To say these men shouldn't be allowed to keep this child.

[GrabbyGabby]

2 men hire a surrogate to have a child for them via IVF. They wanted 2 boys (had names and gmail accounts for them already🙄).
The IVF clinic implanted a female foetus, and now they are suing the clinic.

I don't think they should be allowed to raise a child they clearly don't want.

www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/same-sex-couple-sues-fertility-clinic-over-alleged-wrong-sex-embryo-implant/

YABU they will be fine parents and their daughter will in no way be scarred for life

YANBU babies arent commodities. They should never be bought and sold, and being female is not a defect

And that's you, there are many people who know their parents wanted a different sex child and have 0 ongoing issues with that fact. I know of at least 7-8 adults who knew their parents would have wanted something different, no issues, no drama, no favouritism growing up.

You can't conflate your feelings and state this child will feel the same way.

@UnimpeachableBravery once adoption orders are granted then yes of course, as they are legally that child's mother.

Such an odd question

Personally, I think gender selection is abhorrent, whatever sex you pay to get.

But I absolutely think that if they were told one thing would happen, and they paid a lot of money for that, then they are entitled to sue. The business has no right accepting money for the service otherwise.

But they, like the surrogate, also have no biological ties to the child.

@UnimpeachableBravery and?

I never said biological ties are the only thing that matters, the gestational carrier isn't emotionally, legally or biologically that child's mother.

She is facilitating a child, not providing one

The law in the UK does not generally allow recovery of costs for raising a healthy but unwanted child e.g. if a child is conceived after a negligently performed sterlisation you generally can't claim for the costs of raising the child (look up McFarlane v Tayside). This is because there is a rule that the law will not regard the birth of a child as harm to be compensated for. You can claim for the additional costs of dealing with disability etc if the medical negligence resulted in the birth of a child with those disabilities e.g. you could claim if you had to give up work specifically to deal with the extra care needed beyond that of a healthy child.

So even if sex selection for non-medical reasons were permitted in this country, it's very unlikely that an action, such as that contemplated here, would succeed. If sex-selection for medical reasons failed then the parents would be able to claim for any costs arising from any health problems that were related to the negligence.

Are you aware of the origin of the vile term "gestational carrier"?

And there we have it. I assumed you'd used a surrogate.

You can call the woman carrying the baby the "gestational carrier" all you want but the baby knows she's its mother, even if you don't. And that's the problem with surrogacy. Nothing at all in what you have posted on this thread suggests you have any regard for the rights or needs of the baby at all. It's all about the rights of the person buying the baby.

If you think commissioning a baby is fine then you can't have an issue with commissioning a certain sex of baby.

I care about women so I don't think either is fine, but I can see why these men feel wronged. They got a defective product.

I agree. And that dreadful couple should be barred from being entrusted with any baby since they cannot muster the proper attitude which is 'oh, look. the baby is healthy and strong', not 'oh no, it's a ghastly girl'.
So the clinic messed up. So what. In the UK you cannot select a gender - no designer babies allowed. The doctors and prospective parents engaged in a morally dubious contract anyway. As has been said upthread, a baby is not a commodity, and not a way of making a fortune as this precious pair are trying to do.
They should put the baby up for adoption and let her find a childless couple who will love and care for her the way she should be.

Nope. Still mother.

The word mother actually means something and has done for as long as the human race has had language. You don't get to erase it and try to pretend that there's no bond between a mother and her baby to suit your own narrative.

Pregnancy and birth are 'biological'. Aside from the initial gametes every cell in the child's body will have been fed and nurtured inside her. Her body will have sustained the child's life and been all that she will have known before her birth. Of course there are biological ties, even if those ties are not genetic.

She is the mother, even if donor eggs are used the mother grows the placenta, she grows and nourishes the baby.

Your reasoning is so weak it’s laughable alphapie, just flailing about all over the place. Biology matters, no it doesn’t, blah blah. The word is mother, doesn’t matter if you don’t like it.

@B0ssAssB1tch but that woman isn't the child's mother, there isn't even an attachment to be broken, since even a babies attachment to its primary care giver isn't formed until 4 weeks.

Hence how attachment issues aren't observed in foster to adopt cases here in the UK.

This woman is a gestational carrier, she isn't biologically related to this child, legally related to this child or emotionally related to this child.

When did I say biology didn't matter

My points have been consistent since the start

She isn't the mother

That's a basic fact

You can have an opinion, you can't have your own facts though

Have you ever seen a newborn? They know who their mother is straight away. They will turn and look at her when they hear her voice.

You can’t grow a human without a mother. Donor egg or not she is forever linked to that child. Her body literally builds it, it’s part of her.

She is the mother.

That’s a basic fact.

You can have an opinion, you can’t have your own facts though.

Look, clearly you're arguing so vehemently because you've done what these men have done. In which case, i don't agree with that either and i don't care if you're gay or straight.

I will never agree that a surrogate is not the baby's mother. You can call it what you want. It's the undeniable biological truth. The woman who grows and gestates the baby is it's mother. And that matters to the baby, if not to you.

@B0ssAssB1tch

Definition of the term mother, Oxford dictionary -

The female parent of a human being, a woman who undertakes the responsibilities of a parent towards a child.

Google definition - bring up (a child) with care and affection.

Miriam Webster

• a female parent

None of these apply to a gestational carrier, she isn't a parent, nor is she bringing this child up

@ComDummings unfortunately Miriam Webster, the Oxford dictionary and Google ask all disagree with you there.

In what way is growing a child in your body not undertaking the "responsibilities of a parent towards a child."?

@UnimpeachableBravery definition of parent - A parent is a caregiver of the offspring in their own species. In humans, a parent is the caretaker of a child. A biological parent is a person whose gamete resulted in a child, a male through the sperm, and a female through the ovum

Some people really struggling with facts on this matter.

Giving birth, growing a child doesn't make you a parent, by the very definition of the word parent

I am biased as have had sex selective IVF myself, but did so for a girl so in a way am mitigating femicide so...

@alphapie may I ask why it was so imperative that you got a girl? So much do that you were willing to pay for it?