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

There isn't. It's the usual methodology of shutting down a conversation that you don't like, by making those having it question themselves and feel fear for their reputation. It's wearing thin, and people are increasingly not falling for it.

Everyone posting here who is against surrogacy and feel distaste for this particular situation would feel the same way if the couple was heterosexual or a lesbian couple. It's their behaviour, not their sexual characteristics, that is the issue, coupled with the wider issue of the human trafficking of babies and exploitation of poor women.

What about the baby's choice?

Choice is never made in a vacuum. The surrogacy industry was booming in Ukraine before Russia invaded because it was legal there and much of Ukraine is dirt poor.

It's never rich women choosing to become surrogates. Or prostitutes for that matter.

Surrogacy is the commodification of children and exploitation of vulnerable women. You might have a point if it was comparatively well off women acting a surrogates but it's not. It's generally women from poor countries or backgrounds doing it for comparatively wealthy commissioning couples.

The sexuality of the commissioning couple is irrelevant. Commercial surrogacy is banned in most countries but somehow it's ok to import a child from one of the few, generally poor, countries where it is still legal.

@OchonAgusOchonOh this well off women don't do it trope really baffles me.

Do you think every 'job' well off women don't do it exploitative? Does that apply to well off men too?

Well off women tend not to clean their own homes and hire someone to do that, should cleaners be banned?

Well off men tend not to clean their own shirts, should dry cleaners be banned?

I don't think the barometer of ethics should be placed on whether rich people would do something.

Well off women don't tend to work the checkouts at Burger King either.

It also ignores the fact many posters on here also have issue with surrogacy in the UK where you don't pay for it. Which then undermines the entire payment element of the argument against

Could be the baby Gammy and Pipah case. Convicted sexual offender David Farnell and his wife employed a woman to be a surrogate mother.

The woman who was acting as the gestational mother had twins, one disabled boy, one (presumably) healthy girl. She says they asked her to terminate. In the end they just took the girl. Afterwards it came out about his conviction history.

But perhaps the most shocking claim the 21-year-old made was that the Australian parents of Gammy and his sister - David and Wendy Farnell - reportedly asked her to abort the children when she was seven months pregnant.

'It was the agent ... she said that they (the Farnells) wanted to abort both of the children'. Ms Janbua told the program, adding she broke down in tears when she received this news.

'She said that the parents had been very shocked and frightened... they were insisting on the abortion. I said I couldn't do that... cause I was seven months into the pregnancy already.'

Ms Janbua said she was then given the option to abort just one of the children - the one with a disability - though she still refused this as she believed she was too far into the pregnancy.

Daily Mail

Ms Janbua filed for custody to get Pipah back, but failed.

The judge ruled that Pipah would live with her father, but was never ever to be left alone with him.

An extensive safety plan has been developed in partnership with the state’s child protection service and is already in place, prohibiting Farnell from being alone with the child.

It also involves a “words and pictures story” being read to Pipah every three months that details in terms the toddler would understand the “history and method” of Farnell’s crimes and why he is unable to be alone with her.

Guardian

Im talking about commercial surrogacy in America. Your neighbour buying a baby (if that’s what they did) because it makes them happy, doesn’t make that ok. Would it be ok to sell a one year old? A 12 year old?

In the UK?

"Gender disappointment " is another disgusting modern privilege. If you're nor happy to have a healthy child you shouldn't have any.

Nothing modern about it. Remember Henry VIII?

@Naunet they surrogate is not selling a baby, they're facilitating a baby.

One of these parents is the biological father. The surrogate is facilitating the child being grown, as in this case the carrier didn't use their own eggs. Unless you also disagree with egg and sperm donation.

What a silly comment

A quick review of the science behind this shows that genetic testing is extremely close to 100% accurate at sorting embryos, but that there is a very small margin of error. It’s really 99.9something. Unless they can show that the clinic was negligent and transferred an embryo that had been identified as female or skipped the sorting process entirely, they will lose this case as extremely bad luck.

There are two (or more) issues at play here.

1. should people who paid to have a service be compensated if that service comes up short?
2. should people be able to pay to select the sex of their baby (for non medical reasons) ?

in my opinion the answer to the first point is probably but the answer to the second point is definitely not. the fact that these men are still going to have another baby as the girl wasn’t what they wanted shows actually what kind of vile people they are.

I don’t support people having the right to sell their organs either. Can you guess why someone might be against that?

The point is that money buys you options. Wealthy women don't rent out their wombs because they have other options to pay for the things they need. Poor women's choices are limited. Sex work and surrogacy are two choices open to them that rich women don't have to make. Both exploiting a woman's body, yet in the case of surrogacy also exploiting a baby.

Working in burger king doesnt result in a baby being taken off the only mother it knows at birth because an adult feels they're entitled to a baby. Which is my issue with it. Pay, or don't pay. Doesn't matter. It's still deliberately creating a child in order to disrupt one of the very few things a newborn baby cares about - the bond between it and it's mother.

Surrogacy should be banned. All about the adult wants and not the child’s needs. It’s just trafficking. And all surrogates are paid, they all receive ‘expenses’. And comparing having a cleaner to having a surrogate is just pathetic.

probably. Including the David Farnell case, it has now happened twice, that is known of, in Australia. I can't imagine that Britain is incapable of producing such people.

man who brought his surrogate twin infant daughters to Australia to sexually abuse them and then shared footage of it with paedophile friends online has been jailed for 22 years. www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/19/man-who-sexually-abused-surrogate-twin-baby-daughters-jailed-for-22-years

I was responding to the point "Surrogacy is just a way to help those who cannot have children in the natural way become parents."

It's not. It's a way for desperate women to make money. The reason for the "well off women don't do it" argument is you regularly get people claiming the women acting as surrogates are doing it out of a sense of altruism with the added happy bonus of getting paid.

As well as the dramatically increased risks to the mother associated with donor IVF, surrogacy also has the well documented added harm caused to the baby who is removed from their mother at birth.

@Naunet so people like myself shouldn't be able to have a biological child via surrogacy if that were ever an option to me?!!
I'm 31. Just short of two weeks ago I was diagnosed with endometrial cancer. I may soon have to have a fully hysterectomy. I am trying drugs to try to buy myself enough time to have children before needing surgery but that's not a given. I potentially do have the option of freezing eggs. But I obviously would not be able to carry myself.

There's no mention of either of them being a carrier for a genetic birth defect that can only be passed from father to daughter. YANBU they should be happy with what they get. What's wrong with being grateful for a healthy child and the chance to be parents? They should have been made to hand the child over.

Very few women continue to have sex disappointment (gender is meaningless) after the baby is born. I do get upset at the sex disappointment threads yes, but we all know the majority of the time once that baby is placed in mums arms those feelings disappear.
If however the mother had strong feelings of not wanting that baby because she didn’t want that sex, I would want that situation closely monitored to say the least.

I do think they are monsters for paying to rent a woman's body in the first place. And I don't think misogynists make great fathers, especially not to girls.

This. And pretending it's homophobic to object is a very neat way of saying, "shut up women". I mean they are very very clearly sexist and that doesn't appear to be an issue. Discriminating against a protected characteristic before birth FFS.

And what are those child's needs?

As the only data around surrogacy outcomes for children is often lumped with general adoption, which is very different as with surrogacy the children are biologically linked to at least one of the parents (if not both for straight couples)

Removal at birth is the least harmful removal method for children in general, hence why foster to adopt is becoming more and more popular in the UK with local authorities as it's been shown to remove many of the attachment issues adopted children face.

@MissyB1 and who is to say these parents haven't stopped with the disappointment of having a girl?

This article is on their legal case, which is solid, they paid extra for a service that wasn't carried out properly. They have every right to fight that. It doesn't mean they don't love their daughter, which is what many posters don't seem to grasp

They cannot have children in the natural way not due to medical problems,
but because neither of them is a woman!
Think surrogacy should be banned