Sparkling Adventures in Child Neglect - "Gayby" is Born!

[Aggie2145]

I think everyone knows that as you say, "selling babies" is illegal and wrong. And that for-profit surrogacy is, and should be, heavily regulated. The issue here is that you keep referring to just "surrogacy," as if every surrogacy situation is the same. I haven't really seen anyone arguing that surrogacy should be a for-profit free for all; it's a nuanced issue and just saying "selling babies is wrong" isn't really helpful.

Blanket statements like this are what is causing the head-scratching:

It just doesn't leave room for any kind of nuance. How is altruistic surrogacy human trafficking?

This is my struggle as well, the blanket statements in this thread give me pause. While I agree that black market surrogacy is absolutely wrong, I know first hand that your blanket statements about surrogacy are just plain wrong.

My sister volunteered to be a gestational carrier for her best friend and it has been such a joy to witness. The mother is fertile, but for reasons still unknown, cannot carry a child past 22 weeks. After watching her lose two children, the second after multiple medical interventions, my sister approached her friend and offered to carry her child. After medical and psych exams, they drew up a surrogacy contract that spelled out every last detail. My sister's medical expenses were paid by the biological parents, but she did not receive any other compensation. All adults attended biweekly counseling together and my sister's children attended several sessions of play therapy.

I'm not saying this was a super sparkly event and that everything came up roses, but there is now an adorable four year old in this world...and no one can tell me she is a victim of human trafficking.

[Annasopinion]

Yeah, ok then. How dare I (a person who is educated, has a good job, stable homelife, and the want and desire to be a parent) want to give a home to a child (note I never said I had to have a baby - we are looking into ALL adoption, and have looked into surogacy as well)? How dare I? Because, as you said, we all want things we can't have. Meanwhile, there are people out there who have kid after kid, abuse them, mistreat them, can't care for them (and sometimes just have them to exploit welfare - yes it happens). Because I can not have children, I should NEVER EVER BE ALLOWED TO BE A PARENT because my parts don't work.

I see you are full of compasion. FULL OF IT.

And yes, I'm posting in anger.

Mama Mia - thank you for your kind words and consideration. We are looking into sibling adoption, but we are still in the first few months of working through the whole process as it has taken my husband a while to come around to this.

And if you have NEVER been infertile, don't you DARE say a child won't fill the whole in my heart that has been left by wanting to be a mother. Don't you dare.

It's exactly because I -am- full of compassion that I do dare. Full of compassion for the rights of the child. Over any person's emotionally fuelled grabbing "right" to create a human at any cost - which may include creating 3 parent humans, or using women from under developed nations to be a surrogate in exchange for money, or robbing a child of their inherent right to a mother in order to fulfil someone else's (biologically impossible) vision of a 'family'. I'm fully aware that this places me in the minority. You only need to look around the world to see that "I WANT" is the beginning of human degradation.

[treemom]

I don't believe children have an inherent right to a mother. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Antimony]

I don't believe children have an inherent right to a mother. That doesn't make sense to me.

Agreed but not completely, I guess. Child are concieved of greater than or equal to two biological adults but just...wtf?

Do they also have an inherent right to a father?

The 'inherent' right to a mother thing also reeks of homophobia.

Or what about transgender men who have children - are they robbing children of their inherent right to a mother if they have male partners but exist as the gender they are?

If a woman dies during childbirth has the child been robbed of their inherent right to a mother?

I think we'll see all sorts of different combinations of families in the future but I can't tell if it's sentiment or phrasing but inherent right to a mother just sounds off and I do not know what the hell that means if it isnt coded language.

[Antimony]

It's exactly because I -am- full of compassion that I do dare. Full of compassion for the rights of the child. Over any person's emotionally fuelled grabbing "right" to create a human at any cost - which may include creating 3 parent humans, or using women from under developed nations to be a surrogate in exchange for money, or robbing a child of their inherent right to a mother in order to fulfil someone else's (biologically impossible) vision of a 'family'. I'm fully aware that this places me in the minority. You only need to look around the world to see that "I WANT" is the beginning of human degradation.

Also if the word family deserves freaking 'scare quotes' because it's biologically impossible, I really think that you need to broaden your definition of what a real family cab be.

My biological father is not part of nor is he welcome to be part of my family.

My stepfather is, however, my family and my father and only referred to as my stepfather when other people need that clarification, like right now, but I guess my biologically impossible family is just nonsense and also the worst thing ever (despite being the best thing ever to happen to me.)

[nelliebelle1197]

It's exactly because I -am- full of compassion that I do dare. Full of compassion for the rights of the child. Over any person's emotionally fuelled grabbing "right" to create a human at any cost - which may include creating 3 parent humans, or using women from under developed nations to be a surrogate in exchange for money, or robbing a child of their inherent right to a mother in order to fulfil someone else's (biologically impossible) vision of a 'family'. I'm fully aware that this places me in the minority. You only need to look around the world to see that "I WANT" is the beginning of human degradation.

Anna's "opinion" would have more validity if Anna would bother to address any of the issues in the rebuttal replies. But apparently, Anna is only interested in her own "opinion" and not the larger issues and questions her statements raise. I am not going to isolate the very valid points raised by others, but if one cannot defend one's "opinion" with anything more than statements and scare quotes, then I am quite sure one should not be taken seriously.

[Crazytripletmommy]

As a person who dealt with infertility and multiple miscarriages prior to the miracle of modern medicine doing what the doctors were convinced wouldn't happen (dear god! Triplets! Crap!- what was it I was wishing and bargaining for???) parts if this thread are making me sad and angry. My husband, sister, and I were investigating gestational Surrogacy as my sister did pregnancy very well. My husband and I were also looking into a adoption. I get that hole in the heart. It hurt. And when I hear that it is a want and if you can't get it you shouldn't I see red. Throughout time people have wanted babies- hello the continuation of civilization is not just because sex is fun. Luckily, throughout time people have used formal and informal forms of adoption as well as surrogacy (anyone read the Handmaiden's Tale?- while not a true story it was representing things that occurred throughout biblical and ancient times).

I am sorry to have seen this thread go this way. I was feeling so proud of people earlier on when someone even commented on how nice people were being and how it was a polite transfer of information. I am pretty sure we would all agree that unethical methods of surrogacy and adoption are bad. Can we leave that part alone now and focus our collective attention back to the Sparkling one?

[LadyBlue]

Apologies in advance for the (occasionally only semi-related )novel.

I'm confused by aspects of this discussion of surrogacy. I definitely agree that the pay for surrogacy in other nations (thinking of the cases in Thailand) are terrible, but I don't understand the opposition if someone is willing to carry a baby without financial compensation.

I currently have a friend who is using a gestational surrogate in the US because she cannot safely carry a baby. From what she's told me, it's discouraged to have the gestational surrogate also be the egg donor. The baby is genetically hers and her husbands. A friend, who has been a surrogate before, is carrying the child. Surrogate will be there for baby after birth, but not in the role of mother.

I guess I don't understand the problem. Admittedly, I am only looking at it from my friend's perspective as she is finally having the child she's wanted after struggling with infertility and multiple losses for 8 years. LadyBlue, is there a specific site you could point me to with discussions from the children's perspective?

You have to look at it from the baby's perspective and a biological perspective. Admittedly, this is a completely new way of looking at things. Our society has barely acknowledged that babies can feel physical pain (unanesthetised surgery on newborns only ended in the 1980's & circumcision STILL is promoted by people claiming it doesn't hurt and won't be remembered). Admitting that they also feel emotional pain and actually do remember everything, if only on a celluar level, is going to take a massive cultural change in thinking.

So, start with what we know, for a fact, about life in utero for the fetus. They taste what their mother eats, to develop their palate for the foods that will be in their diet. They hear the sounds around her, to get them used to the sounds of daily life that awaits them. They hear their mother's heartbeat, her breathing, her voice. They feel how her body moves. They receive her hormones, which based on studies also somehow includes information on if they are wanted by their mother or not, which has been noted to cause signs of depression in the newborn. )Sorry, I can't find a link, I read it in a book a long time ago. )Which makes the whole "the woman knows the baby isn't hers and detaches even during pregnancy" expectation of surrogacy problematic for the baby.

At birth, the baby comes out "expecting" it's mother. Every instinct a baby has is to be on it's mother's body, to make it's way to her breasts to nurse, to smell the smells it's used to from in utero (there a glands in the breast which secrete a smell similar to amniotic fluid), to hear the voice and heartbeat it heard, to feel the breathing movement it felt. These things all reduce the stress of birth on the baby, help regulate it's temperature, breathing, heartrate. If the baby is not allowed this time (as is the case in most surrogate and newborn adoptions) it causes stress. And the longer the baby is away from the mother, the more stress. This is why kangaroo care is so essential for premies; instead of expending energy in stress and trying to regulate themselves, their mother's bodies help them.

Basically, for a newborn ,the mother is their entire universe, including their self. Her presence keeps the baby safe. Evolutionarily and biologically speaking, a baby without a mother was at high risk of death.

Now, take that baby away from the mother permanently. The baby is in a constant state of fight or flight stress. It is in a fight for it's very survival. It has no understanding of adult motivations or reasonings. Everything it knows is GONE. The only hope of survival is to make someone else take care of it. Historically, that hasn't gone well. Even today, children are at higher risk of death and injury from people who aren't biologically related to them (which is why foster care should require much higher standards, both for placement and for removal). This fight for survival affects the way the baby's brain is wired. Permanently. It also causes a kind of PTSD. Only babies have no pre-PTSD personality. This video is a great explanation:

Surrogacy causes the exact same issue. Yeah, for the adults involved, it's different. For the baby, it isn't. http://www.today.com/health/new-study-t ... 6C10366818

I see other posters have got the adoptee links covered, here's a couple adult surrogate/donor conceived (there really needs to be a word like adoptee for this!!) kids pages. They're hard to find because, relatively speaking, there aren't a lot of adults yet and every search I try only gets me blogs from parents and surrogates.

http://www.anonymousus.org/stories/inde ... Gvdb8mIDFI - anonymous stories. You can see how much variation there is in feelings around this subject, even among those who live it

http://theothersideofsurrogacy.blogspot.ca/ - has links to some other blogs

There've been a lot of other comments in this thread and I'm just going to try to cover them without quoting anyone in particular.

I have loads of compassion. Too much, really. Just because the vast majority of my compassion is directed to the children who have no voice, rather than adults who are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, doesn't mean I have no compassion. You are, understandably, only thinking of you own pain. I am thinking of the pain of the children and the first mothers. The lifelong pain. Wanting a child gives no one the right to have one, especially at the expense of the child. Is it incredibly unfair? Yep. So is making a mother and child mourn for each other for life so you can get what you want.

I noticed a couple people complained about my comment that a baby won't fill a hole in your heart. Do you have any idea how many people who can't have kids adopt to try to fill that hole and it fails utterly? Do you know how many thousands of adoptees deal with the pain of being unable to do that for their adopters? Of being a constant reminder of what their adopters really wanted was out of reach? Of always being second choice? You have NO IDEA. People who want to adopt should be required to have therapy to get past their infertility grief so they don't put it onto the child. Adoptees (and surrogate kids) should never have to put up with people who consider them second best, a last resort...whatever. They already have enough to deal with.

Here the thing, I am against adoption. Full stop, end of story. Adoption is a multi-billion dollar business that destroys lives and steals identities. I am also against surrogacy, donating eggs & sperm and any other reproductive "choice" which allows adults to hide children's biological identities from them and treats them as merely commodities.

With that said, sadly there will always be children who need a safe home, either due to abuse or lack of their own family willing/able to take care of them (not nearly as many as the industry wants people to believe, particularly in the case of other countries...funny how when adoptions are closed to the US, suddenly the supply dries up). However, there is no reason those children need adoption as it currently exists. If adoption allowed for children to keep their identities, I would have less problem with it. With current laws unlikely to change, the best option for the children is guardianship. It gives them a home, it gives their caregivers all the same legal rights and responsibilities as adoption and the child get to keep their identity.

Historically, and in the vast majority of countries today, western style adoption is incomprehensible. It's a huge problem in international adoptions, because the families simply don't understand that our adoption style severs all ties. Many think their children are coming here to be educated and will return to them later. They expect contact, because that is their tradition. Many so-called orphans have family who love them and want them but can't afford them, so they leave them at orphanages so the children can be cared for and get an education, but the family still visits them.

Heck, western style adoption didn't even exist in our countries until Georgia Tann. She instituted sealing adoption records and changing names. Not to protect people, but to hide her crimes. Of which there were thousands. Murder, child sexual abuse, neglect, physical abuse, bribing officials (with babies, then threatening to take babies back if laws she wanted weren't enacted), etc.

So, the very, most basic things adoption, egg/sperm donation and surrogacy need (since I really doubt it would ever be banned at this point) to be ethical and considerate of the children. 1)Counseling for the adults involved before anything occurs. And I don't mean the kind of counseling where mothers are manipulated to give up their children, as is present practice. 2)Laws requiring openness. No more lying to kids or hiding their origins. 3)Birth certificates as actual, legal, unchangeable documents of the child's biological origins, including whose egg, whose sperm, and whose uterus. 4)No more money changing hands except for very strictly regulated, actual legal fees. 5)No more adoptions without the father's consent. Related:no more teaching mothers how to avoid the father so they can declare abandonment and no longer need his permission. 6)No more adopters or parents of surrogate children in the delivery room. If it's really about the baby, the baby should get the chance to have time to adjust to extra-uterine life with it's biological expectations met (assuming medical feasible, if not immediately, there should be some time when that happens) 7)Revocation periods of at least a month. This is really difficult with surrogacy, but we don't allow women to sign contracts before birth to give children up for adoption and I'm really not sure we should for surrogates, either.

I guess the thing to always remember is that separation from their mother is always traumatic for babies. Sometimes it is unavoidable (most of the time it really would be avoidable if there were support), but always the goal should be to minimize the trauma, to do what's best for the child. Otherwise, it really is about supplying a product to people willing to pay, which is where we are now. Do a lot of those people have good intentions? I am 100% certain of that. But good intentions mean nothing without action to back them up.

I know my opinion is still the minority and is very, very hard for a lot of people to hear, especially people who have already adopted or who desperately want a child and can't have one biologically.

Back to the topic at hand, the only "good" thing I can see in this situation is that Daniel is biologically related to one of the dads. He will grow up with at least some genetic mirroring. Hopefully he takes after his father way more than Lauren. I do worry about them breaking up before he is grown, simply because his biological father is the one who least wanted a child. I guess we can only hope that actually having a child and parenting will/has gotten him past that and that he genuinely loves Daniel now he's here.

[Crazytripletmommy]

Ladybird, I find some of the "facts" you presented about infants having PTSD because they don't get access to their mothers after birth interesting. All three of my babies were micro-preemies. None of them had access to me- even for kangaroo care for over a week. One was almost six weeks old before she was stable enough for human touch. All three are extremely well adjusted, happy, typical five year olds. Once kangaroo care was allowed we were informed (by one of the countries best level five NICUs in the country) that kangaroo care by anyone is good. That there isn't really any difference between mother, father, or volunteer and as we had three extremely ill babies they had kangaroo care by all three- myself, my husband, and other family and friends. None of the babies showed any signs of sensing any difference between us- and trust me- I stared at those vital signs. Breast feeding was a horror show- one of my babies would code every time she tried so after the third time (having been told it was the best thing I was a slow learner) we stopped. I am actually going to forward the facts you presented (with little citation) to a few of the NICU nurses who I am now friends with (when someone saves your babies lives multiple times you bond quickly). I would be interested if they know these facts.

I think where you are also mistaken is that you say you have compassion for the children. So do I. Make no mistake - some adoption is highly unethical. That is wrong. But all adoption is not. And I feel you consistently make sweeping statements of the evil of it all (and then back pedal to say, but no, in rare cases....). I am fairly sure you and I are in agreement about parts of the issue but I am guessing you have been looking only at parts of this. Closed adoptions were harmful- that is all that is out there for most adult adoption stories. Only the recent years of adult adoptions would even discuss open adoptions (which when I investigated are the norm now).

What is your part? Why is this causing you so much pain? Why so angry?

Edited for riffles

[August]

Crazytripletmommy, the odd thing about ladyblue is that she's losing the rest of us the chance to educate on ethics in adoption and third party reproduction.

I've been reading those same threads, and that's not what I read (at least, maybe my brain has been doing my the favour of blanking out or skipping those posts). I've also read about this very, very extensively (see my own circumstances) and overwhelmingly, the critique is infant adoption, not older child/foster care adoption.

But seriously - No. Neither Bea nor I require a uterus (ours or someone else) to become a mother. There are children in the world who need parents. A child doesn't need to be "ours" or "born of our eggs" or of our partner, to be "ours". There are many, many older children who need families.

I have less problem with known gestational surrogacy than with adoption - but the idea that's it's necessary? No, it's not.

Like Chaotic Life said - there are ethical ways of doing these things. But it's hard. Really hard. The driving factors should never be anyones "right" to be a parent or have a child etc... The driving factor should *always* be the child, be they born/conceived yet or not.

Also - I've read what Bea has posted, with a great deal of empathy for her position. I didn't mean to suggest Bea was considering "anything"; the paragraph was intended more generally than I know see it reads. My apologies, Bea.

Yeah, Ladyblue said it, and upped the ante even more just now with a stream of absolute fucking tosh.

LadyBlue wrote:

Surrogacy and it's opposite side of the coin, infant adoption, are human trafficking. There's just no way to get around it.

[Firiel]

The "fact" I want to see a citation for is that a woman's body releases hormones that allow a fetus to know when it is unwanted. Not that a woman may release different hormones when stressed or depressed, but that she releases specific unwanted pregnancy hormones.

I'm calling bullshit on that one.

[Idolatry]

I think we can all agree that if you are going to use an illegal surrogate, Lauren is an awesome pick all around.

[Mama Mia]

Lady blue, I'm not going to talk about any of the rest of it right now, but I think the fact you can't find blogs or articles by the adult children born of surrogates is very interesting.

While it is relatively new -- it was 25 years ago that I offered it as an option to my sister. And I doubt I had just heard of the first surrogacy ever. So I'm thinking it's been an option for close to 30 years? That's a long time. That's a decades worth of adults. If there isn't a lot out there regarding the issues the adult children have --/ maybe it's because there just aren't a lot of issues?

Really, except for the biological part you feel is very important ( I'm unsure of how much of this I agree with -- I don't doubt it is a factor in development, but I don't know that it's relatively more or less important than a thousand other things) ---- I just don't think surrogacy and adoption are the same issues, at all. It seems kind of apples and oranges to me.

I think we do, as a society, tend to paint adoptive parents as universally loving, compassionate, rosy, happy idealized versions of families. While in reality I'm sure many of them turn out to be just as fucked up as anyone else. And raise their children in the myriad variety of fucked upness that parents inflict on their children. It just sounds, to me, like maybe some adoptees who have been raised by horrible belittling abusive distant parents are blaming all of that on the adoption - where the parents might be every bit as fucked up and awful if it was their biological child. Although the extra layer placed on adoptees of " how wonderful and selfless" their parents are - because they adopted them --- is really, really awful.

[DaffyDill]

Lady blue, I'm not going to talk about any of the rest of it right now, but I think the fact you can't find blogs or articles by the adult children born of surrogates is very interesting

Here you go Mama Mia :)

Below is a link to an article written by Alice Clark, Australia's first surrogate baby, who was born in 1988. Alice was carried by her aunt Linda Kirkman, and was conceived with eggs from her genetic mother Maggie Kirkman, with sprem being donanted by someone known to Maggie.

After giving birth to Alice, Linda gave her to Maggie, who then had to adopt her due to the Australian laws at the time.

Relevant to this discussion would be Alice's comments taken from the attached article:

I'm lucky my parents did a lot of soul-searching and also that they chose a sperm donor who they knew. Because of my family's visibility on the subject of Assisted Reproductive Technology (specifically on IVF surrogacy and sperm donation) and my mother's research into all things ARTy, I feel able to speak up about such matters. I need to speak up, too, because angry donor kids are in the minority; most of us are happy just to be alive.

Link: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio ... 6675601127

The article is mainly about the issue of donor privacy, and if a child's "right to know" should trump the donors request to remain anonymous, however I still think Alice's more general opinions on surrogacy are worth noting.

[SoybeanQueen]

wow, that is real ministry. That is real love. Honestly don't think i could ever be strong enough or selfless enough to do it. :worship: to the amazing families who are already or will be providing that structure and shelter for groups of siblings.

Truly, we're not any stronger or less selfish than others. We wanted a big family, and we took steps to make that happen. Adopting siblings together was a win-win for all of us. The kids got to stay together when otherwise they would have been placed separately, and we got a larger family.

Obviously I think this type of adoption is a great thing, but it's also good to understand that some people really want the whole parental experience, from birth, and that's OK, too.

[Annasopinion]

I don't believe children have an inherent right to a mother. That doesn't make sense to me.

If children don't have an inherent right to a mother....who should create, gestate and birth them? Gorillas? Oxygenated balloons? Every child that is birthed HAS by its birthright, an inherent right to its mother. This is simply a biological fact. One that many people are now trying to do away with.

And if children don't have this inherent right, then what do they have an inherent right to? food? shelter? Why those things and not their mother? What kind of society breeds humans on demand to fulfil a will and desire? Oh, wait. We already know. It's been done before in Hitler's baby camps.

[Mama Mia]

Going slightly off -topic, but the above article says there are " hundreds of thousands " of donor conceived people living in Australia. That sounded like a lot! Now I'm curious-- how common is surrogacy? How common is adoption? I know domestic newborn adoption has became very unusual-- but it does still happen sometimes- how frequently? Any recommendations for sites with good statistics would be appreciated. Thank you.

[SoybeanQueen]

So adoption is selling a human being? So bearing a child for someone else is selling a human being? Yeah, you are dangerously ignorant and it has nothing to do with law. If you can't understand the nuance, then perhaps you will always miss the inherent wrongness of the correlation.

I think it's not a great idea to paint all of adoption with the same broad brush. However, to say that some adoption is not human trafficking is also not a great idea. Having witnessed the adoption process in another country, where the adoptive parents showed up, paid cash, passed a few bribes, and walked away with their baby, it's pretty hard to not draw that comparison. In that same country, there are many reports of severely impoverished families having their children taken from them in order to satisfy the need for adoptable babies.

In the US, some people pay thousands and thousands of dollars in agency fees and birth mom fees (far beyond medical or living expenses). They are paying to take a baby home.

Please note, I am in no way saying this applies to all adoption. I also know some families who paid loads of money that went toward things like independent counseling and attorneys for their child's birth mom. That doesn't take away the fact that some people really are essentially buying a child.

[jaelh]

Yeah, Ladyblue said it, and upped the ante even more just now with a stream of absolute fucking tosh.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I would disagree that guardianship is preferable to adoption.

Unless we are using the terms in completely different ways, guardians are not parents. They don't have the same obligations and rights as parents. For example, children do not inherit from guardians.

I've dealt with enough foster care files to see the dismal outcomes for too many foster children. It's not enough to provide a roof overhead. Children don't get a sense of permanency. A foster family may provide adequate physical care, but they are not required to love their foster kids. Some do, some don't. In one case of mine, the foster mother decided when the child was only a year old that he was aggressive and troubled. The little guy was never permitted to call the foster mother "mom". He didn't have someone being proud of him just because he was their son. He wasn't treated the same way that their biological son, just a bit younger, was treated. He didn't have a forever family.

I realize that adoption doesn't guarantee a happy ending (esp. if it's done with unrealistic expectations and unethical agencies), and disruptions and "rehoming" are horrific, but proper adoption does give better odds of a good long-term outcome.

[Mama Mia]

I would disagree that guardianship is preferable to adoption.

Unless we are using the terms in completely different ways, guardians are not parents. They don't have the same obligations and rights as parents. For example, children do not inherit from guardians.

I've dealt with enough foster care files to see the dismal outcomes for too many foster children. It's not enough to provide a roof overhead. Children don't get a sense of permanency. A foster family may provide adequate physical care, but they are not required to love their foster kids. Some do, some don't. In one case of mine, the foster mother decided when the child was only a year old that he was aggressive and troubled. The little guy was never permitted to call the foster mother "mom". He didn't have someone being proud of him just because he was their son. He wasn't treated the same way that their biological son, just a bit younger, was treated. He didn't have a forever family.

I realize that adoption doesn't guarantee a happy ending (esp. if it's done with unrealistic expectations and unethical agencies), and disruptions and "rehoming" are horrific, but proper adoption does give better odds of a good long-term outcome.

I'm not sure, of course, but I think you may be using the terms differently.

I am suspecting that the term " guardianship" in this case, is meant to refer to the practices in many cultures/sub-cultures in which children are raised and cared for and sheltered by an extended family member(s) or a close friend --or even an outsider who becomes part of the extended family. These people act, in all respects, as the parents. But the original, biological parents still retain the connection as parents. The children's names aren't changed, there is frequent visiting and interaction between all extended family members, on both sides. The child might even go to live with the first parent for periods of time. Or the first parent may live with the new parent. The first parent may even give input on child rearing practices - but the parent who is providing the care is presumed to have the final word. The child may call one mother " mama" and the other " mom" . In practice, it really more closely resembles a very amicable divorce, with one parent having primary physical custody, and the other occasional visitation, than a traditional adoption.

Of course, this is all a rosy/sparkly view-- and like any other living arrangement on the planet-- is prone to being messier and more fucked up than originally envisioned.

Lady Blue, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[DaffyDill]

http://m.essentialbaby.com.au/birth/birth-stories/lauren-gives-the-ultimate-gift-despite-her-own-personal-loss-20141114-11m141.html

This is the biggest parenting site in Australia... So much going low key...

I doubt the author sought the permission of, or spoke to anyone involved...

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

....as on Ben's twitter page he appears to have tweeted her, saying he did not appreciate her using his photos and information for the article, and would she remove it. Which she hasn't.

[LadyBlue]

Well, despite hours searching, I couldn't find the specific study I was referring to. Most likely because it's from the pre-internet era. I did find these these, that show maternal mental state during pregnancy affects the baby. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17513986

http://www.earlyhumandevelopment.com/ar ... 0/abstract

https://birthpsychology.com/content/bor ... Gwl-smIDFI

According to Steele (1980) this can happen because the adoptive procedure itself is undertaken to solve the parental problem of infertility, and if adoptive parents have problems in low self-esteem, incompetence, and a sense of being defective that are too deep to be solved by the adoption of a child, the adopted child is "unconsciously seen as failing to solve the parental problem, is therefore an unsatisfactory child, and is at high risk for maltreatment."

from http://www.originsnsw.com/mentalhealth/id2.html Even without physical abuse, the bolded happens often in adoptions in which the adopters have not dealt with their own issues before adopting. I imagine there would be less of an issue in a surrogate relationship where at least one person raising the child is a biological parent.

And if you have NEVER been infertile, don't you DARE say a child won't fill the whole in my heart that has been left by wanting to be a mother. Don't you dare.

Did you even actually read what I wrote? I actually, specifically said that I was in that boat for 2 years. Over, really. Only my problem was not that I couldn't conceive, it was that I could keep them. Over, and over and over again. I stopped counting because it was too painful. Over 15 is all I know. I saw women being shitty mothers and wondered why them and not me? I was so resigned to only ever having miscarriages, the only reason I got a pregnancy test at all with my son was so I had a record of pregnancy for the fertility doctor I'd finally gotten an appointment with because I "knew" he was just going to be another lost one. Somehow, he wasn't. I have no idea how. And then the miscarriages happened AGAIN for my next pregnancy attempt. And again, and again. And then finally one stuck again. So do not EVER tell me I have no idea how it feels.

I am saying ADOPTION will not fill that hole and it is CRUEL to expect it of an adoptee. I know because I talk every day to fellow adoptees who actually LIVED that experience. I am saying please, please, find a way to fill the missing piece before you bring a child into your life. It is too much to expect of a child. I think the exact same thing about bio parents who have some issue or expectation that their child is going somehow fix something broken in their lives, fyi. This isn't a dig at infertile people. In my ideal universe, no one would become a parent without dealing with their own issues first.

What is your part? Why is this causing you so much pain? Why so angry?

This whole post so full of condescension, micro-aggression and passive-aggressiveness I could barely wade through it, but this really takes the cake. I actually thought that I could have an honest, truthful discussion about the harms of certain reproductive choices on this board without someone pulling the angry adoptee card. Silly me. I wonder if I've got a bingo yet from this thread?

Like most activists, I'm not actually angry. The fact you used that particular question is pretty silencing and dismissive, though. It's a pretty common accusation to hurl against people who aren't going along with the status quo. Maybe you want to consider why you're so threatened by what I'm saying?

Lady blue, I'm not going to talk about any of the rest of it right now, but I think the fact you can't find blogs or articles by the adult children born of surrogates is very interesting.

While it is relatively new -- it was 25 years ago that I offered it as an option to my sister. And I doubt I had just heard of the first surrogacy ever. So I'm thinking it's been an option for close to 30 years? That's a long time. That's a decades worth of adults. If there isn't a lot out there regarding the issues the adult children have --/ maybe it's because there just aren't a lot of issues?

Really, except for the biological part you feel is very important ( I'm unsure of how much of this I agree with -- I don't doubt it is a factor in development, but I don't know that it's relatively more or less important than a thousand other things) ---- I just don't think surrogacy and adoption are the same issues, at all. It seems kind of apples and oranges to me.

I think we do, as a society, tend to paint adoptive parents as universally loving, compassionate, rosy, happy idealized versions of families. While in reality I'm sure many of them turn out to be just as fucked up as anyone else. And raise their children in the myriad variety of fucked upness that parents inflict on their children. It just sounds, to me, like maybe some adoptees who have been raised by horrible belittling abusive distant parents are blaming all of that on the adoption - where the parents might be every bit as fucked up and awful if it was their biological child. Although the extra layer placed on adoptees of " how wonderful and selfless" their parents are - because they adopted them --- is really, really awful.

The first gestational surrogate pregnancy occurred in 1985 (so no adults until 2003), but even today it makes up a fraction of pregnancies. It's hard to get real numbers, but there were around 1,400 in the US in 2008 (which was an 89% jump on 2004's approximately 738). So clearly, there are not huge numbers of adult children of surrogacy to start with. The majority are probably not blogging about it, for whatever reason, just like majority of adoptees don't blog about it (although the numbers on that have been increasing as more and more speak up). Then you factor in that the discussion is nearly completely about the adults in the equation, so their links are going to register higher in a search engine, and it's really not a surprise I couldn't find many actual blogs, which is what the person seemed to be requesting.

I haven't spoken directly to many children of surrogate pregnancies, but I have read many interviews with them and they do seem to have many of the same issues as adoptees. I would like more research. On both issues, tbh. There is virtually no research on the long-term effects of surrogacy on surrogates and children, much less on the emotional outcomes and only a bit more research for adoption. There is, however, numerous studies which show it is adoption itself which causes the negative effects. I would post links, but I have actually been working on this post for 4 hours or more (& pissed off my husband in the process :? ) The link I posted with the quote mentions a number of studies.

I would disagree that guardianship is preferable to adoption.

Unless we are using the terms in completely different ways, guardians are not parents. They don't have the same obligations and rights as parents. For example, children do not inherit from guardians.

I suspect we are at least partially talking at cross-purpose. Or perhaps guardianship would need to be modified slightly. Technically, children can inherit from guardians, just as adoptees can inherit from their bio families. There's just no automatic right to inheritance. Which, yes, could be a huge problem in some families. Although, I'm pretty sure even bios can write their kids out of their wills in most places. Anyway, the guardianship idea I'm thinking of would be identical to adoption except that it would leave records unsealed, unaltered and the child's identity intact. Would it be better to change adoption laws for that to happen? Definitely. Is it likely? Definitely not. Adult adoptees can't even manage to get the laws changed to get them their OBC (even though amended certificates are causing problems for many with Homeland Security) despite fighting for years.

I really am sorry for the novel, again. Since I can't seem to make short posts on this subject and I've been spending waay too much time on this the last couple days, I'm out for at least a few days. If anyone posted something after 2xx1xy1JD, sorry if you wanted a reply from me. It's nearly 1am, I'm sick and my head is pounding, so I'm crashing. (Just so y'all don't think I'm flouncing)

[Coco]

LadyBlue, just wanted to say i admire your ability to write about these things despite how difficult these topics have to be for you to discuss. Thank you for posting the links about maternal stress affecting the unborn baby, that was something i had wondered about, since i went through stress while pregnant with mine. Nothing too intense, just enough for me to worry so it's good to read studies about it. FJ is really a therapeutic place to talk about these things that are painful for many reasons.

I'm so sorry about your miscarriages. Thank you for sharing your experiences.

[treemom]

On second thought I don't even want to respond to Anna. The hitter thing demonstrates that she doesn't believe anyone else can have a different but reasonable opinion.