Adam Kay and his husband’s babies

[MatildaTheCat]

Apologies if this has already been covered.

I read in the paper this morning that AK and his DH have welcomed TWO babies into their lives, born to two different surrogates. One child is six months old and their sibling is two months old.

I genuinely cannot wrap my head around this. It seems so very odd to me. Is it a case of ‘one each’ or ‘get the baby stages over asap’?

Obviously nobody but the two parents can answer this but AIBU to find this really quite disturbing?

And I'm allowed to disagree with them 🤷‍♀️

Of course. But condoning the exploitation of women and abuse of children on the basis that Neil Patrick Harris makes it look nice on Instagram isn’t really the best argument, and doesn’t suggest you’ve engaged with any of the counter arguments on this thread.

That's not really what I was saying but I'm guessing you know that really but can't accept others have different opinions. I was just pointing out another example that doesn't involve Adam Kay who everyone hates.

I just don't believe that it is morally wrong. There are many who believe that IVF shouldn't be available on the NHS but until you have experienced infertility I don't think you have a say in it. Its easy to say for people in a male/female couple who can get pregnant naturally, when a gay couple want to they have limited options.

I have experienced infertility. I’ve had 4 miscarriages.

But no, you don’t need to know what infertility is like to have an opinion on this.

The wants and needs of the person who wants to buy a baby (for whatever reason) do not matter more than the mother and child.

Your argument boils
down to saying that it’s ok for a woman to put her life on the line and a baby to be taken from it’s mother at birth because grown adults are “desperate” for a baby.

It is illegal to buy organs. And we don’t need to have experienced what it’s like to have lost an eye or a kidney to know that buying them from poor people is completely unacceptable. And arguably eyes and kidneys are more necessary to the person who wants to buy one than a baby would be.

So you're OK if they do it for free then? Like giving a kidney? Surely if you disagree with it so much your arguments should stand for surrogacy regardless, so your organ example just doesn't stand up at all IMO.

We are allowed to disagree about this, you won't br changing my mind and I have no desire to try and change yours. Neither of us knows each others personal reasons for feeling like we do.

It doesn't matter if it's this purchaser, or a different one. It doesn't matter of they're straight gay old young wealthy nice desperate or anything else. Buying a human is wrong for any reason.

Unless you think someone should be able to pay me for my 11 year old, if they really really want one and have 'limited options'?

You know that buying your 11 yo is totally different though. You are able to give her away though if you wanted. What I am saying is that you disagree with surrogacy even if it was free (like adoption, or giving a kidney) so those arguments you are giving are pointless when comparing it to organs IMO and you haven't actually given any evidence to back yourself up in your replies to me about the effects on the mother or baby (nor have I).

If you disagree with surrogacy full stop that's fine of course. I would be a surrogate for a close friend or family member in a heartbeat, in the same way as I would give a kidney, i am closer to this subject than i am happy to discuss as its way too outing. Not everyone feels the way I do which is fine, I am not the only one on here to feel how I do though. I think it's best I don't engage with you further on this matter.

These anti-surogacy arguments will come back to haunt us. They always do when we try and prevent men from having something that is ours.

If we argue that the bond from pregnancy is so strong it must never be broken, it will lead to prohibitions on women giving up their children for adoption or otherwise abandoning them during their childhood. How dare you, who carried your child for 9 months put him in nursery to frivolously go and earn money to buy trinkets. Your husband can do that, you can go and nurse your child.

No I don't think buying an 11 year old is any different, because I dont think it's ok to do things to humans on the grounds that they won't remember it, which is the only difference between giving away a baby or an 11 year old. Do you?

I can't give my 11 year old away freely though can I? Social services would get involved and rightly so. There is plenty of evidence about the effects of removing children from their birth families, that's why (in the UK) it is only done as a last resort. I'm an adopter.

Giving away a human is not equivalent to giving away a kidney. Your kidney is part of your body, and is not sentient. Not the same

No not 'can never be broken', but can only be broke if nothing else will do for the wellbeing of the child. Which is the standard for adoption in the UK. Surrogacy is about the wants of adults.

Why is buying an 11 year old totally different? What is the acceptable age limit on human trafficking?

Do you actually know how surrogacy generally works?

I'm not engaging in this absolutely nonsense back and forth at all. Read the thread, many people disagree with you for many different reasons.

That’s ok, generally people with your views can’t answer at what age human trafficking becomes A Bad Thing. I wonder why…

I don't believe it's human trafficking, that's my answer.

Based on? A baby is a human, they’re being sold/given to someone else without having any say themselves. How is that not trafficking?

He certainly knows better than most how badly pregnancy and childbirth can affect the woman.

According to his book he left medicine due to being traumatised after seeing a baby die and a mother almost die in childbirth and have to have an emergency hysterectomy rendering her permanently infertile due to undiagnosed placenta previa.

I guess he has recovered enough to let a woman potentially go through the same thing so he can have a baby.

no, there aren’t “many different reasons” in support of surrogacy on this thread.

Literally the only reason that you or anyone else has been able to come with is that it’s fine because the person paying for it like reallllly wants it. Not good enough.

This.

There are plenty of things which we don't allow people to have or do, even if they really really want them. Even if the other human involved will not remember it, and they'll be really really well treated afterwards. Human trafficking is wrong, even if the people involved really really want another human and can't get one in a different way.

Literally the only reason that you or anyone else has been able to come with is that it’s fine because the person paying for it like reallllly wants it. Not good enough.

Yes. It's not okay to inflict suffering on a baby, or child, or another woman, not even if someone is themself suffering because they want a baby/child.

Because they still have emotionally coerced the close friend into carrying the baby for them by using the line 'its our only option to be parents'.

That's abuse of power by using that close relationship to manipulate someones else.

I simply don't believe it's possible to have 'altruistic surrogacy'. It ALWAYS involves this emotional manipulation. And that relationship is altered by it. I do think there's a pretense that all parties are fine with it far too often. More relationships are hugely damaged by it than surrogacy advocates will admit to and many women who carry a baby and have regrets find it hard to vocalise that or feel they have no choice but to remain silent because speaking up when a child is involved is worse. Sunk costs and all that.

If the claim is actually true about it being the only way to have a baby it means they've been turned down for fostering and adoption. And you have to ask why. They aren't suitable to be parents. Red flags ahoy.

If that's not true the default alternative position is actually they are hamming up their point about it being their only option to be parents, and it's actually about them only wanting to be a parent in a particular way that suits them - and that makes it a demand coming from privilege. Poor people who are in similar circumstances can't just commission a surrogate. It's not a need it's a demand.

Fostering or adoption isn't suitable to these people because they deem these children as 'substandard' children who have been tainted in some way or it's all about the shiny new baby and not missing out on that stage (that's not about the kid that's all about the parents).

And that's forgetting that parenthood isn't for everyone - you can't have everything you want in life, but sheer entitlement is leading to the sanitising of baby trafficking for rich people at the expense of not so rich people. As I say, poor people don't commission surrogates.

Surrogacy centres the wants of adults not the needs children have. Depending on how it's done many children have their identity stolen from them as birth certificates are altered or donors concealed. This matters - the UN talks about how removing children from their cultural roots is a crime & we have massive scandals about adoption with children eventually seeking out where they came from years later often after adoptive parents have died because there is this natural desire to understand where someone has come from.

It's a monsterous practice whoever does it and however they do it. It's exploitative in what ever form it comes.

HTH

Yes by exploiting another human either through financial weakness or through emotional blackmail to carry and give birth to a baby which is seen as a commodity for the benefit of the couple who 'cant possibly survive' without a baby. The adult couple are centred first with the baby second and the woman right at the bottom.

This is an unhealthy dynamic. People who centre themselves first, don't make for great parents.

HTH.

I’m sceptical about surrogacy, but there’s somehow always something a bit repulsive on these threads about watching a lot of posters, most of whom have presumably been able to have the children they wanted, fall over themselves in their eagerness to deny that joy to another person.

I do agree with you there. I have been jumped on but I have never said surrogacy is appropriate in all scenarios and that it should be available at the drop of a hat, the regulation around it needs to be extremely tight but I do still feel that there is a place for it in the right situation.

I also had infertility issues and multiple miscarriages before I eventually had children.

I can sympathise in many ways with couples wanting children, who can't have them the usual way.

However, it seems a bit odd to "order" 2 children at once, especially if you aren't sure about how you will cope, especially if you are a bit older and might find it demanding, especially if you are a busy couple, both with careers, who have other demands as well. It might be more sensible to go one at a time. There are various reasons, I think, why multiple births are relatively unusual for humans.

Even if you have lots of paid help, you can't outsource all the need for love, care and attention; and I imagine, managing and organising the paid help to cover the needs of 2 very small children would be quite an issue in itself.

Once again this response focuses solely on the desires of the person who uses a surrogate, and completely ignores the rights of the mother and child.

Nobody is entitled to the joy of a child. Being rich, or gay, or infertile shouldn’t mean that you get to exploit another woman’s body and pay to take her baby.

It’s a completely selfish desire.