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

Fully agree with this.

I wouldn't be using a surrogate in the first place.

The fact there is no evidence to suggest it does not cause damage is not the same as proof there is no damage. That is due to lack of data, not necessarily lack of damage.

Lots of babies are not looked after by their mother immediately post birth and don't have long term issues from it.

Yes. And lots of mothers drink heavily when pregnant without long term problems caused for the child. Stats look at probability of damage. It does not mean every single child will be damaged.

God the whole thing is grubby and misogynistic.
Men hiring women’s bodies and then being disappointed when they don’t create boys. Sad state of affairs.

I know gay men who are amazing dad's. The biological father was in denial when he got married. He had 3 children she had affairs they got divorced. Then he started a same sex relationship.

They're mother got into drugs so they got custody of the children they call them both dad. They are now grandparents and the grandchildren call them both grandad.

It's not always about biology gay men can be amazing dad's.

A gay friend has been looking for a co-parent. But as soon as they find out he's gay they aren't interested.

He wants the biological mother to be involved in they're upbringing as much as himself. He doesn't want a surrogate.

But there will always be hetrosexual couple's who abuse and neglect they're children.

But it could be potentially homophobic to comment that a gay couple shouldn't be allowed to raise a child because they are not the sex they wanted, and to not say the same when women on this forum express disappointment in the sex of their child.

Ive not read the article to work out which country it's in...

My understanding in the UK is that you could definitely sue to recoup the money spent.

Anything else is very circumspect as it would involve successfully arguing that sex has a meaningful and calculable worth to the individuals involved i.e. a boy or a girl is worth more....

They could sue for psychological / emotional distress etc, but again, I suspect the damages awarded would be a notional amount since they're not in any worse a position than a couple conceiving a child naturally and taking their chances over what sex they may have.

One exception might be if somebody was screening for sex for example to avoid a potential sex-linked genetic condition, in which they might be able to claim for the lifetime associated care costs....

So you are saying Gay men can be good parents and straight people can be bad parents?
wow, thanks for that revelation

Absolutely no one is arguing that gay men can't be great parents or heterosexuals can't be terrible ones

If they say the gay couple Should be treated differently to a straight couple in the same circumstances due to their sexuality I agree that would be homophobic
I don’t see where anyone HAS said that on this thread though

@OchonAgusOchonOh there are risks of harm whenever you bring a child into this world! There is no evidence to suggest that altruistic surrogacy is any more likely to cause harm than a child who is cared for in the NICU post birth. And there have been sufficient children born by altruistic surrogacy now to have definitive links if it were causing harm.
Alcohol intake during pregnancy has a proven link in both causing harm to the baby and the ability of the mother to care for her child. The two cases are nothing alike.

@OchonAgusOchonOh I never said most poster, I said some posters, and those posters are yet to confirm or deny whether they think straight parents should have their children removed, breaking their attachments, taken into care and raised by strangers because they suffered gender disappointment.

The issue in this case is the financial element, if sex selection was included in their package costs I'd agree with you somewhat, but they paid extra, the clinic refused to refund and their statement on the matter is highly odd and very unprofessional. The clinic has forced their hand to make this public. Costs of sex selection in the US are significant, if it was a few grand I doubt these parents would be overly bothered but it's not. As is the cost of raising 3 children instead of the 2 planned.

People are letting the emotional element of surrogacy override their brains in this case.

There are so many comparable examples where I bet the comments would be different.

AIBU, I had IVF and asked for 1 embryo to be implanted, the clinic put 3 in and I now have triplets to raise, AIBU to sue. Those extra children would know they weren't wanted, but I can't imagine many on here saying that family isn't justified for claiming against the clinic.

AIBU I paid for genetic screening against DS, the clinic charged 25k for this but didn't do it properly, my son was born with DS, AIBU to sue for the 25k back and costs associated with raising a disabled child? Again, hardly think many would be saying YABU in that case either, again despite the child knowing they weren't 'wanted'

But his do they know it was a female embryo? Isn’t sex assigned at birth???

This is a human life. Not a house.

@Hoppinggreen the key is people are admitting my omission.

Posters have been asked, some responded saying they'd think the same with a straight couple, others have ignored that question and posted since. No one is going to outright say 'no, I wouldn't think the same if it was a straight couple' as they'd most likely not want to out themselves as homophobes.

Homophobia isn't just posting hate online, it's also letting that prejudice seep out in cases like this, some don't even know they're biased until asked and are forced to confront their opinions and why they differ based on the couple

Poor wee girl. It states they’ll now be raising three children rather than 2, could she sound anymore unwanted. What a start to life.

To be fair, there is nothing modern about gender disappointment. Ask Henry VIII.

That said, it's tenaciousness is no testament to it's rightness.

Gender reveal are bullshit (imo)
So is gender stereotyping
Gender is the means by which the patriarchy oppresses women

Surrogacy makes a commodity of women's bodies and of babies. I don't think anyone should be allowed to do it, although I recognise a world of difference between truly altruistic friend of the intended parents vs buying an unknown woman.

I do not relate to the apparently 1000s (?) of women who express disappointment with their baby's sex. It tells me they believe in gender stereotypes.

Being a person (male or female) who thinks it is OK to buy a woman's body and buy a baby, intentionally subjecting that infant to early loss, AND who believes in gender stereotypes AND expressly favours boys in this misogynist world is quite clearly worse.

So anyone not saying that they are definitely NOT homophobic is probably homophobic?
I am not sure it works likes that unless you just assume that everyone is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc etc if they don’t state that they aren’t
In my experience people who start a sentence with “I’m not homophobic” then usually say something homophobic

@Hoppinggreen those refusing to answer whether they'd have the same view if this couple was straight are giving very clear indications that they are homophobic.

To those who have the same view on straight couples who suffer gender disappointment, fair play, you're an equal opportunity numpty.

They should get the money back that they paid for sex selection but no more.

They have a healthy child - it will be their choice to go on and have more than the two they planned. And they have a child because they paid for one.

No doubt some women have been disappointed with the sex of their baby through the years but it is a lucky dip naturally. Sex selection should not be permitted unless it is for health reasons.

They can just hand her over to someone else if they are so disappointed.

She is going to know she was not ‘the perfect child’ because of her sex. And she may one day be looking at her parents with a beady eye, knowing she wasn’t really wanted and her kind is only good enough for their company if it involves renting a womb.

There is a clear difference between hoping for a boy, but having a girl, and paying extra to ensure that the baby you buy is a boy, and then suing when the baby is a girl. If a hetero couple went for sex selection then sued for having the 'wrong' sex baby I would also be disgusted by their behaviour (both the sex selection as the suing).

There is cultural baggage around the desirability of boys vs girls and enabling it can only continue that. No good comes of treating babies as customisable dolls.

The surrogacy in this is a fallacy, its unimportant, your feelings on the morality/ethics of surrogacy methods which are perfectly legal in the USA are irrelevant.

No. This case and others highlighted in this thread expose just how abhorrent ALL forms of surrogacy are. It is trading in human life, using living, breathing humans as nothing more than objects, it should be banned worldwide totally.

Lack of evidence of harm is not the same as no harm. How many children have been born through altruistic surrogacy? How many have been followed up and systematically assessed for varying levels of damage? I suspect not many but feel free to point me to the large scale, longitudinal, peer-reviewed studies you seem to be suggesting exist. Waiting for people to report issues is only likely to result in reports of relatively serious problems. Plus most new parents have very little to compare their experience with so it behaviours appear normal.

Yes, there are risks of harm whenever you bring a child in to the world. But why would you deliberately bring a child into a situation where studies done on similar situations show likely damage just because there have been no studies showing harm in your slightly different scenario?

I do wonder what she'll think about them wanting a boy when she's older, how they'll explain it as it's very likely she'll find out.

However the clinic made a mistake. They're entitled to compensation for a mistake.
I'd need to know much more before I could decide whether they'll be fit parents to a girl, they might be excellent ones for all we know.