Ollie & Gareth Locke & Surrogacy

[Policyschmolicy]

I picked this up in the daily mail, and am frankly appalled. On the one hand I think they seem like nice enough people and want to have a baby, etc … I’ve been a little bit irked about the casual attitude towards surrogates/women in this, but I’m very perturbed by his latest ‘promise’:

• He said: 'As we move forward I will promise I will do everything in my power to try and bring attention to help in changing the British laws to make it easier for people desperately trying to have a family!

'The rules which haven't been reassessed in over 30 years are wildly unfair, currently firmly against gay equality and beyond archaic.

'Why would any government grant equal marriage, but make it so heartbreakingly difficult and frighteningly expensive to have a family, I will do everything in my power to open up the conversation of a modernisation in legislation change!*

What planet are they on?! Of course it’s not equal given that only one group of human beings, i.e. women can actually gestate babies. I mean, what on Earth does he think he can do about that?!

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10350235/amp/Made-Chelseas-Ollie-Locke-shares-heartbreaking-baby-news-surrogate-miscarries-six-weeks.html

If there is a medical reason for the breast reduction then I do believe it should be covered yes. I don't believe fertility treatment is something that should be funded by the tax payer full stop. It is not a necessity to have a child it is a lifestyle choice. However if it is, which it is, I see no reason why this shouldn't also include gay couples.

If you can afford the huge costs of bringing up a child then the cost of IVF is tiny in comparison

I’m sure people who are against NHS funding for IVF have no problem using taxpayer funded maternity services for their own pregnancies. Probably multiple times. Funny that.

Pregnancy treatment is a necessity because you are pregnant and need treatment as part of a natural human function of giving birth. That is in no way the same as providing treatment for infertility. You are being ridiculous

@flippertyop your ignorance is astounding. How privileged to be able to be so ignorant about something so fundamental.

So there is a medical need for IVF treatment for infertility - you believe people shouldn’t be treated

There is a medical need for breast reduction - you believe they should be treated. Why? Let me guess it’s as breast reduction has physical symptoms whereas infertility primarily causes mental health issues that you can’t see so you don’t think they matter.

Also the costs of bringing up a child are spread out over that child’s lifetime. IVF is an up front massive cost.

Do you have children? Presumably you believe you can afford to bring them up? Do you also have £25k to spend right now that you don’t need for anything else? I doubt it.

I sincerely hope your children don’t end up infertile with such a callous and cruel parent. Oh well DD children are a lifestyle choice I made and I know a medical procedure could mean you also experience the joys of parenthood but the NHS is over stretched so just get on with it

@IsAoibhinnLinn

Actually *@Clymene* it is STILL in infertility. I just took this screenshot as per the time at the top of it. I know you lot seem to think you’re the authority on everything but you are wrong and it is still in infertility.

@mumsnetHQ please remove from infertility.

There's really no need for the snide biscuit particularly when I agree with you that it's inappropriate.

it's not showing on the app which I use but I've just checked and it is on the website.

I'd report your post - tagging MNHQ doesn't work.

@flippertyop you were the one who said having children was a lifestyle choice. So if you choose to have a child you should cover the cost of maternity care and giving birth no? Don’t tell me you’re a hypocrite.

And fwiw I absolutely agree with you that infertility should be treated on the nhs if it is a medical issue. Being a same sex couple is not a medical issue.

I navigated to it from feminism, and it’s been listed in feminism since last night. There must be some kind of issue where it is showing in two places

[quote Ifitistobesaid]@flippertyop you were the one who said having children was a lifestyle choice. So if you choose to have a child you should cover the cost of maternity care and giving birth no? Don’t tell me you’re a hypocrite.[/quote]
See that’s totally different because it affects @flippertyop so of course it should be funded. Her lifestyle choices are fine. It’s only things that don’t affect her she likes to be judgemental about. It’s unreal the nasty attitudes towards women needing fertility treatment on this website.

It's been correctly pointed out that this thread is still pinned to the infertility board. It's very unpleasant to be debating whether the NHS should be funding IVF or not on the infertility board. Women going through infertility do not need to hear these opinions. This thread is so unpleasant.

This thread is definitely in Talk: feminism: chat.

@ChattyLion

This thread is definitely in Talk: feminism: chat.

It’s in infertility. Gosh so not only do we have to listen to the nasty views of posters on this thread (a really interesting look at the types of women in the feminism topic) but then we also have to put up with being gaslight by posters too lazy to go look and see that the thread is in infertility.

Giving birth is not the same as treating infertility. It is a medical necessity due to the state of being pregnant. It is not a medical necessity to become pregnant. If someone has IVF I believe they are entitled to medical care through the pregnancy because they are pregnant so your argument doesn't stack. They are two completely different things. Many are dealt with shit blows in life - infertility is just one of them. I don't think it's up to the NHS to fund the treatment for it ... end of. However they do and therefore I think gay couples have an argument as to why they should also get state assistance to have a child.

@ChattyLion

This thread is definitely in Talk: feminism: chat.

It's in feminism chat for me too. I've no idea how it can appear on two boards simultaneously and for it not to have been moved back to its original board.

Who asked for it to be moved to infertility? Not the OP.

Showing as feminist chat for me.

It’s in infertility. Gosh so not only do we have to listen to the nasty views of posters on this thread (a really interesting look at the types of women in the feminism topic) but then we also have to put up with being gaslight by posters too lazy to go look and see that the thread is in infertility.

You’re not being gaslit. Both are correct. It’s in two places at once. No idea how.

The URL says feminism. I think this is something that you need to take up with @MNHQ as they have made the mistake, rather lobbing bricks at women. Incidentally, there have been two posters objecting to IVF and both were off topic. The topic of the thread is surrogacy.

Regards, one of the 'types of women' in the feminism topic

@flippertyop It is not a medical necessity to become pregnant I agree. Therefore anyone who gets pregnant should pay for and fund their maternity treatment. If you can’t afford to do that then don’t get pregnant. As you said yourself children are not a necessity they are a lifestyle choice and there is no shortage of children. So unless you are rich and can afford to pay for your maternity care you shouldn’t be able to have children full stop.

@flippertyop got it. So fertile people get everything and infertile people should just fuck off out of sight and fund your numerous pregnancies.

Thanks for calling us lazy and nasty.
Yes, it’s the thread is in two places at once.
MN is in charge of that. Not posters.

Do you think we might not be lying? Do you think it might be worth going to the infertility board to see if this conversation is visible there? Or shall we just crack on pontificating about ivf and the NHS despite it potentially being hurtful to women who might be accessing mumsnet for support when they're going through a tough time?

2 posters. RTFT

@Nomoreusernames1244

I get that they really want a family, and it’s sad that things aren’t going to plan for them. But honestly, why does it feel like the women are secondary to that?!

It’s ingrained misogyny. Women are kind and caring, and being able to help someone achieve their dream is wonderful!

Tom Daley/DLB are the same. No mention of the childs mother, or the risks to the surrogate and/or egg donor. Just instagrammable happy families.

I am sure they are good parents. But what happens when the child grows and wants to know their medical history, or actually what their mother is like?

While I am sure gay men are equally capable of fantastic parenting, they do seem to be trying to erase women from the picture.

I don't know anything about their private lives but I suppose they might privately involve the mother in the child's life or at the least make sure they know their medical history and be able to make contact when they are 18.

For all we know the surrogate might not want to be involved publicly.

@ChattyLion

Thanks for calling us lazy and nasty. Yes, it’s the thread is in two places at once. MN is in charge of that. Not posters.

I have reported the thread to mumsnet. As you say it’s nothing to do with posters yet when women post saying this is in infertility and hard to read, posters like you respond to insist it’s not. It would take two seconds for you to check before you posted but instead your priority was to post to tell these women they are wrong - lazy - nasty.