Robbie Williams and surrogacy

Adoption is also a very last resort now. We have learnt from the past re adoption, but mustnt apply the same science to surrogacy because it means you hate gays

A uterus isnt just a bit of kit. Gestation afftects the mother and child. Physically, genetically, emitionally

make you wonder.

Starbird that’s exactly the scenario I mention in my earlier post. The surrogate baby recognised its birth mother’s voice.

When you think that the baby in the womb would also have heard its siblings voices throughout pregnancy, it does you wonder how disoriented the newborn child must have been when these things are suddenly gone.

There was far more to my life in my fertile years than an all consuming desire to keep on having children and that goes for all the women I know.

Adoptions are almost always open these days if it is at all possible. Because it is well known that closed adoptions cause lifelong problems.

That doesnt mean all adopted people have terrible lives but it is very very well researched that infant separation from the birth mother has lifelong effects. Effects which can be partially mitigated by knowing about and acknowledging and if possible visiting the birth family

The way the Dalys used surrogacy goes against all of that. Claiming they are the only parents and the child has no mother. Its damaging and selfish.

GG no one is entitled to buy another woman’s uterus and the more of their own babies they’ve had the more I judge them negatively.

Recent science shows that some DNA of the mother transfers to the child in the womb and vice versa - the literal meaning of blood ties between the baby and the person that carries it.

Also, a baby can hear voices from those around it, and becomes accustomed to the rhythm of the mother’s heartbeat, and no doubt digestive noises as well! It hears the music it’s mother listens to ( or coronation street etc! - you may ban your children from watching certain tv programmes but a baby in the womb hears the voices and picks up any fear or hatred in the voices or background sounds).
Imagine a new born baby taken away from every sound that has become familiar to it during its life, (sound being the only sense from outside the womb that it can experience to any great extent) this is a further trauma to add to that of emerging from a tunnel into a brightly lit noisy, unfamiliar world. . Personally I think that other than in exceptional circumstances, it is vain and selfish to use a surrogate. If you don’t want to carry a child, go without or adopt.

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.

Yawn
This is about woman and babies.
I disaprove of rich couples who rent womens bodys.
Yes even if they're gay...

I take it it’s just me we bang on the drum as an over populated world we shout loud stop as we are destroying our planet . But the rich choose not to have or can’t have there own kids so they pay people to have them is this not wrong in an over populated world yes we have a right to choose but think of what’s happening today floods famine disease under our noses but again we aren’t sorting this out we are throwing money at the wrong things when is it going to stop

We had four C, and I was desperate for a fifth. Eight years of operations, drugs and despair, if I could have used a surrogate I would have.

The overall yearning for a child is all consuming, last thing I thought of at night, during the night and first thing in the morning. Eight years later and when I had given up all hope I was pregnant.

Dismissing Ayda as "rich and entitled" is very unkind as you do not know her.

X posts Galaxy I’m losing the will to live.

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.

FGS paperback

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.

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.

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.

Wow not you’re on fire - go woman go

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.

"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 ?

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

Correct.

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 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.

"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?

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.

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.