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

So unless you are rich and can afford to pay for your maternity care you shouldn’t be able to have children full stop.

Yes because historically recent, hard-won employment rights for women who happen to be mothers is exactly the same as taxpayer funding IVF treatment - which does happen, it's just a post code lottery.

Women who get pregnant should lose their jobs because some/most couples can't afford IVF. Right.

@Franca123

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?

It’s been made very clear they couldn’t care less about infertile women.

@OhHolyJesus

@LizziesTwin

With regard to the children; one of my friends was adopted as a child and has said how strange & yet lovely it is that only now she has her own children does she have anyone in her life with whom she shares genes. Her daughter has the same hair as her. She has a close and loving relationship with her parents but it just isn’t the same. How will children born to surrogates feel in their 30s?

But wouldn't their baby be with one of their genetic parents? I mean with a gay couple wouldn't one of them be the sperm donor in the process?

@OhHolyJesus either having a child is a lifestyle choice or it isn’t. If you insist ivf shouldn’t be available on the NHS because no one needs to have a child- then why should maternity care be funded by the NHS if the argument is no one needs to have a child?

Or it’s just infertile women who don’t need children and medical treatment. Fertile women should be treated for whatever they choose

[quote IsAoibhinnLinn]@OhHolyJesus either having a child is a lifestyle choice or it isn’t. If you insist ivf shouldn’t be available on the NHS because no one needs to have a child- then why should maternity care be funded by the NHS if the argument is no one needs to have a child?

Or it’s just infertile women who don’t need children and medical treatment. Fertile women should be treated for whatever they choose [/quote]
I didn't insist that. Please check my posts.

The NHS only pays for may leave for their staff, like any other employer. The NHS has excellent mat leave and it is the largest employer in Europe. Women should be able to take time to care for their babies and return to their jobs.

This thread is clearly showing in different places for different posters. It began in Feminism chat so the feminist perspective is applicable to the subject of surrogacy, which is actually what this thread is about.

Maybe you'd like to start a new thread about

IVF?
Maternity rights and leave?

IsAoibhinnLinn
The subject of this thread is about two gay men and surrogacy.
It definitely does not belong in fertility as neither of these males have fertility issues, evidenced by their mixing of sperm, to see which will 'swim the fastest'. It is not about IVF. There have been two off topic posters re. IVF.

That it has been duplicated in feminism and infertility is an @MNHQ issue. You need to speak to them.

A baby is a privilege not a right.

It’s been made very clear they couldn’t care less about infertile women.

Many women on the feminism boards are or have been categorised as infertile.

If you read posts on threads there you would know this.

@OhHolyJesus I wasn’t even talking about maternity leave I was talking about the costs of antenatal care and giving birth on the NHS. That probably costs far more than a round of IVF. Why do you get that for free and infertile women don’t even get the chance to try?

Oh dear god would you all just stop bickering?! I started this post, in feminism, to discuss the issues around two gay men treating a woman and a baby as a commodity, and their attitude around equality for gay couples to become parents when the couple in question need to procure a uterus to make said baby.

There was a fairly distracting derail about the fundamentals of IVF and for some reason the thread was moved, very briefly. Now it appears to show in two places, and I’ve seen some pretty unpleasant comments from both camps tbh.

Can we get back to the topic please? Otherwise I’m going to get the thread closed.

@Policyschmolicy oh us infertiles are unpleasant are we? So sorry to trouble you.

Astonishing reply.
It's almost as if you want to continue being offended, despite it being explained that a) it is not about IVF and b) that it is in the wrong place due to @MNHQ error

Anyway, in an attempt to drag this back on topic, the point about them choosing the pick n mix of sperm and that's why they have to drag their surrogate to another country for ivf is really distasteful. I wonder if she knew that would be the implication?

I didn’t insist either! Maybe read people’s posts before calling me/us nasty lazy types of women

To share another example of a U.K. 'altruistic' surrogacy arrangements with 23yo woman, her first surrogacy, using her egg, some sperm, not sure which man provided that and they inseminated in a hotel:

“"We wanted someone who would turn around and say, ‘this is your child, what do you want?’, rather than them telling us their demands for putting their lives on hold for nine month”

Darren said: “It was a horrendous time. It was her first surrogacy baby and I think she did it for the wrong reason - money. It was not helpful to anyone.

“The hospital itself was not geared up for it, despite saying they had had surrogacy births before.”

www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/surrogacy-rollercoaster-endured-same-sex-4204574

ancientgran I think a baby born of a surrogate mother from the US wouldn’t have any official way to trace her in future if their parents or the lawyers or agency involved don’t keep her details specifically for decades for them. It’s all privately done so it might not be possible to have that option.

Another U.K. case, this time the woman has regret. She lost.

"In the latest case, the woman, identified only as S, said she had entered into an artificial conception agreement with the man, which would see her acting as the “main parent and carer”. That was disputed by the child’s genetic father, H, who said the agreement was that he and his male partner, B, would “co-parent” the girl, with the woman continuing to “play a role”

www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/06/high-court-orders-surrogate-mother-baby-gay-couple

U.K. case, adults met online, implantation takes place in Cyprus @Clymene - this was one example I was digging around for yesterday. She lost.

"As the pregnancy continued, the relationship between the parties started to fall apart. Relations deteriorated in February 2016 and by March all communications between the surrogate mother and the couple had ceased. At this point the surrogate mother, alongside her husband, made the decision that they were not going to hand the child over to the intended couple. The surrogate mother had in fact been a surrogate before and she and her husband had five children of their own.
After a difficult labour, the surrogate mother did not communicate to the intended couple the birth of their child for at least ten days. Communication was ongoing at this time between the intended couple and the solicitor of the surrogate mother and her husband who informed the intended couple of their decision to renege on the surrogacy agreement. Given that communication had started again, it is surprising that it took so long for the intended couple to hear about the birth."

vardags.com/family-law/surrogate-mother-loses-custody-battle-intended-gay-parents

@ChattyLion

ancientgran I think a baby born of a surrogate mother from the US wouldn’t have any official way to trace her in future if their parents or the lawyers or agency involved don’t keep her details specifically for decades for them. It’s all privately done so it might not be possible to have that option.

I was thinking of the parents proactively doing it for the baby so they could tell them about her and give them her details when appropriate. They could, and preferably would, do that for their child. Obviously not everyone would but it would be a positive thing to do I think.

These things won't always work out though, my SIL was adopted, she desperately wanted to find her mother but when she did she didn't like her. She'd been adopted by a wealthy couple and had lots of advantages, she looked down on her birth mother and described her as "trailer trash" which was horrible for her mother.

Many people choose donor gametes from outside the U.K. @ancientgran specifically so they can get round the strict HFEA rules around anonymity

Oh give over @Ifitistobesaid - where have I said than people with fertility issues are unpleasant?!

There have been some unfriendly comments from people who are (rightly) cross that this post made it to the fertility board. Some of the ‘types of women in the feminism topic’ were also annoyed because the focus of the discussion was the feminist concerns surrounding surrogacy, and in particular equality concerns raised by a famous gay couple. MN moved the thread, and for some reason it appeared in two places simultaneously, yet accusations of gaslighting abound.

The most ridiculous thing is that fertility and provision of IVF etc is also a feminist issue with deep rooted ties into the fact that women are still valued on ability to produce progeny. It’s beyond boring that we are still reduced to our reproductive systems, and perhaps if we can get past that the inability to conceive would be less painful for the next generation of women.

Feminism is for all women, and should be a concern for all women; I find it really troubling that at least one person on this thread doesn’t seem to agree.

with deep rooted ties into the fact that women are still valued on ability to produce progeny. It’s beyond boring that we are still reduced to our reproductive systems, and perhaps if we can get past that the inability to conceive would be less painful for the next generation of women. I too think fertility is a feminist issue but my take on it very different. I would say it is less that we are reduced to our reproductive system and more that medicine is firmly focused on the male experience, and female medical issues are ignored, belittled and frankly poorly managed. It’s infuriating that so many women are so poorly served.

Fundamentally there are huge differences between what's involved, risks etc in

Harvesting eggs from a woman
Implanting embryo/s
Carrying a pregnancy to term
Giving birth...
Wanking into a cup

This FACT is commonly glossed over in loads surrogacy related stuff.

The equating of 2 men not being able to conceive a baby,
With a man and a woman not being able to conceive a baby.

Is just plain shitty tbh. It's totally deliberately ignoring the fact that the second situation requires womb for 9-10 months. And that womb needs to be in an actual real female person.

This entire area is mired in patriarchal, oppressive, dehumanising attitudes that go back millennia.

The language in USA strongly illustrates that it's all about woman as vessel.

I mean FFS. So progressive!

The other really interesting thing is that s fair bit of words attitudes etc around surrogacy that are identical to ones used by anti abortion activists in USA.

That says it all, imo.