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

Who is the woman who has a child born by a surrogate on this thread? Also you know children can have more than one mother? Also there is an enormous amount of research showing removing a child from the woman who gave birth to them does damage them

@B0ssAssB1tch babies start to recognise their primary care givers before birth, they doesn't however = a bond.

Infant attachment is very well studied, attachment starts at 4 weeks, before then it's this person is necessary to me for food and shelter. Not if I am without this person I will be sad.

Apologies, I assumed after the comment alphapie made about her children coming from her eggs that she had children via surrogacy! I checked further back in the thread and stand corrected!

If this is the CNY Fertility Albany case, the basis for medical malpractice is significantly different in that demonstrable harm ALREADY DID result from the implantation of the male embryo, as the mother was a survivor of rape trauma syndrome and it was known and acknowledged that carrying a male foetus would retraumatise her, and she did indeed suffer a psychological break which he doctors attribute to the event. It's also likely that given the circumstances the sex selection would be considered medically necessary to protect the mother. Neither of these factors apply in the case the OP brought up.

In terms of harm to the child, yes, it exists in both of these cases.

I can't agree with posters upthread, though, who believe that similar harm exists in a case where someone has posted anonymously on MumsNet that they're secretly disappointed to be having a boy/girl. Even if the parents are open IRL about their desire for a child of a particular sex and even if someday the child discovers this preference, it is likely a different level of harm than having one's family named and discussed all over the media (and potentially written into history, if the case results in a significant precedent) in connection with a lawsuit over that child having been born the "wrong" sex.

You've yet to provide any evidence. Aside from your own anecdotal evidence that your son did in fact bond to you within the first 4 weeks.

@B0ssAssB1tch I thought you were reading recently into attachments when parenting?

Odd how you are unable to now use Google.

'attachment doesn't happen in the first weeks or months of a child's life. In fact, a baby under 6 months of age will not have a preference for any particular adult, as long as she's being well cared for.'

www.scholastic.com/parents/family-life/parent-child/age-attachment.html

Then there is the classic Bowlby and ainsworth, Kennedy and Kennedy etc. who have all extensively studied attachment theory and the signs of attachment begin at 4 weeks, full attachment is rarely established until much later - positivepsychology.com/attachment-theory/

@B0ssAssB1tch and that's in addition to the large % of parents who don't instantly bond with their babies once born, www.whattoexpect.com/first-year/ask-heidi/week-1/postpartum-bonding.aspx

Oh I definitely agree that the harm is increased by publicity. Im questioning whether the harm is sufficient to merit the significant harm of removing a child from the parents who have cared for them since birth.

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.

@GromblesofGrimbledon Just wondering whether you toe the MN line of most probably thinking abortion is ok? As obviously that is having a say over what happens to another human.

As I don't see this as a black and white, the little girl in this case will be traumatised because her dads wanted boys, many children know their parents might have wanted a different sex child, and it hasn't caused them lifelong trauma from it

These are your exact words @alphapie if the meaning of what you are saying is being lost or misinterpreted that's down to you and the grammatical construction of your post.

There are an awful lot of children who do have lifelong trauma and fractured, dysfunctional relationships with their parents as a direct consequence of their parents wanting a child of the opposite sex to them.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with the PP, it's not "obviously" at all. World of difference between an embryo or foetus that is dependent on the mother for its survival, and a person who has been born and able to live independently (while obv not yet qualifying for a driving licence etc... 'independently' has many meanings!)

Christ alive, you just keep highlighting your inability to comprehend written English.

You have 0 idea whether this child will be traumatised, odds are she won't. Get over it, this child exists, she is not going to be removed from her parents because of this case.

I am imagining that the argument there is that the woman is deciding to end their pregnancy and that foetus is not a sentient human being (with differing opinions on at which point said foetus does indeed become a human being).

Whereas in a surrogate transaction everyone knows that the baby is a human being as they are intentionally growing the child to term- that's the whole point.

Personally, I do not agree with abortion but that is not a discussion for this thread. But no, I don't think abortion is "ok".

Are you trying to equate being female with being starved of oxygen at birth?

How misogynistic.

They've got a healthy baby. That's all anyone should want.

@DdraigGoch but they didn't just pay for a healthy baby

They paid for a healthy baby of a specific sex, 2 in fact

At the very least the cost of the sex selection should be refunded

Usually you have to prove actual damage to life, health, or property - hence the Saningers' claim that having one healthy baby of each sex rather than two healthy boys forces the couple to repeat the expense of IVF/surrogacy unnecessarily and to take on the cost of raising three children instead of two. So we'll see if the California courts rule that the birth of a healthy female baby constitutes actual harm - and expect it to be appealed whatever they decide.

Well isn't that the most depressing paragraph? Very clearly these parents want two boys and are suing to get two boys. The girl, and her well-being, appears to feature nowhere for them. Do I think they will be good parents to her? No. Do I think she should be removed? Also no, because being in care is so dreadful.

It's so clearly misogynistic.

And @alphapie that's the second time on this thread you've accused someone of being a poor reader. Maybe look at the common denominator. <cough> your writing <cough>

Christ! "Paid for a healthy baby of a specific sex"

I feel ill reading that. Stated as though it's as simple a transaction as buying a new telly.

Indeed. Two boys and a spare. What an inconvenience to them.

I just keep thinking that poor girl in her home. Two male parents who favour boys. And two wanted boys. And her, the only, unwanted, substandard girl.

It's so sad. Her self esteem will be in the toilet.

These parents clearly haven't got over the disruption to their planned designer family, that's why they are suing.

If they can't afford three kids, then why not stop at two? One daughter, one son.

Again with the projection, she will most likely be just as loved and cherished as her brothers.

I didn't want a boy, and have paid for our next not to be, but my son is loved, cherished and happy. Same will most likely apply to this little one

@DdraigGoch because they want 2 boys...

Christ alive, you just keep highlighting your inability to comprehend written English.

You highlight your inability to write grammatically correct and easy to understand written English.

You highlight your inability to hear any criticism of your lack of ability to do the above.

You have 0 idea whether this child will be traumatised, odds are she won't. Get over it, this child exists, she is not going to be removed from her parents because of this case.

You have zero idea whether the child will not be traumatised, the odds are she will when she is made aware of the information in the public domain about her. I am well aware that this child exists, have I said otherwise? Why are you leaping to such hyperbolic nonsense statements as get over it? Oh and perhaps you can show me where on this thread I have said anything at all about the child being removed?

Perhaps reading and understanding what individual posters have actually said is not your forte, hmm.

@GromblesofGrimbledon but it is a simple transaction, a simple procedure and a simple process.

You feeling sick over it doesn't change those facts.

I didn't want a boy, and have paid for our next not to be, but my son is loved, cherished and happy. Same will most likely apply to this little one

So the thought of having 2 boys is so terrible that you'll pay someone a lot of money to avoid it?