Fair play lads. Vouge and Spencer will have serious competition for baby related content.
The surrogate mother is the sister of Brian Dowling. She's probably in her house.
Where's the mother in this story
"So what you're saying is" tends never to be a good method to start any rebuttal - let alone as a start to a cop out. Especially when the "what you're saying is" turns out to not be at all what I said but something you decided to make up and put in my mouth.
No what I am saying is that merely saying "different" says absolutely nothing. The jump from "different" to declaring what is important or a "need" or to declare that men/women are somehow incapable of doing something the other can - is just a non-sequitur. That is what the "nonsense" is. From you not me.
The "bonds" between you and your parents and me and my parents are likely much different too. Regardless of gender. We all bond with parents, friends, sibling, family, peers and coworkers in our life differently. So merely declaring there is something "different" is to say nothing at all. There is no universal there at all as if child-mother bond or child-father bond is some fixed thing that is the same across all children everywhere. Bonds to parents vary massively - indepedent of gender.
To say something of substance - which you have not - you would need to explore some relevant questions. Like: What specifically is different? How? How is the difference mentioned actually important or relevant to rearing a child? Why is the other parent specifically precluded from some aspect of bonding or parenting based on that difference?
At the end of the day I simply have seen no reason to think that there is any "need" or ideal that a child is brought up by specifically one male and one female. And when pressed for any evidence to this effect people seem to do what you just did which is declare themselves not bothered to even try before running away. You're not going to argue it because you simply can't - not because anything I said was not perfectly clear.
And the world belies your nonsense. In that - as I already said - there are any number of healthy adults who were brought up in any number of different parental configurations. If anything you were saying was true then we should be seeing some stark differentials there. But the reality is quite the opposite. We see pretty much all the same good and bad results of parenting and child upbringing regardless of the parental configuration we study.
So you're trying to say the emotional and hormonal bonds are the same in both the mother and father. I'm not even going to argue the nonsense.
How would you suggest the law should be worded? To stop parents posting pictures of their children. Seems like a massive over reach of the law surely, no?
I have no kids and any would never post pics of my friends kids if I was minding them, but a law? To stop someone posting pictures? How do you propose that should work?
this child will be posted every single day online as her older sister is, she’ll have no privacy at all, just to be a cash cow for these two. Laws really need to be brought in to protect children like this.
Strong statements but mostly guff really. Thankfully given the number of studies on gay parents which show children doing as well as - and in some few studies even better than more traditional counterparts - there is little to no reason to think anything you said above is true and/or relevant and/or important.
Over the years especially around the gay marriage referendum I heard people declare statements like yours over and over but never with any supporting evidence. Nothing has changed it seems.
I am yet however to find any actual example of types of "care" that one person can provide the other magically can not. Emotional. Physical. Or anything else. Nor have I seen anyone get into specifics of "bonds" and describe the differences which are somehow precluded.
In fact simple reliance on the word "different" is the hope that that word will carry the weight of the claim. But simply being "different" (even if we accept it is) does not mean "better" or "worse" or "ideal" or "less ideal" or anything else. Different is just that. Different. No more. No less. Biological connection to your two original parents in no way guarantees care or bond or anything else in fact.
Finally the word "need" is a strong one. Yet despite being the strongest of the claims it is the one with the least evidence. There is a world full of children grown up with single parents - step parents - gay parents - no parents - more than two parents - and many appear to be absolutely fine. Or at least as fine as their traditional counterparts. So clearly there is no "need" there.
Probably the only thing we can say given all the evidence is that the parented children who struggle most are children of single parents. Which given the stresses of modern life makes a lot of sense. They do not "need" a second parent but it certainly is a more significant struggle to have only one and more ideal to have two. Or any gender.
Much respect to those single parents who make it work! My children live with three parents (each their own two and one more) and even we struggle at times. I can barely imagine doing it on my own!
Of course the studies showing this are often misused by people as evidence that a father or mother specifically is required. Which is not at all what those data/studies say. Evidence related to an entirely missing parent is not evidence related to a specifically missing gender of parent. And those people should not pretend that something was studied when in fact something entirely different was studied.
A man will never be able to provide the emotional or physical care the mother does. We are built differently, not to mention ,we don't carry the child for 9 months. The fathers bond is different. A child needs both
Babies. Every animal species that every existed could have them. What exactly is the news story here ? Oh they are selling the baby on social media to earn some kind of fame and money off that. How nice.
the ultimate accessory.
That's a lovely name to saddle her with...
The couple have become parents to another baby girl Blu Amar Rose Dowling
"Trailblazing"? Surrogacy is not new - it's happened before - many, many times before... .
For the people worried about "clicks": do you feel that way about every so-called celebrity baby, or just these ones?
"expecting."
ffs.
Me for the pub again.
Exciting news. Such a brave trailblazing announcement. Hopefully a boy to make it a proper gentlemens family
The sister clearly has very little to be doing with her time or is desperate for money.
Baby No. 2
Thanks for the warning.
Brian Dowling and his husband, Dancing with the Stars judge Arthur Gourounlian, will appear on The Late Late this Friday where they'll discuss the highs and lows of their surrogacy journey.
They will be joined by Brian's sister Aoife Dowling who acted as the surrogate for their son Blake, a topic which is explored in further detail in the upcoming documentary Brian & Arthur's Very Modern Family on Monday, 13 March
Breeding children is all about ego and reproducing yourself all the infertile couples should be asked to foster the poor unloved children in the country the government are crying out for people to foster.
I admit I have no idea who Brian Dowling is apart from that stint on Big Brother all those years ago and no concept of his partner. I wish them both the best but I echo the concerns around surrogacy. Not so much in this case as the sister isn't the child's biological mother and I'm assuming she offered to carry the baby, she will also be a figure in the child's life which I think is important. Where I have an issue is with women in poorer countries carrying babies for westerners, giving birth, never seeing the child again. Its exploitation.
This won't be popular but while I have every sympathy for any couple who can't have kids, I don't believe everyone should be able to have one by whatever means. Infertility has touched my own family and I have seen the toll it takes on a couple not to be able to have a child so I can understand the desperation but I think we've taken it too far now in the bid to give everyone what they want. Easy for me to say as someone who doesn't want kids I know but there is a life beyond children.
Our politicians like to make out that we are lagging behind the rest of the EU in not legislating for surrogacy, but there are only 5/6 countries in the EU that have done so. Of those, Greece is the only one that allows surrogacy and has stringent requirements (the court has to be satisfied that the commissioning mother is unable to carry a child for medical reasons and that the surrogate mother is medically and psychologically fit to carry the child and give it up).
Commercial surrogacy is banned in all of the EU (under article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU), yet our politicians don't seem to want to acknowledge this, and have no problems with women outside the EU having fewer rights than women inside the EU and seem willing to ignore the potential for abuse in international surrogacy and the lack of any ability to ensure that whatever local protections are in place for surrogate mothers are actually being followed.
EU countries that have legislated for international surrogacy have banned it. French citizens who contract an international surrogate will never be recognised as the parents of the child (meaning the child cannot be granted French citizenship), are barred from adopting the child and can end up in prison for it.
I can understand the logic behind allowing altruistic surrogacy, that someone can help family/friends out, but I can also see that it could lead to a confusing situation for the child, and potential ill-will between the surrogate and the child's parents, especially if there is a discrepancy between how the surrogate mother would raise the child and how the parents are raising the child.
The argument that loving parent(s) who don't include the gestational carrier (or mother as we would generally refer to her) are better than no parents or abusive parents is definitely appropriate for adoption, but it is less meaningful when talking about a child that is purposely born into that situation. In any debate on surrogacy (and on adoption) the overriding factor should be what is in the best interest of any potential child. The current situation is that it could be decided that parents are not suitable candidates to adopt, but if they have enough money they can have a child created and brought back to the country to be theirs.
There is no guarantee though Fugue that the child will have a healthy bond with their biological mother.
What's more important is that there is A bond and attachment formed with a primary caregiver. Ideally it would be with the biological mother but life doesn't always work out like that.
Seems horrendous.
I'm opposed to surrogacy. Yes, people choose to do it for family/friends (women in very poor countries choose it out of desperation, how much of a choice is that really) - and nothing I say will stop this - but none of that changes how much I dislike it. That bond with the mother is so, SO essential for a child's development. It's the building blocks.
Separation from the mother, the person who carried the child for 9 months CAN cause a rupture in the child's early development. What's most important is that there will be a primary caregiver who will provide the necessary emotional and physical care.
A strong and secure attachment with a primary caregiver will go a long way to repairing that early rupture. It needs to be maintained though so the child must be told of his or her origins.
I wonder about the psychological component of being a surrogate Vs knowing you are the child's biological mother and will be raising your child. What if any part does it have to play in baby blues?
Would you feel emotionally different knowing that you have no genetic link to the child and no interest in being their mother?
Not to mention the baby, who is programmed to want her mother, to bond and nurse etc. Being separated from all she's ever known at birth is traumatic, and could very well lead to some detrimental effects when it comes to attachment
God, I remember the baby blues. The name really doesn't do it justice tbh, it sounds like a minor thing but it really isn't. I couldn't stop crying and thinking I was just awful at everything! I can't imagine the feelings that would come up for a surrogate 😔
I assumed that they will do the baby care and she will just visit as an aunt or something, but sure who knows.
She will raise the child do all the mother things the two lads will go shopping for Ralph lauren nappies and be seen with loads of baby gear bags and a nice pram in photos on insta. They will never touch a dirty nappy or allow sick and spittle on their designer duds. Basically the woman will be paid a wage to do the real stuff and like a previous poster they will wheel out the baby to affirm their love blah blah blah.
All these children will have an unusual slant on family & parenting when their turn comes if the mad world we live in hasnt imploded by then . Hopefully it will have. I can t imagine a government of the future generations as they are already up to their tits in confusion about whether they pee out a vulva or a penis or what they are, so that will indeed be a barrel of laughs, I hope i am dead and buried before that as it does not bode well no wonder Putin is trying to avoid all this **** in his country.
Yeah I’ve heard it from straight men and want to punch them, your wife is pregnant not we 😂😂
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0e54e8024b002427df3ce2953d22b721.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e69729035b2455232b17854d7db16fad.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/2c24cbeac11f913da9e0b21923b8fc98.svg)
