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

As that's what some are claiming on here, just knowing there was a preference = trauma

The case referenced in this thread is far more that just a preference ffs.

There are threads practically every day on this site where the parental preference for a child of the opposite sex to the one the poster is has caused significant ongoing issues for the poster.

There are too numerous to mention threads where grandparents favour one grandchild because of the sex of that grandchild over other grandchildren and the issues this causes.

You just want to shut your eyes and close your ears to this because it doesn't chime with what you believe and what you have done, it's obvious why you are doing it.

Calling me pathetic for not playing your games is, um, pathetic. You are determined to move the conversation away from this particular topic because it is too close to home for you, that's your problem not mine.

My Dad's preference for a boy wasn't necessarily a problem.

His treatment of me was however, we currently do not speak.

I do not know how much of this was/is to do with the fact I do not possess a penis, but I suspect quite a lot of it was.

And the elephant in the room is that as well as having to live with two men who don't want her, this child is going to know that her mother doesn't want her either, whether it's the egg donor or the one who carried her for 9 months.
That knowledge is destructive, leading to poor self esteem and all the wreckage that causes.
I too would ban surrogacy for that reason.

People saying surrogacy should be banned are ridiculous.
Some people cant have kids naturally and surrogacy helps.

No one has a right to have children. Adopt.

No, using women as breeding machines is ridiculous.

I wonder if those blokes have considered how their daughter will feel in years to come, knowing her dad’s didn’t really want her. Yes, it’s fine to be disappointed but they need to put her first now and love her for the person she is. Maybe the clinic will learn from its mistake and stop doing non-medical gender selection probably not 😆

Agreed.have we heard anything to support those saying they won't treat her right or love her as much.
Most people have a flicker of a preference. When the first see the scan there can be a flicker of it there too! It almost never means they aren't instantly in love with their baby.do we no these two aren't.
We do no they paid money to select a sex.which rightly or wrongly as a concept the CLINIC ARE THE ONES making money off people by doing this.and I hear of these clinics and the more I hear the more seedy these places become.not nice place not nice people. So these men for whatever reasons chose a boy.could be aaaall sorts of reasons too.again rightly or wrongly. And so the issue isn't for them they now have a girl.its a technical,biological,medical mistake the CLINIC made and they paid for. If absent private for an op to a hospital and they fucked it up.youd sui.so isn't it just the CLINIC and their fault.not that they don't love their little girl.shes not unwanted?She will never feel any differently loved.they are angry at the CLINIC over their medical mistake and have had to give those reasons now as the case is here.

I don't like commercial surrogacy, but the clinic should be punished in some way for the error. If they are in the habit of being sloppy, they could potentially foul up in some area where it really is important, like putting the wrong blastocyst in a woman undergoing IVF.

I feel very sorry for that little girl though.

My babies and I bonded because I was holding them, feeding them and spending time with them.
If I had been a surrogate, the baby would have been taken and put into the arms of someone else, and a bond would have developed between the baby and that other adult.

I don't like commercial surrogacy, as mentioned. But there is no evidence that babies are harmed by surrogacy. The long term psychological, cognitive and behavioral outcomes for children adopted through surrogacy are basically very normal and very similar to those of other children birthed and raised the "usual" way (and are very different to the high level of difficult and troubled outcomes that is seen among adopted children in general).

We don't remove puppies till 8 weeks, because for a puppy "being removed" means being dumped on the kitchen floor with a bowl of pet food and a dish of water. A baby who is removed from a surrogate is being given the same kind of care as he/she would have received from a gestational mother--being held, rocked, given milk etc. It's not a suitable analogy.

As mentioned, children born through surrogacy have shown good outcomes so far.

I am in favor of surrogacy being closely regulated and altruistic-only, to avoid some of the awful moral dilemma situations that have occurred in commercial surrogacy that is lightly regulated. But there is no evidence that the babies are harmed.

Like it’s that easy…..no one has the right to adopt a child either.

The internet is full of anti-adoption nutcases as well. There is no way of having a child that isn't going to piss someone off. Surrogacyevil. Adoption"Every adopted child is born out of a birthmother's trauma!!!" Have your own biological child--"How can you, the planet is overpopulated!"

"The clinic messed up, they owe for that, especially as sex selection is very costly. At the very least they should get that back."

The only circumstance when sex selection is appropriate is where there is a genetically carried risk associated with one sex or the other.

They should have adopted and then their suitability as parents would have been scrutinised (you would hope). I know adoption isn't easy. For a reason. It's human beings we're talking about, not iPhones

Adoption isn’t and shouldn’t be easy. People who blithely suggest it as a solution often have very little idea of what is actually involved.

My babies and I bonded because I was holding them, feeding them and spending time with them.
If I had been a surrogate, the baby would have been taken and put into the arms of someone else, and a bond would have developed between the baby and that other adult.

Babies are not ducklings ffs

I know couples who have adopted. I've seen the process they've been through. I know it's not easy.

That still doesn't give someone the right to purchase a baby.

The problem with relying on Google to find "evidence" to back up your case is that when you don't know the content you risk digging up old studies long since superseded and in some cases discredited. Wikipedia has many uses but its not gospel, especially where women's issues are concerned.

However since you are keen on Google you will have no trouble answering the question I asked you upthread.
Do you know the origin of the term gestational carrier? If you continue to use it knowing the origin we will know you for the misogynist (or GF) that you are.

So suddenly we know who is a male and who is female.

Couldn't they assign the baby male at birth? Problem solved.

Actually there's no good research to show that a newborn knows or cares if it is given to the "wrong" parent to raise. And in fact such a preference would be maladaptive given how vulnerable newborns are and how high marernal mortality used to be.

children born through surrogacy have shown good outcomes so far.

We simply don't have the evidence to make that kind of assertion.

We do know however that children born from donor gametes are damaged if their donors are anonymous. That evidence was strong enough for the U.K. to change the HFEA regulations in 2005 so that donors in the U.K. are not anonymous.

Extrapolating from that, we can only assume that a child born from an anonymous donor gamete and which has been sold by its mother at birth will be traumatised by that experience.

@C8H10N4O2 good thing I didn't look at Wikipedia then isn't it, are you claiming the 2 most well known and respected long term studies into attachment theory have been discredited? With there being no trace of this in publication today?

Such BS, attachment theory is well understood, babies do not start attaching to their primary care giver until 4 weeks. And this doesn't fully form until 4-6 months.

This is why foster to adopt is being pushed by local authorities as it's been proven to mitigate the attachment risks associated with adoption in the UK, and the theory on that also applies to surrogacy.

Why do you seem to think babies removed from their gestational carrier at birth will be traumatised? Please cite your sources and I will take a look.

Such an ignorant post

In many states using a surrogate means you need to go through the same adoption vetting btw, so you can pipe down on that front

It's quite simple, if you are pro choice you are pro a woman being able to choose. No caveats, no restrictions.

If you think women should be able to abort in only certain circumstances you are not pro choice. You are also not pro women.

Although your views are abhorrent to me, at least you are consistent unlike many on this thread. You don't believe women should have any agency over their own bodies no matter the scenario.

But they still talk about attachment to birth mother don’t they for adoption and why there maybe issues.

I was adopted years ago and that was never considered, but I am sure it is now.