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

@GromblesofGrimbledon but fighting for women to be able to have a say over their bodies is always morally right.

It's a shame so many on here are against female body autonomy

What bond?

Babies don't form attachments to their primary care givers for 4 weeks. This is a fact.

As that was the best you could come up with I'm not the one struggling.

So you actually think it makes a difference to the baby whose eggs were used? How does the baby know whose eggs were used and therefore who it should bond with?

What if the surrogate mother's eggs were used?

Im quite happy to ask you the questions, because you're the one who is doubling down on your answers, which are making less sense the further along we go.

So as you dodged my question about babies reacting to their mothers - there was literally nothing at all between you and your babies for the first four weeks?

Don't worry i don't think you'll answer because to admit that yes, your babies knew you were their mother instinctively from birth will fold your arguments like a house of cards. Just pointing out the absurdity of thinking a mother and baby's bond is dependant on whose eggs were used.

@B0ssAssB1tch for me to my son there was a bond within those weeks, for him it's a bit transactional until the attachment is formed.

For many mothers they don't bond for ages with their babies.

@B0ssAssB1tch I do believe there is a difference between bind when you are using your own eggs, not from the babied pov but from the surrogates POV, which is why I am against surrogacy when using their own eggs, it muddies the waters imo, and in many countries it also muddies things legally.

the little girl in this case will be traumatised because her dads wanted boys,

And you think this is all fine and dandy do you? You don't see that this is a direct consequence of the practice of surrogacy and sex selection?

Babies are not items to be selected from a fucking catalogue.

And for many babies, the bond between a baby and its "gestational carrier" starts in the womb.

I assume that was directed at me, maybe quote or read the entire post. I said things aren't black and white and that the little girl in this case will be traumatised.

She is more likely not to be traumatised.

I think knowing your parents liked the idea of having one sex when you're another, would hit different to your parents suing because they got you rather than someone of the opposite sex. It's a bigger deal.

@B0ssAssB1tch in your opinion, it's been well studied infant attachment, it starts to form at 4 weeks for primary caregivers.

You can think babies bond with who ever births them in minutes, but unfortunately that doesn't make it true.

Newborns recognise their mother's sound, smell and taste.

We don't take puppies and kittens away from their mothers until they're 8 weeks. But some people just pretend between human babies and their mothers because it suits their political agenda.

In years to come there'll be thousands of surrogate children speaking out about how they were ripped from their mother and the damage it has done. And lessons will be learned. And all the countries who have always banned surrogacy with be STH at the idiocy and greed and cruelty

I assume that was directed at me, maybe quote or read the entire post. I said things aren't black and white and that the little girl in this case will be traumatised.
She is more likely not to be traumatised.

Umm what?? You've just contradicted yourself.

I’m not for commercial surrogacy what so ever, but telling a woman she’s not a mother and her baby must have struggled to bond with her and was missing his “real mother” is cruel.

A bigger deal because they're going to the trouble of taking legal action over it I mean.

Whereas if someone likes the idea of having a boy but ends up with a girl, then shrugs and gets down to what they have, it's not the same.

Who is saying this?

Hardly, you misread my post, I was merely correcting you.

It's not black and white, it's not a case of this child will definitely be traumatised, if anything it's more likely she won't be.

But people on here love to embellish

A woman selling the baby she has grown inside her is not only "having a say" over what she does with her own body.

She is "having a say" over what happens to another human being.

It is morally wrong to buy and sell human beings. It is irrelevant what the buyer and the seller think on the matter. The child is the one who matters.

@GromblesofGrimbledon she isn't selling a baby. She is facilitating a child being created for its parents.

Surrogacy for profit is abhorrent. No one should be able to make a living from any kind of trade in human flesh.

Sex selection for any reason other than preventing sex-specific heritable conditions is abhorrent because anyone who has a preference for one sex or the other for their offspring is inherently a sexist person who should be ashamed.

But if surrogacy is legal and paying for sex selection is legal then the abhorrent people who pay for such a service do deserve to get their money back if they don't get what they paid for. They shouldn't get any additional "damages" though.

"Whoever births them"

This language is so callous and throw-away.

Just grow the babies in pods and sell them to the highest bidder then. Why the fuck not.

Ah you see that's where we aren't understanding each other. I don't care how the surrogate feels about it. I do care if she's being exploited, but if she's consenting and willing, I'm not terribly interested in how she feels about it.

I care about the baby and the importance of the bond between a baby and its mother. I don't believe that bond should be disrupted for all but the most serious of reasons - ill health of the mother/baby necessitating them be separated, or that the baby will be at risk and needs to be removed from the mother. In both of those scenarios, it's unavoidable. But surrogacy is purposely creating a baby with the full knowledge that it will disrupt the bond between mother and baby because of what an adult outside of that situation wants and is wealthy enough to make it happen. That's not in the baby's best interests. I don't believe that just because a thing can be done, that it should be.

You can find studies to say whatever you want. I've literally just this second been reading some studies about how babies begin to bond with their mother in the womb. So forgive me if i simply don't believe your 4 week time limit.

There is a woman on this thread who has a child born by surrogate and she is being told the only real mother of that child is the woman who carried him, aka she is not the child’s mum, she’s also being told how traumatising it must be for a baby to be taken away from the woman who carried him and given to her. I’m all for having a difference of opinion, but this is too far and too personal imo. As long as a child is loved and cared for that’s all that matters ultimately, and is a lot more than many children ever get.

“In years to come there'll be thousands of surrogate children speaking out about how they were ripped from their mother and the damage it has done. And lessons will be learned. And all the countries who have always banned surrogacy with be STH at the idiocy and greed and cruelty”.