men having babies by surrogacy either.

My daughter and her female partner have a daughter thanks to the generosity of a sperm donor (identity unknown). Do you think that's totally out of order too?

I did read some of the posts*susiewoozie*, I said I had not read all of them, there are 10 pages!

I do not know if you realise that you can come across as a bit confrontational.

Do you know if Williams's wife can actually carry babies herself? Maybe she can't.

She can she has carried her own before. Her posh gynae told her that a 3rd pregnancy might further damage her body (as pregnancies do) so she outsourced that damage to someone less fortunate.

And here expenses include recovery money for the whole of the surrogates family after the birth. Its not a lot but if you are on a low income it = a bit of financial breathing space

I suppose all you 'judges' don't approve of gay men having babies by surrogacy either.

Correct.

"Surrogacy is a loving and generous act"
Hmmmm are only poorer women loving and generous....
Or is surrogacy not in fact about that at all.....

Where are all the rich surrogates if its all about giving a rewarding wonderful gift ?

To those who claim adoption is 'damaging' - do none of you remember the old early 60s when single girls who were pregnant were told that if they wanted the best for their babies (ie to be good mothers) they must give them up to a couple who could give them a respectable life? Do you really think ALL the half million babies adopted between 1964 and 1970 have had terrible lives?
It was a dreadful form of emotional blackmail at the time but to claim the adoptions themselves were damaging, is unjust and unfair. My DIL's brother and his wife adopted two children as she'd had a childhood cancer and was left infertile. I think I can safely say that these much-loved children's happy lives with this couple is far less damaging that leaving them languishing in the care system.

Wow not you’re on fire - go woman go

notanan2 Do you know the woman who was the surrogate? She may well have been a family friend for all any of us know and not necessarily at all poor. And she made the choice to carry these babies - nobody forced her into it. She is not a victim, however hard you try to make her look like one.

As for your disapproval of gay men and babies - can you imagine how sad it must be for them to be condemned never to be fathers? Or maybe you just don't approve of the gay thing all round.

you have no right to inflict those beliefs on other people

I am not inflicting anything? It doesn't sit well with me, a family with 2 children having 2 more because they can.

We would all like things because we can ,but we rein oursleves in.

Oh for goodness sake it was obvious she meant she disapproves of surrogacy whether it is for gay people or heterosexual people. I cant tell you how many times feminists are called homophobic about this when its nothing of the kind. The same feminists who campaigned against section 28, etc etc.

FGS paperback

Bibbity You even think sperm donation is exploitative and damaging? Without a donor I wouldn't have one of my wonderful granddaughters. Ignorant and bigoted posts like yours REALLY make me angry.