For the surrogate mom to say that there is no bonding with the baby is exactly the problem. The baby knows if they are wanted and loved even while in the womb. If the mother (carrier) isn’t bonding with the baby, then the baby doesn’t feel safe and can have many long term neurological consequences as a result.
I would think that long term studies of children adopted at birth and children from surrogate mothers would give us many insights scientifically. We were actually part of a long term study like this after we adopted our daughter. I’ll see if I can find it and link it to this post.
Unfortunately, our adopted-at-birth child has many (if not all) of the issues you listed in animal studies. It’s heartbreaking to see her struggle so much even though we did all the bonding things possible - including me breast feeding her.
It's an upside down world that elevates animals above humans, empathy above reality, and feelings above facts. We are entirely too focused, as a society, on self-fulfillment.
Not to be pessimistic, but one workaround here is to have surrogates who are also wet nurses: a practice quite common among the middle class in the 19th century, in France certainly (see Madame Bovary).
Unless she's also going to Mother the baby for life, the baby will be abandoned by her which will cause trauma. Delaying the abandonment isn't a way to avoid the trauma of losing one's mother.
Yes, actually, my comment was meant to be frightfully sarcastic. But that was a mistake, bc there are no limits anymore beyond which people will not go. And most people have not read Madame Bovary: she commits suicide. Definitely not a model to follow.
What about the downside for the surrogate??? You birth the baby, you nurse it and then, when parents want you to ween, byeeeee. These babies omen aren’t machines, they have feelings. Also, how do you think baby will process that separation? Probably even worse than being separated at birth.
I wasn't meaning to criticise or blame women with children, I am sorry if you read that into my comment.
But society needs to talk about how we can do this better. For instance, the Australian government pays up to a maximum of about $50,000 per child in full time childcare, say 48 weeks per year. This is paid to childcare centres as a subsidy. I think this money should be paid to the parents, and leave the decision to them as to what to do with that money, eg pay one parent stay at home (or part-time at home), or pay grandparents or a nanny part-time, or pay a childcare centre. This gives power and control to parents, as they are the best people to know what is best for their child, not government or bureaucrats.
It's not just this matter, but it also applies to very young babies vs young mammals. If you were to take a puppy, kitten or foal away from its mother a long time before the natural weaning age, you would likely be up for charges of animal cruelty (unless it was unavoidable eg if the mother died). And the dairy industry gets criticised for removing very young calves from their mothers.
But encouraged by government, careerism, the "childcare industry" and misguided feminists (and often driven by financial needs) many mothers put their babies into full-time childcare at 1 to 6 months, ages before our natural/acceptable weaning age of 1 to 2 years.
What we don't allow for animals, we encourage for humans.
I don't fully disagree with what you are saying, I especially agree with your first paragraph, but my hackles always go up when mothers and women are blamed (your 2nd para). Women have so little power and control especially once they have children, and yet it seems like we are blamed for the fall-out from a culture that actively works against us.
For the surrogate mom to say that there is no bonding with the baby is exactly the problem. The baby knows if they are wanted and loved even while in the womb. If the mother (carrier) isn’t bonding with the baby, then the baby doesn’t feel safe and can have many long term neurological consequences as a result.
I would think that long term studies of children adopted at birth and children from surrogate mothers would give us many insights scientifically. We were actually part of a long term study like this after we adopted our daughter. I’ll see if I can find it and link it to this post.
Unfortunately, our adopted-at-birth child has many (if not all) of the issues you listed in animal studies. It’s heartbreaking to see her struggle so much even though we did all the bonding things possible - including me breast feeding her.
It’s called The Early Growth and Development Study
http://egds.psi.uoregon.edu
It's an upside down world that elevates animals above humans, empathy above reality, and feelings above facts. We are entirely too focused, as a society, on self-fulfillment.
Not to be pessimistic, but one workaround here is to have surrogates who are also wet nurses: a practice quite common among the middle class in the 19th century, in France certainly (see Madame Bovary).
Isn't that the whole premise of the Handmaid's Tale?
Unless she's also going to Mother the baby for life, the baby will be abandoned by her which will cause trauma. Delaying the abandonment isn't a way to avoid the trauma of losing one's mother.
Yes, actually, my comment was meant to be frightfully sarcastic. But that was a mistake, bc there are no limits anymore beyond which people will not go. And most people have not read Madame Bovary: she commits suicide. Definitely not a model to follow.
I don’t think that’s being pessimistic, at all. It would be a great way to balance the positive and negative aspects of surrogacy
What about the downside for the surrogate??? You birth the baby, you nurse it and then, when parents want you to ween, byeeeee. These babies omen aren’t machines, they have feelings. Also, how do you think baby will process that separation? Probably even worse than being separated at birth.
Thankyou for writing this article and providing all the reserach evidence.
This breaks my heart and explains so much as I went back to work full-time just 3 weeks after giving birth to my first child.
Excellent. It's amazing how callous some humans have become in the face of technology.
Great work and use of evidence.
Dear Elizabeth,
I wasn't meaning to criticise or blame women with children, I am sorry if you read that into my comment.
But society needs to talk about how we can do this better. For instance, the Australian government pays up to a maximum of about $50,000 per child in full time childcare, say 48 weeks per year. This is paid to childcare centres as a subsidy. I think this money should be paid to the parents, and leave the decision to them as to what to do with that money, eg pay one parent stay at home (or part-time at home), or pay grandparents or a nanny part-time, or pay a childcare centre. This gives power and control to parents, as they are the best people to know what is best for their child, not government or bureaucrats.
It's not just this matter, but it also applies to very young babies vs young mammals. If you were to take a puppy, kitten or foal away from its mother a long time before the natural weaning age, you would likely be up for charges of animal cruelty (unless it was unavoidable eg if the mother died). And the dairy industry gets criticised for removing very young calves from their mothers.
But encouraged by government, careerism, the "childcare industry" and misguided feminists (and often driven by financial needs) many mothers put their babies into full-time childcare at 1 to 6 months, ages before our natural/acceptable weaning age of 1 to 2 years.
What we don't allow for animals, we encourage for humans.
I don't fully disagree with what you are saying, I especially agree with your first paragraph, but my hackles always go up when mothers and women are blamed (your 2nd para). Women have so little power and control especially once they have children, and yet it seems like we are blamed for the fall-out from a culture that actively works against us.