Famous men and surrogacy

I'm afraid I have. She now has 6 kids, all of them have been removed and she's pregnant with her 7th. Only one of them loves with the father and his parents. (They have different fathers).

She was adopted and has a lot of problems. She is ok the watch list for social services due to neglect and abuse.

No one can stop her getting pregnant, except perhaps the men who could refuse to have sex with her or insist on wearing condoms (yea right). She would not be able to get a sperm donor for example, but she could keep producing children and not care of any of them but she has been asked to stop more than once. It does happen.

@IcedPurple yep I'll ask her just that

• re-home .. autocorrect

@OhHolyJesus why is it up to infertile people to regime children that have had to be removed from homes because of bad parents and situations? I've never heard of a pregnant person being asked why they got pregnant and didn't choose to adopt instead.

Mypuddin isn't that why we have social services? When a child is at risk or harm they intervene. It's not a perfect system, I don't think any social worker would say it was, but it's the best we have right now.

You're conflating two issues. This is surrogacy not parenting.

Maybe we should focus on fostering and adopting the children who are removed from their parents because they care for them so badly (or don't care at all) and maybe these intended parents could provide them with loving homes and not have to create more lives when there are so many already needing care.

Having the right biology / fertility doesn't make someone a good parent anymore than not having it makes the a bad parent.

@BernardBlacksWineIceLolly if we're opening up a conversation about the interests of the baby.. well there are thousands of people who have babies every year that don't seem to consider the interests of the baby.. but because they can physically carry a baby and give birth that's ok then?

Over with you tax
The talk of it not being best for the child... does your opinion change if it’s not two men?

What an awful thing to say. Gross!

My personal opinion is that surrogacy should be legal but that the legislation should be written to try and prevent abuse of women (surrogates)

What about the interests of the baby?

Should they have a right to know whose egg and sperm and body created them for example?

In the case of the judgement I linked to, the child had health issues and the lack of knowledge about the egg donor was hampering his diagnosis and treatment. How would you guard the rights and interests of the child in that situation?

It’s an open forum

My personal opinion is that surrogacy should be legal but that the legislation should be written to try and prevent abuse of women (surrogates) . So that people can go into surrogacy if they are not being taken advantage of, and clear contracts and boundaries would be part of that. I'm not professing to be an expert on what the current law is, but whatever it is I wouldn't advocate breaking it. However if it currently is not fit for purpose, ie. women can be paid huge lumps of money (which could mean vulnerable women might do it for that purpose or women could be trafficked for that purpose) then I would say that law needs amending. As far as I'm aware, in the uk you can't be paid more than reasonable expenses, which I think is a good thing.

iced you’re just being goady now.
It’s clear that was not what was meant.

I don't believe I've interacted with you. Are you taking it upon yourself to speak on someone else's behalf?

iced you’re just being goady now.
It’s clear that was not what was meant.

The talk of it not being best for the child... does your opinion change if it’s not two men?

If the adoptive mother is also the egg donor?

At no point have I said that people should do anything illegal.

So you believe that the state has a right to tell people what they do with their own bodies? Your previous posts suggested otherwise.

@IcedPurple I wrote a lengthy post about how I feel each country should legislate so I'm not sure why you think, that I think, people should do what is illegal? At no point have I said that people should do anything illegal.

I'd never thought of surrogacy as a negative thing, I thought it was wonderful and how selfless some women are to help couples.
I then had my own child.
I then recently saw the Westlife picture of the baby in the hospital wheeled crib being pulled along by the two men. It didn't matter they were men. It would have broke my heart seeing a man and woman wheel the baby away.
That poor baby, it's mother smell, her touch, her voice, her warmth, the skin to skin, her breast, her milk.
It absolutely completely broke my heart

It's not got anything to do with not respecting a woman's informed choice, because that "informed choice" potentially causes harm to the child. We don't allow people to potentially cause harm just because they want to. I'm sure many drunk drivers have never had an accident. But as others have said we don't make laws thinking of the good outcomes, we're thinking of the worst cases and the effect on all the people involved, and precedents set.

I know there are several strands to those of us objecting. The key one for me is that there's not enough long term research into adulthood about the effects of surrogate separation from birth mother etc. You can tell a child that a stork brought them or their mummy was a friendly oven, and that's all lovely, but adults have had longer to process things. We know adopted children frequently have a desire to find their birth parents when they're grown. It just seems inevitable the same will be the case.

It's about the potential for harm to the child.

I don't see why you get to choose what they want to do.

No I don't see why I get to choose what other people do.

However, the law does get to make that choice. Your friends would not be legally allowed to shoot up heroin, or walk around naked in a public place, or sell a kidney. Or all sorts of other things. One of the more inane and very faux feminist lines of argument in these discussions is 'Women can do what they like with their own bodies'. Thing is they can't. Neither can men. Freedom to 'choose to do what you like with your body' is not absolute.

I take it you also think your friends should be allowed to take all sorts of now-illegal drugs should they so choose? Because who are YOU to tell them not to do so?

So if there's no contract then surrogacy arrangements should be done on a handshake?!

it's amazing how the possibility of women's bodies not being commodities doesn't even occur to some people.....

and as for the choosy choice argument (how fucking neo liberal can you get by the way?)

we've already established through the judgement I linked to upthread, that even in the UK, some women are incentivised with money to act as surrogates

why is it illegal for people to sell a kidney here?

why can't they choosy choice to sell an eye? It's their body after all. They know what they're doing with it. nothing to do with you or I.

So if there's no contract then surrogacy arrangements should be done on a handshake?!

My point is, that people should be free to enter surrogacy situations if they chose too , and if they chose to , all parties should enter into a detailed contract so that they all know exactly where they stand in different eventualities. What my personal view of what these strangers to me chose to put in their contracts is none of my business.

What you seem to think though, is that because you don't morally agree with surrogacy then no one should be allowed to do it. This is what I disagree with.

For the record, I have no children. 2 good friends and a cousin have all offered to be a surrogate for me, in full knowledge of what they would be putting themselves through. They all have more than one child. I have declined their kind offers, partly because I don't want to be put into some of those very emotive possibilities. But the fact is that there are some women, such as my friends and cousin, who , with their eyes open, would want to be a surrogate for me. I don't see why you get to choose what they want to do.

I'd really appreciate it if people who know fuck-all about adoption stopped using the 'loads of lucky happy adopted kids frolicking about the fields of Britain' argument as a gotcha on this one.

Cheers.

No answer to the difference between selling a new born and selling a 5 month old I see.....

I'm not saying I'd be happy with it, but if it was my brain dead sisters choice that that's what her body was used for, then whether I'd be happy about it or not is irrelevant to her choice of what she wanted to do with her body.

Well, you were giving a pretty good pretence of being 'happy' with it for several posts.

Your attitude seems to be that legal contracts should cover everything - including the above horrible scenario - and that such things as the love of family members and a mother's unforeseen fierce attachment to her newborn are irrelevant in the light of such contracts. To the point that you see it as quite OK for your own brain dead sister to become an incubator so that multiple strangers get to experience the 'joy of parenthood'.

Sounds like a warped view of the world to me, to be perfectly frank. Thankfully, no UK court would consent to such a 'contract'. Some things just can't and shouldn't be legislated for, despite what you seem to think.