Robbie Williams and surrogacy

?

I was going to comment especially as I have 5 adopted children plus 3 birth children. I also have DGD born by IVF. But this thread has turned so nasty its not worth bothering with.

I've read this thread with mounting disbelief. Like Lavenderzen further up-thread I can't believe the nastiness and am very tempted to give GN the elbow. So, Sooziewoozie, you may very well hear that door slamming!

I can't help but feel that this is the next phase in the "too posh to push" thing. A few years ago some women were going for elective cesareans so as to avoid the pain of childbirth and any associated damage to bladder control etc. Now it seems that if they have enough money, but are perfectly capable of having their own babies, they are going down the surrogacy route to avoid the pregnancy entirely. I think it's the latest fad.

Not sure there has ever been a baby yet born who gave prior permission for their impending birth. But I’ll wager there are very few who wish they hadn’t been born.

Methinks Mr Williams should be as brave as Mr Schofield.

There are many posters here who have experience of adoption, some because they have much loved adopted family members, others because they worked with children and families where adoption is part of their daily lives.
I have professional and personal experience. I find the cold, analytical comments that adoption is always damaging both unhelpful and untrue.
Attachment theory does inform psychological, psychiatric, practice as well as work in adoption agencies. Those working in the field recognise that adoption has to be a last resort. Surely it isn't difficult to realise that taking up an oppositional stand to contributors to this thread who have themselves been adopted, or have adopted loved ones in insensitive and unnecessary.

Those who are adopted have been told of the alleged suffering of their birth mother , this is the most cruel thread
we have had on this forum.

Not that I have any control over who says what, but I am sorry if the discussion has upset and offended. I've been reading up a bit on trauma and as I said it seems to be widening out to include behaviours which were previously seen as pretty standard eg smacking, death of a parent and so on. It's interesting the stuff about the formation of the brain and raised levels of cortisol and so on.

Again I agree with you whole heartedly Iam64

Fortunately my parents gave me a good grounding for my life and whilst some of the comments have annoyed me I am most certainly not distressed by them. There are so many of us out there who have had good lives and experienced a happy family environment that otherwise may have been denied to us.

No it is not the most cruel thread ever. How ridiculous. It was almost immediately hijacked and turned into something personal. Grounded adults or Grans with adopted GC will see some strongly held views perhaps rather clumsily expressed and carry on with their lives.

I agree with Iam and sodapop, I’m certainly not upset, but I do wonder at the strongly held views of people who have no experience of infertility, aren’t they lucky! And no experience of adoption. Of course people have a right to express an opinion without necessarily having concrete experience of the subject, but this topic is intensely personal to many Gransnetters, and I do think that not enough value has been given to those who have experience of these things. Some posters have pursued their own strongly held views perhaps too aggressively. These are of course emotive subjects and people feel strongly, but nonetheless people with direct experience do have a very valid story to tell, based on indisputable facts, rather than emotions.

but I do wonder at the strongly held views of people who have no experience of infertility, aren’t they lucky! And no experience of adoption

I do wonder how you assume to know the fertility status/family history of posters that make you "wonder" this?

Some posters have pursued their own strongly held views perhaps too aggressively.

The science widely accepted by childrens/adoption/medical services arent personal held views. Or extreme/strong views. We're mamals and mamal infants have an attatchment to their birth mother.
Even in the absence of bonding or nurturing.

The science may be widely accepted notanan2 but the emotional impact and our own experiences should not be dismissed so coldly.
We are never going to agree on this I'm afraid.

Sodapop, seems you’re right.

Science is never wrong !

What a sad thread this has been. So much prejudice - not least against the Williams family for daring to have money. And there's more than a hint of homophobia too. I hate to think there might be people out there like a few of those who've posted their opinions on here, looking at my little granddaughter and judging her female parents for having the audacity to have her at all. Not to mention those who have or are adopted - how some of the ignorant comments must have have hurt. A lot here have been most unkind and thoughtless and just plain nasty in a few cases. The whole thread read a lot like the Daily Mail comments section.

Its not anti gay parents in general to say that surrogacy is distasteful and exploitative.
There are plenty of gay couples who dont use surrogacy and nobody on here is judging them! Some chose not to be parents, some are biological/birth parents, some are foster or adoptive parents.

There's nothing homophobic about being anti surrogacy!

Find me one single post here paperbackwriter where anyone has said that they're all for surrogacy, unless gay people do it

If a family on benefit who lived on an estate with 2 children had decided to get 2 more , there would be outrage.

To introduce another factor into the attachment/trauma to the child of removal from birth mother discussion that features in this thread.
We aren't living in the 50's or 60's, where single mothers were encouraged into mother and baby units, where usually they cared for their babies for six weeks before the prospective adopters arrived to remove the babies. that was hugely traumatic for the young mothers, no question about that. I have close friends who adopted one of those babies in 1972 They met the baby's mother several times during her pregnancy, when she lived with a C of E vicar. The circumstances around the baby's birth meant adoption was the only option available to the young mum. That child was brought up with as much information as was then possible about her birth family, including grandparents. The child is now heading for 50. Lovely person, with children and great relationships with adoptive parents and extended family.
That's one story. the more recent story is likely to be of a baby born to parents who have drug/alcohol/mental health/insecure or other potentially damaging attachment styles. The baby may well be born dependent on drugs or with foetal alcohol syndrome.
It's very rare for babies to be removed at birth. That happens rarely, those babies will be considered by an experienced Judge who will hear evidence from the parents as well as the la and possibly from other family members. The baby will be legally represented by an experience Children's Guardian.
There are some projects where babies/children are placed directly with prospective adopters whilst assessments are ongoing.
It's imo unfair to simply focus on the trauma of removal without acknowledging how complex this situation is for everyone involved.

A very balanced post Iam. Whatever we learnt from adoption in the 50s, 60s, and 70s is unhelpful in the context of the majority of today’s adoptions. I am unwilling to share highly personal (to our family) information about our grandchild’s adoption. Suffice it to say, our grandchild is undoubtedly in the very best place for him. Of course it was traumatic for all involved when he was initially removed, but there is no doubt that it was the best possible outcome. Also those who believe it’s unilaterally a good thing for the adopted child to maintain visits and links with the birth family should be aware that whilst for some children it’s the best course of action, for others it’s unsettling, traumatic, threatening and indeed disturbing. My grandchild’s parents gave it their best shot, it didn’t work. They have all the documentation and information available if he eventually chooses to look for his birth family.
Incidentally my cousin adopted two babies in the 70s. Neither of them have ever wanted to find their birth families. They say we are their family. And they are right, we are.

Attatchment trauma still happens when infants are taken from abusive or neglectful homes. The reasons they need to be taken does not somehow cancel out the attatchment trauma. Attatchment does not = bonding. It is there whether the birth parent is good or bad.

Its not anti-adoptees/adopters to say so and infact, as Ive said upthread, any perspective adoptive parent who admitted to not believing in attatchment trauma would fail the assessment process!

We are mammals. We are defined as creatures where the infant/mother attatchment is part of our biology.

Where has anyone said that it isn't traumatic for babies to be removed, even from parents who have or are likely to cause them to suffer significant harm notanan2?