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 quite a few celebrities (and I assume other wealthy women) do that. Not saying it is right

You can use all the dehumanising language you want @alphapie. Women that give birth to babies are mothers. Children deserve to know where they come from.

Choosing to have IVF in the US so your child cannot know their genetic origins and so you can play choose your sex is morally corrupt.

Unless you don't think women should have the choice on what to do with their bodies?

They don't have the choice to sell their own organs. Why do you think that is?

Yes, I've read of this. I'd like to know what @alphapie thinks about it.

One can live a perfectly decent life with one kidney or without part of their liver, surely that’s no worse than 8 surrogate pregnancies? Logic?!!

You do have the choice to donate a kidney or part of your liver to a family member or other person with whom you are a match though (subject to struct medical criteria). Likewise if I were prepared to carry baby for my sister or cousin I'm not sure it's really anyone's business but mine.

It looks like sex is real when it suits some people

You do have the choice to donate a kidney or part of your liver to a family member or other person with whom you are a match though (subject to struct medical criteria).

Not exactly relevant to the point I was making however, which was about selling organs.

Likewise if I were prepared to carry baby for my sister or cousin I'm not sure it's really anyone's business but mine.

I always wonder about a situation like this, are the potential serious implications of pregnancy discussed at all? Like the possibility of you dying or being disabled while carrying a child for a sister/cousin? Particularly if you already have children of your own.

@alphapie - there are two aspects to your argument about the impact of bringing a legal case that are very weak. Firstly, you breezily say that gender disappointment is very common, parents generally don’t hide it and the children suffer no serious consequences. I wouldn’t be so sure about any of those points other than perhaps the first. Secondly, you repeat these points as a way of saying bringing this case would similarly likely have no serious impact on a child. To which I would say that suspecting your mum would have preferred a boy is very different to being aware that your parents paid for a service to ensure they’d got a boy and then went to court for financial recompense when they got you instead - all of this taking the form of public unambiguous statements of fact.

So, 91% saying IANBU. With almost 1900 votes cast. I think that speaks for itself.

Not really, considering you've posted on the most biased site you could in regards to surrogacy.

Anyone who actually thinks that a child with an established attachment to two parents should be removed from their care, and suffer a lifetime of trauma from this event is off their rocker.

A site biased because the majority of users are mothers. I would say that makes this a more not less rigorous result.

Your bias is also showing. Clear as day. You have the means to have IVF and pick the sex of your child. Of course you need to justify your decisions to yourself, we all do to a certain extent. But in the world where women and babies are positioned as commodities. You have the power. You will only ever be a consumer.

I know which point of view i consider as more valid.

If I wanted an opinion on what constituted poor treatment of horses, I'd ask posters on an equine forum.

If I wanted an opinion on what constituted poor treatment of cats, I'd ask a cat owners' forum.

But when it comes to human children, being someone who has them and has brought human beings up from birth makes one less qualified to make judgements?

How does that work, exactly?

Is this some kind of misogyny at play that means women's opinions are devalued and dismissed because they are women?

No biased as the MN 'base' are known to be intolerant on certain issues. It's known by another name on other forums but I can't say it as apparently even using the word gets you banned from MN.

If you posted this on netmums, wedding bee parenting forums, heck even reddit parenting forums the responses would be different. Because of the demographic.

This is a biased forum, especially around certain issues, surrogacy being one of them

If this site is so very awful and filled with such dreadful women, it's baffling that you're hanging around @alphapie.

If there really are lots of sites where you'll have the cheerleaders for sex selection and surrogacy, I'm sure you'd be much happier on them.

I have been here for yonks, NC after the data breach recently.

I've had a lot of support from many of the niche topics and posters on here. But it doesn't change the fact on some issues a vocal minority on MN is very out of sync with the general population. Thankfully a special topic was set up for those people, and I am pushing for posts like these to get moved there as it's just ridiculous.

Oh it's patently obvious you've been around for ages. That doesn't actually answer my question though.

No but the second part does, maybe read the whole thing unless more than a few words in a row is too much for you?

If you're talking about FWR, women lobbied for that section to be set up. But nice spin.

Nope, the lobby was due to wanting to 'hide' the more offensive posts that were seeping into the general feminism section and AIBU, people complained for a while about it, as many who are GC didn't agree with a separate section to be treated. But nice try at rewriting history

Oh you mean when the MRAs and TRAs lobbied for a separate section last year?

What has surrogacy got to do with sex and gender discussions?

He? You're changing your stance, you said women lobbied for it as a counter view for me saying the non GC on here wanted the separation.

Now you are seeming to agree it was the non GC who wanted a separate section.

As stated before, the separate section was a request of the less offensive feminists on this forum. And these surrogacy posts belong in said section so most decent humans don't have to see it.

That was supposed to be a huh? Not a he (mn autocorrect is really not it!)

To be steictly accurate, MNHQ seems to have renamed the old FWR (again), and set up a new section to please TRAs.

Presumably you post there daily and I wish you much joy of it.

FWR isn't a central repository for views from women that you find unpalatable @alphapie.

Perhaps you should find a little corner to post in? As is evident from your slew of deleted posts since you namechanged, I'm not the only person who finds your views unpalatable.