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

How great will it be for the girl to grow up knowing her dads had received compensation because she was a girl and they needed compensation for their disappointment

Not everyone has the same view on surrogacy, it doesn't make them homophobic. I would have thought that the clinic would have some sort of clause in their contract to cover issues like this it seems madness not to.

Do you think the many women who suffer gender disappointment don't treat their children the same?

There is no information about their daughter, she is most likely a very loved and cherished little girl. But they were still victims of medical malpractice, they paid for a service, that service wasn't done properly, they have every right to sue, especially since sex selection is so expensive in the US compared to other countries

Gay men generally make great parents. They are fully entitled to sue if the clinic made an error.

Altruistic surrogacy in the UK, among people who know each other and have taken the time to create positive bonds and form relationships, assisted by organisations like SUK or COTS whose aim is to support good practice and who gatekeep bad actors... is a million miles from international commercial surrogacy. Which should indeed be banned.

Do you think the many women who suffer gender disappointment don't treat their children the same?

This question has been asked several times. I'd be interested to know the answer.

What a fatuous statement. Your sexuality has no bearing on whether you're going to be a great parent or not.

There is nothing to suggest these men are great parents - quite the opposite.

Sex selection should be banned.

The USA is the only country I am aware of where it is legal to use preimplantation genetic screening for sex selection purposes.

Where I live, preimplantation genetic screening isn't legal at all, which I disagree with, and you can't find out the sex of the baby until after the legal limit for abortion has passed.

I would support it in limited circumstances, e.g. where you are trying to avoid having a child with a serious hereditary condition only affecting the Y chromosome, for example.

It's also legal in Cyprus, and a lot more cost effective too

They won't answer, as the basis for many of these views is in homophobia. Posters will claim they see no homophobic comments, but that ignores the fact that many of those with such views don't outright post hate, they do however let their prejudices cloud their judgement, this thread is case and point.

If an easily identified woman wrote an article which was quoted in numerous publications saying that she was massively disappointed that she had a son rather than a daughter, yes, I'd judge her.

Because even if you're disappointed, you keep it to yourself or talk about it anonymously. Not let the world know.

Whether you are in favour of surrogacy or not or indeed sex selection or not the clinic have messed up. Whilst I doubt this is the case their could be a good reason they wanted a boy over a girl - genetic illnesses etc. And an error has occurred and whilst the implications for this family are maybe quite benign it could have devastating consequences for another family. An error that should never happen. Friends of mine have recently gone through ivf to screen out passing on a genetic illness. The consequences on their family if they 'wrong' baby had been implanted would have been huge. So I think they are right to sue if only because it might change attitudes and practices!

@Clymene

We aren't just talking about judgement, would you state those mother who have suffered gender disappointment shouldn't be able to keep their children?

As in this instance one of these fathers is the biological father, people don't tend to remove children from their biological family for gender disappointment.

Nor boys, especially if they don’t have a close female influence in their lives.

There's another really HUGE way in which they are totally unfit to parent (apart from the sexist sex selection) - that they were prepare to undergo surrogacy in the frst place, treating a woman as if she's just a vessel for their purchased children.

Surrogacy is a deeply deeply misogynist practice.

violation of the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

From the article; says it all, really!

Take the surrogacy out of it. If this happened to an ordinary couple what would you think?

I suppose the answer is like everything — some will and some won't.

My mother was one of them. She kept having boys but really wanted girls. My siblings and I were treated very differently according to sex.

I have some compassion for her, because ultimately there was quite a complex psychological context at work behind her prejudices. To do with how she was treated as a child herself. But it made for a shit childhood, nonetheless.

I agree that this shouldn’t be legal in the first place. But as it is then of course they should sue for medical malpractice because that’s what happened

I don't care who you are - babies should not be for sale. Sex selection should similarly be illegal (excepting the previous genetic disease circumstances mentioned). Suing the clinic because the baby you ordered is the wrong sex may be commercially correct, but in every other way it is abhorrent.

And yes, how interesting that Pink News suddenly knows that this baby is a girl, I wonder how.

The two issues - surrogacy and suiting the clinic - are very separate imo.

However, if you set up a business charging people a (no doubt large) amount of money for a specific thing and you don’t deliver it then you’re opening yourself up to people demanding refunds and suing. So in that respect, I don’t think suing a clinic who charge for a selection process then fucked it up is a major character flaw on their part.

Why is it abhorrent to ask for financial compensation when a company messes up? Sex selection in the US tends to cost in the $25,000-$40,000 region, in addition to the other costs associated with surrogacy.

It's totally gross.

It's either a money grab or they are misogynists. You often find men who engage in commercial surrogacy are.

It's not homophobic to think surrogacy is bad for women and children.

Ultimately, what anyone here feels about surrogacy is not relevant legally in this case.

Where this couple live, commercial surrogacy is legal, as is embryo sex selection.

Objection to that is valid, but it's a totally different legal question.

Within the context of the law as it exists where they live, the couple are within their rights to sue if the clinic didn't do what they said they were going to do, or failed to do something that they should have done.

Sometimes the law and personal ethics don't run quite side-by-side.