who should baby "Charlie" live with?

(56 Posts)
cantbelieveimonhere Sun 12-Jul-15 22:15:14

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157706/I-ll-never-Burger-King-baby-gay-fathers-Surrogate-mother-reveals-heartbreaking-story-lifts-lid-Britain-s-chaotic-cruel-baby-trade.html

What do you think MN?

Can't believe this isn't being featured in the news more. Major ethical issues in this scenario.

sleepyhead Sun 12-Jul-15 22:22:33

Well it's all pretty dreadful and no-one comes out of it looking particularly good.

The best outcome I guess is that the baby stays with his mother who carried him but that he's able to build a relationship with his biological father.

cantbelieveimonhere Mon 13-Jul-15 09:06:17

It's just so sad

hiddenhome Wed 15-Jul-15 21:46:07

He should be adopted by an independent third party and be totally distanced from these people.

weeburrower1 Thu 16-Jul-15 12:15:44

Awful story, you feel like the poor wee thing is going to be pulled from pillar to post.

My instinctive answer would be for him to stay with the woman who carried him but I'm not sure I could articulate why.

It seems a bit of a horrible, murky world.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Thu 16-Jul-15 12:20:22

He should be adopted by an independent third party and be totally distanced from these people.

Harsh, but I agree. No-one in the story comes across particularly well, and the only way this baby can get away from being fought over is to be taken out of the situation completely.

Am shock at that Facebook group though - how can people be so reckless?

BeeRayKay Thu 16-Jul-15 12:21:57

Well it's not her baby, and she shouldn't have agreed to do it in the first place if she thought that this would be the outcome.

I agree with PP. Adoption by 3rd party.

Backforthis Thu 16-Jul-15 12:27:56

I'd assume that the man who is the biological father of the child will be able to ask for a DNA test and get parental rights. The law will probably regard the woman who carried the baby as a parent too.

SoupDragon Thu 16-Jul-15 12:28:35

It is impossible to say because all the allegations against the gay couple appear to be purely based on what Jennifer has said.

I would like to hear their side of the story.

Personally, I feel for the gay couple. One of them is the father and Jennifer told them that his baby had died.

WereJamming Thu 16-Jul-15 12:29:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

UrethraFranklin1 Thu 16-Jul-15 12:31:45

I'm surprised anyone thinks they can judge the correct outcome for a childs life based on an article in the Daily Mail.

The only thing we can know from this article, if any of it is true, is that we clearly need strict legislation to protect children from the kind of idiots involved in this appalling saga.

SoupDragon Thu 16-Jul-15 12:32:39

I don't think a 6 day old baby cares one jot who feeds them and cares for them provided they get that care.

BathtimeFunkster Thu 16-Jul-15 12:34:36

Well it's not her baby

It is her baby.

With just a tiny bit of genetic material her body created a human baby capable of independent life, and her body is still providing the baby's nourishment.

Women and babies are human beings and attempting to rent one and but the other is extremely unethical.

The men took a chance here, and they lost.

PerspicaciaTick Thu 16-Jul-15 12:35:34

TBH the Daily Mail story is frantic to show the woman in the best possible light - and she still comes out of it badly. It is very hard to get the full picture without hearing the father's side of the story. But I think lying to a couple who are desperately TTC, telling them that their children have died is absolutely horrific and pretty much ended any sympathy I may have had for her at the start.

BathtimeFunkster Thu 16-Jul-15 12:35:34

Rent one and buy the other.

basgetti Thu 16-Jul-15 12:37:03

Legally the baby is hers, he should stay with her and have contact with his father, the same as separated parents.

SoupDragon Thu 16-Jul-15 12:39:08

With just a tiny bit of genetic material her body created a human baby capable of independent life, and her body is still providing the baby's nourishment.

And without that tiny bit of genetic material there would be no baby whatsoever. The baby "belongs" equally to the father. I assume the egg donor signed away any rights at the time of donation.

BathtimeFunkster Thu 16-Jul-15 12:39:13

a couple who are desperately TTC

hmm

They weren't "trying to conceive", since two men can't conceive a child.

They were trying to rent a woman's body for 9 months so they could get a baby and live the heteronormative dream.

They picked a young woman who had not had children before and obviously didn't know what she was agreeing to.

They thought they could exploit her, but they were wrong.

Backforthis Thu 16-Jul-15 12:39:54

'I don't think a 6 day old baby cares one jot who feeds them and cares for them provided they get that care'

I disagree completely. They've already been with the woman that gave birth to them for 9 months. That's the voice and the heartbeat they know.

SoupDragon Thu 16-Jul-15 12:40:20

They picked a young woman who had not had children before

Well, apart from her son.

UrethraFranklin1 Thu 16-Jul-15 12:41:13

She exploited them. The women equals victim routine is demeaning and unhelpful.

BarbarianMum Thu 16-Jul-15 12:41:19

Actually I feel for all of them (although I agree none of them are above reproach in this).

I think surrogate mothers should be allowed to change their mind during surrogacy and keep the child they bear, albeit with access for the biological father as you would have for a separated couple. And I think that's what should happen here.

BathtimeFunkster Thu 16-Jul-15 12:43:34

grin

That'll teach me to read Daily Mail articles more closely.

Either way, she's the baby's mother. Their baby buying attempt didn't work out.

I'm sure the genetic father's parental rights will be recognised.

SoupDragon Thu 16-Jul-15 12:44:26

Lets not forget that Jennifer sought out the surrogacy. The gay couple didn't bully her into it after simply meeting her in a bar and thinking "she'll do"

SoupDragon Thu 16-Jul-15 12:48:14

They were trying to rent a woman's body for 9 months so they could get a baby and live the heteronormative dream.

This is really quite offensive. They want children. They have no option bar surrogacy.

Would you be quite so offensive about two lesbians wanting children and say they want to live the "heteronormative dream"?

Would you accuse a heterosexual couple where the woman is unable to carry a child of "renting a woman's body for 9 months" and exploiting her?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now