To think that this is pure selfishness

[Cynbal]

I know that this will probably sound harsh but i was just left shaking my head after I read this article. My heart goes out to them for losing their daughter but this surrogacy route via a war torn country just screams selfishness. There is now a baby who misses out on crucial experiences and bonding, and I also feel for the teenage son who has to live through all of this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68370377

God I wish people would stop being so selfish. Of course I hope that they can bring their son home asap but the article just made me so sad. So little interest and care about the bigger picture and other lives that suffer in silence.

I’m sorry they’re grieving the death of their daughter, but surrogacy is ethically indefensible, whatever the circumstances.

l though this would be an old news story about surrogacy at the start of the Ukraine war, not more recent. They decided to go ahead despite the country being at war - what were they thinking? And their poor son, left at home on his own to keep the farm going.

Even in the event that surrogacy had no ethical issues (which of course it does), they had the embryos implanted during a war.

How could they not have forseen that this was a possibility? This is on them.

They have been through an unimaginable loss, so I guess their better judgement was clouded, maybe?

I just feel so sorry for their son. They have put this baby ahead of him and he is of an age where that could have a huge impact. I agree OP, they are selfish.

I like a previous poster was expecting this to be an old story. They sound very self centered leaving one child for months alone and commissioning another to be born in a country that they knew was at war. It seems like they have no desire to put either child first. I'm sorry for their loss but they sound like they need therapy not a baby.

They seem to regard travelling against FO advice and making wills with guardianships as a bit of an adventure.

So what? That doesn't mean they had to continue it once war did break out, does it?

The point is they made an active decision to commission a baby in a war zone.

I dislike surrogacy anyway but this is breathtakingly selfish. I feel for their son too.

She did read the article. They may have started before the war began but they actively chose to go ahead and implant an embryo and have a surrogate give birth a baby whilst the war was ongoing.

The poster and myself were naturally surprised it was a recent story. It was one thing when the war broke out and surrogates were already pregnant it's quite another to make that choice after the war started.

Their poor son 😭

It is selfish.

I am continually surprised at the lengths that women will go to, to have a baby.

Yanbu. Their poor older son. He has lost his sister and his parents think the only way that he will be happy is if they put themselves in real and prolonged danger, leaving him for months, and returning with a new baby.

They knew this scenario was likely or they wouldn't have updated their wills etc. I can't believe they were happy to risk their older son have all his direct family die. I might be wrong but I doubt a probably traumatised 15 year old would be in any way 'healed or happier being around a baby. 'He has lost a sister but now he has a brother'...yuk. humans aren't replacable

I don't understand the reason they decided to continue with the Ukraine idea once war broke out. Does any one have any ideas? Maybe their embryos were stored there?

I might be wrong but I doubt a probably traumatised 15 year old would be in any way 'healed or happier being around a baby. 'He has lost a sister but now he has a brother'...yuk. humans aren't replacable.

I agree I also really didn't like how they tried to frame it as they were doing it for him. At least own the selfishness of the decision and acknowledge that the baby is for their own benefit.

I feel very harsh for saying this as they have lost their daughter but they can't replace her. If they wanted noise around the house there are other ways of doing that. A dog? 4 dogs?

Yes I think if it hadn't been made out this is for their son then I might have felt warmer about their decision

Wow yes think I agree with you
The circumstances are very sad but reading the article it sounds like they're risking their lives when they've already got a son at home and they say in the article he's struggling too already

Yes I thought the same. The poor boy

I did read the article, and while it states that they ‘started their surrogacy journey before the war broke out’, the baby was born on 31 January 2024, meaning they went ahead with embryo implantation while the country is at war. Most people would think that was a stupid thing to do.

Their 15 year old son left alone milking the cows, ffs poor child. He should be at an age he’s out with friends and studying for exams, not keeping the family business going.

And Jaunty Beau, what kind of ridiculous name is that?

They didn't have to continue their journey, the war broke out 2 years ago they chose to continue inside a war zone.

They are proper morons. That said for their son and the baby's sake I hope they get home.

Genuine question - do people think it’s unethical if surrogacy happens between family members or friends. For example carrying sister’s/ friend’s baby if they struggle with fertility?

Totally agree that using the wombs of women in desperate poverty is awful. Sort of akin to using them for sex work…

Honestly yes I do. I think many people forget just how dangerous having a baby can be and to ask another person to put themselves through that even if they offer is not appropriate.

Wow, what incredibly selfish people. Their poor son.

I’d also like to second that Jaunty Beau is a terrible name.