Robbie Williams and surrogacy

Summerlove would you prefer us to say thay adoptees arent human? Arent mammals? That the same pysiology somehow does not apply?

Galaxy, yet, it’s ok to tell adult adoptees that their brain has been traumatised and isn’t normal?

We're saying the COMPLETE opposote of that.
It IS "normal" for mammal infants to have a physical attatchment to their birth mother
It is normal in mammal infants for physical genetic pysiological changes to occur if separated from their birth mother in infancy.
Thats all normal
Basic. Normal. Biology

Honestly are we not allowed to say we're mammals now? Is that too "triggering"
Literally the definition of mammals is all about the "fourth trimester" (or equivalent of)

"Be kind" doesnt = shut up about exploitation

If Mrs Williams (who has carried pregnancies) opted to BE a surrogate, I would probably "be kind" about that... but yet to see the privilidged rich advocates of surrogacy who claim its all about "giving gifts awwww" and not about exploiting the less well off, actually volunteering to be surrogates..

Galaxy, yet, it’s ok to tell adult adoptees that their brain has been traumatised and isn’t normal?

Sure there is science, but to tell posters that they are damaged?

Where is the kindness in that?

Missieff, It doesn’t even need to be in the public eye. People in this very thread have stated that the way some information is being given is extremely hurtful. But posters keep at it.

Trisher are you honestly saying we should deliberately cause trauma to children because there might be things we can do to then reverse it. You dont think that sounds cruel.

Only just seen this. What appalling opinions! Given the news regarding Caroline Flack at the weekend, with people like you around, there's no wonder. These people may be in the public eye but they're fellow human beings. Nobody has the right to judge anyone. Do any of you actually know Mrs. Williams's medical situation?? How dare you be so judgemental?? BE KIND!!!!!!!!

Mitigating is not the same as undoing. And genetic changes that occur due to early stress are irreversible. They can be mitigated but not erased.

Because there is an agreement between two adult people about who will parent the child and there is also evidence that a caring and supportive family can actually reverse and change the brains of even children who have sufered severe trauma in their birth families. In other words a loved and cared for baby gets over it.

Maddyone: thoughtful posts as ever.

So, given that everybody is agreed separation from the mother is damaging and to be avoided, why is OK for a couple with 2 children to order 2 more?

And why is it OK for 2 men to order a baby because they want one?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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!

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.

Science is never wrong !

Sodapop, seems you’re right.

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.

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.

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?

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.