Mark Feehily wants surrogacy to be cheaper and accessible for everyone

[Wouldloveanother]

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11141771/Westlifes-Mark-Feehily-discusses-privileged-expensive-surrogacy-journey-welcome-daughter.html

Why are men so entitled?

However having AS'ed you and recognising your nic, you do have a long history of misogynistic and anti women's rights comments. You always argue for the Meninist perspective so I shouldn't be surprised at your ignorance and lack of concern for women and babies.

Then they have options which don’t involve removing a newborn from its mother:

1. adopt a newborn from a country where healthy newborns (with non drug addict parents) are regularly put up for adoption. There are plenty of them.
2. co-parent with a woman who wants a baby but is gay, or hasn’t found the right man, or would prefer not to do it in a romantic relationship

the fact is they want a shiny newborn to play family with, without the inconvenience of its mother or other blood relatives to spoil the illusion.

again, how would you know the extensive back history of a sperm/egg donor? You’re just relying on what they put on the forms.

I agree.

How would you be certain of these things with an egg donor? They could have all kind of personality problems that they wouldn’t disclose on the paperwork.
Possibly. But you KNOW the parents of an adopted child have documented problems, because they’ve had their baby taken away. So the egg donor is the safer choice.

*adopt a newborn from a country where healthy newborns (with non drug addict parents) are regularly put up for adoption. There are plenty of them.

co-parent with a woman who wants a baby but is gay, or hasn’t found the right man, or would prefer not to do it in a romantic relationship.*

Agree with OP, those imo, are the only possible alternatives. Surrogacy should never ever, ever, ever, no matter what the circumstances - hetero, gay, medical conditions, etc, be an option.

First position: Gay and infertile couples should just adopt. If you're unsuitable to adopt then your unsuitable to raise your own biological child.

Second position: Gay and infertile couples who are unsuitable to adopt should just find a woman to have a child with who will raise the child. So you went from claiming those couples are unsuitable to raise their own biological child to claiming they should just have their own biological child with someone who will be raising the child with them.

Hence the flip flop.

I have enough concern about babies to know the first thing about adoption, which is more than you managed.

You were the one who said some people aren't suitable for adopting.

My response? Well if they aren't suited to adopt, then they either as OP says;
co-parent with a woman who wants a baby but is gay, or hasn’t found the right man, or would prefer not to do it in a romantic relationship.
OR, don't have any children at all.

My position has been consistent and fixed from the start. You are the one who has flip flopped from they aren't able to cope with adopting, but somehow can cope with surrogacy.

The 'without recourse to other people's bodies' point is so weird.

The same is true for all men, who cannot become (biological) parents 'without recourse to other people's bodies'. Or all women, for that matter, who cannot become parents 'without recourse to other people's bodies' or at least the products thereof.

So really none of us can become biological parents 'without recourse to other people's bodies.

You don't have any concern at all for anyone except men. That's your M.O.

I’m not sure surrogacy and adoption can be compared.

Adoption occurs to a child who is already in existence and adoption is arranged because it is considered the best option for providing long term care for a child. Where it is not done for the child beats interests (eg infant adoption in the US/some interncountry adoption it has similar ethical issues to surrogacy).

surrogacy occurs purely for the benefit of adults. A baby is created purely to fulfill an adulting need.

Yeah that's not a flip flop.

Parenting an adopted child is very different to parenting a child conceived through surrogacy.

Some people can do the latter well but not the former.

Nobody has the right to a child and women's wombs should not be available for rent. If people can't have children then they should resign themselves to that fact or adopt a child who really needs a loving home. Womb rental is not the answer and the focus should be on the rights of the child and what is best for them, not the rights of people who want to be parents but can't. Dragging a newborn from its birth mother is not thinking about the rights and needs of the child. The law should not support this greedy selfish madness.

Renting a womb should not be a thing.

Well then they should just accept, if they choose not to adopt, that their choices are limited to that and they can't have children then. Because surrogacy should be banned outright.

Exactly. They need to accept that having children is not for them then. You can't and shouldn't always get what you want. Too bad and sad for them, but that's it. No one has a 'right' to have a child.

The same is true for all men, who cannot become (biological) parents 'without recourse to other people's bodies'. Or all women, for that matter, who cannot become parents 'without recourse to other people's bodies' or at least the products thereof.

Holy crap, do I really have to spell out the difference between being in a relationship with a woman and procreating children with her versus paying her for rental of her womb?

Seriously?

Again, 1. suggests a staggering ignorance of the issues around adoption. International adoption takes just as long as domestic adoption, which means that an internationally adopted child will have all of the attachment issues that a child who has been through foster care domestically before being adopted might have. Also, you are massively naive as to the level of knowledge that adopters have of internationally adopted children's backgrounds - it is often considerably less than that of domestically adopted children (which is bad enough).

As to 2., you must have missed the pile on Owen Jones got on twiiter when he suggested he was interested in just that. But again, coparenting again takes very specific skills and attitudes to make it work. I certainly couldn't do it (but I could adopt, for example).

And how would you go about doing that exactly? In a fair and enforceable way?

Donor egg surrogacy with a gestational surrogate could probably be banned because it needs the involvement of clinics. But combined genetic and gestational surrogacy could not effectively be banned.

@TeaKlaxon it is illegal in several countries though isn’t it? What do you mean it can’t be banned effectively (g/)

Then they have options which don’t involve removing a newborn from its mother: adopt a newborn from a country where healthy newborns (with non drug addict parents) are regularly put up for adoption. There are plenty of them.
This used to be what celebs did. Angelina Jolie adopted from Cambodia, Vietnam and Ethiopia. Madonna adopted from Malawi. Julie Andrews adopted from Vietnam. Emma Thompson adopted from Rwanda. Katherine Heigl adopted from South Korea. Meg Ryan adopted from China.

But international adoptions have dropped massively in the last 20 years. Ethiopia, South Korea, Romania, Russia, China, Guatemala and Kazakhstan all banned or cut back on international adoptions. It has a lot to do with politics, bad publicity and not wanting to be seen as a poor country which exports children, concerns about exploiting poverty stricken birth mothers and removing children from their birth culture.

So as a result of reduced availability of healthy children from other countries, people are using surrogacy as an alternative route to get healthy children.

“But again, coparenting again takes very specific skills and attitudes to make it work. I certainly couldn't do it (but I could adopt, for example).”

^
surely adoption is like the ultimate co-parenting test. Most adopted children have some, even if Minimal contact with their birth family and will explore that more when adult (or even a teen via social media):

There’s a big difference between having contact with a birth family but ultimately having 100% of parental decision making and day to day contact, versus jointly raising a child with someone you’re not in a relationship with - particularly if you are in a relationship with someone else.

Neither are easy.

Which is why it’s naive to assume anyone can adopt or coparent.

How do you ban a man and a woman agreeing to him getting her pregnant with a view to her relinquishing parental rights after birth? Which part of that can realistically and enforceable be banned?