Robbie Williams and surrogacy

Paperbackwriter Yes I am against sperm donation. And personal sob stories aren’t going to change my opinion.

Did the child consent to being created but having no connection to their biological father? No relationship? No questions answered? Not know if they have siblings? Not knowing if they meet a sibling in real life?

And then there’s the new technology.
So it’s so easy to track down relatives.
So one day they find their father and want a relationship. And they get rejected.

This has happened to people. And they have been greatly affected by it.

I’m not revisiting the adoption argument. Because it isn’t an argument. It’s fact. With science. And not some random pointless stories.

And yes. I do massively judge people who use surrogates.

I think it’s sad that a woman cannot feel fulfilled unless she has a child. And so many then go back to work so soon after welcoming a baby to their home. The babies are being treated as accessories, brought up be nannies and childminders.

I don't think that many rich women choose to be surrogates except in rare occasions for close relatives.
There are stronger laws preventing puppies (at least in many countries) from being removed from their mothers too early than there are for human babies.
In poorer countries (where people often go to find a surrogate) the aftercare is often not good and the amount paid is often not enough to pay for any post operative complications.
It is just another way of oppressing the poor.

A baby born to a surrogate who had previous children, is not a sibling to those children in cases where the embryo was used from the biological parents.

Some attitudes here towards adoption are shocking. To infer that most adopted children have trauma and damage? Goodness

FWIW I also think that its disgusting that cheaper/subsidised IVF is offered to less well off couples if they agree to donate eggs in the process.

All arguments of altruism go out the window when its only attracting the less well off..

As I said "best practice" was balanced against putting donors off.

The evidence based best practice is that the child knows from the start, it is acknowledged and if possible there is some contact.
But in order to retain doners they had to make it from 18 only

Here’s the law on it all re sperm donation. Child has rights to identity of donor at age 18.
www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/explore-all-treatments/using-donated-eggs-sperm-or-embryos-in-treatment/legal-implications-of-using-donated-sperm/

Attatchment is not the same as bonding
The infant has an attatchment to the birth mother.
Breaking that attatchment that early physicall changes the child.
It is to be avoided wherever possible

Wasn’t the law changed re anonymity of sperm donors?

There was some debate as all of the science pointed to children needing it to be open. Bit men werent donating if open.
.

Nobody is dismissing adoption when it is necessary

There is undeniable evidence however that the birth mother in particular should be acknowledged and if possible in contact, even in early adoptions. Because an attatchment was there and it getting broken so early has consequences

I have no knowledge of 'open' adoption notanan2 but I do think its sad to dismiss adoption as too traumatic when so many children have had really good lives with their adoptive families.

Wasn’t the law changed re anonymity of sperm donors?

Its also widely accepted now that sperm doners should be "known" not closed and children should be told where they come from and have the option to contact.

The person who gestated the child matters. You cant just draw a line undee that at birth

Not all birth families are a good thing!
Nobody said they are BUT
evidence based best practice says that even birth families that cannot keep the baby, the family should be acknowledged and the child should have contact even if that has to be via a closed post box system or at supervised contact centres

Notanan2 specifically about how traumatic adoption is etc. That is rubbish

Its medical scientific fact backed up by a huge body of research which guides best practice re adoption being a last resort AND being as open as possible.

But okay..

That’s ok, Starbird, this is a busy thread! I was just interested in what you had to say.

One step away from an artificial womb. I wonder what the baby would hear? Absolute silence, the hum of machinery? Would that affect development I wonder? We should not experiment on babies.

Lesbians can get pregnant and give birth
Lesbians are as likely as anyone else to be infertile
Lesbians are as likely as anyone else to have physical damage from previous pregnancies that makes them reluctant to carry again

Notanan2 specifically about how traumatic adoption is etc. That is rubbish, much more traumatic to be an unwanted or abused child.

My precious adopted grandchildren came from a seriously damaging, criminal and exploitative background. They are not the GC they would have been if DS and DdiL had been able to conceive them but we love them and support them, knowing that they are infinitely better off than if left with their birth family. Not all birth families are a good thing!

Lesbians can get pregnant and give birth

*So homosexuals in a marriage or civil partnership are using
women*

Lots of homosexuals dont. Lesbians rarely opt for surrogacy

The Dalys however not only rented a womb, but then went on to deny that the child ever had a "mother"

If they go for surrogacy yes annie they are. In life, you can’t always get what you want. Sad but true.

So homosexuals in a marriage or civil partnership are using
women

SueDonim sorry when it gets to 10 pages I don’t read all the previous posts.
You are so right about siblings voices too, and pets!