Page 3 | Ollie & Gareth Locke & Surrogacy

KimikosNightmare · 29/12/2021 23:24

Hmmm I can’t agree with this like. Basics you’re saying women shouldn’t have IVF……

Indeed I am. IVF directly created the abomination that is surrogacy.

MiladyBerserko · 29/12/2021 23:31

It also about willfully planning that a mother is permanently separated from her baby.

Yes, some women give up their babies to adoption because they think it's for the best; because they can't cope; because they are too young, because of the 'shame', and other reasons. They did not get pregnant with the intention to give away their child. Many were forced to give away their baby because of these 'reasons'. We now think it was often cruel to do this, we have the films about the Magdalen Laundries and the children removed from single mothers and sent to Australia to be given to childless couples.

Surrogacy is simply baby farming. It's the cold, planned removal of a child from its mother. It's abominably cruel to mother and child.

I'm so sick of people who think they have the 'right' to rent a woman's body and to farm a human being.

FionnulaTheCooler · 29/12/2021 23:37

What stood out for me was the fact she was 6 weeks pregnant. So probably only just found out, and they've already announced it to the world, announced it on instagram, and had a dressing gown personalised

Yes, me too. This couple seem spectacularly naive to the risks and complications involved in pregnancy and birth.

MrsPsmalls · 30/12/2021 00:33

@SergeiL

I genuinely think they will make great parents when they grow up a bit. And adopting or fostering would help them realise it wasn’t all about them which will make them better parents still.

Um you have to be properly grown up to foster or adopt. Only grown ups need apply. You don't get to practice parenting skills on these damaged children.

Cissyandflora · 30/12/2021 00:34

I agree. They are incredibly naive and that’s been quite jarring in every one of their con screen discussions about this. They don’t seem to have a grasp of the process which seems really cavalier. At least be curious enough to understand how the ivf process works. And yes, they’ve pushed the woman out of the picture.
I’m sure they’re lovely men and I’m all for gay marriage and adoption even. I hope they become parents but I think they are rushing this for a story and my cynical mind thinks they want to be the poster boys for accepted surrogacy in gay marriages. I think they’ve got too excited about making this happen and they’ve been naïve about the process.

SantaClawsServiette · 30/12/2021 02:43

[quote 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[/quote]
The argument that people that take this approach are making is around equality of outcome.

From their perspective, the reason gay marriage was morally required is because it is simply illegitimate for the law or social institutions to recognize any significance in people's sexed bodies. So by the same logic, they would think that if not being able to have children naturally is a health issue for straight couples, it must also be treated the same way for non-straight couples - otherwise that is recognizing sexed bodies under the law and discriminatory. So the "treatment" to allow gay men to have kids is surrogacy and is demanded by equality of outcome.

It is surprising, if you scratch the surface, how many people think this way, though often they haven't thought out the steps carefully. Taking equality of outcome as a starting point can lead to a lot of weird places.

Original poster

Policyschmolicy · 30/12/2021 06:56

But ‘equality of outcome’ cannot be considered ‘equal’ in this situation unless you totally disregard the cost to another human being. Heterosexual couples who engage in IVF mostly do so by using their own uterus, and taking the whole of the maternal risk. FWIW I don’t support surrogacy no matter who is doing it, including rich and famous women.

OP posts:

Catch32 · 30/12/2021 08:23

It's heartening to know other people share the discomfort I had about the way this storyline is being played out. I speak as somebody who has not known the profound grief of infertility/childlessness, so appreciate that I am really looking at this from one perspective. But I remember how gut wrenching it was hearing the surrogate mother on TV crying down the phone and expressing her guilt at "failing" the couple. It was horrible to listen to so much pressure being felt by a woman to produce a child that she would never even know and love. I do find it difficult to grasp that somebody would put their health and life at risk to give a child to another couple, and that they can part emotionally with a child they have carried and nurtured for 9 months and held in their own
arms. It feels like just another form of commodifying women and I don't know what safeguards there are in place to protect vulnerable women in this scenario.

Artichokeleaves · 30/12/2021 08:37

@MiladyBerserko

It also about willfully planning that a mother is permanently separated from her baby.

Yes, some women give up their babies to adoption because they think it's for the best; because they can't cope; because they are too young, because of the 'shame', and other reasons. They did not get pregnant with the intention to give away their child. Many were forced to give away their baby because of these 'reasons'. We now think it was often cruel to do this, we have the films about the Magdalen Laundries and the children removed from single mothers and sent to Australia to be given to childless couples.

Surrogacy is simply baby farming. It's the cold, planned removal of a child from its mother. It's abominably cruel to mother and child.

I'm so sick of people who think they have the 'right' to rent a woman's body and to farm a human being.

Yes. This. Very well articulated.

Intentionally buying the creation of a child, planning to inflict on it this loss for adult personal enjoyment of owning a child is appalling.

AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken · 30/12/2021 08:46

Petitioning for easier access to poor, desperate women’s bodies?
Disgusting

Anythingbutsnow · 30/12/2021 09:00

I agree with everything bring said against surrogacy here, but no one has mentioned that the mothers in question have made the choice to do this.

GinUnicorn · 30/12/2021 09:10

The problem is although we can say it is choice it is utterly ripe for exploitation. We wouldn’t allow desperate people to sell organs. It’s the same principle.

Also the surrogate has no idea how she will feel before, after and during the process.

AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken · 30/12/2021 09:24

@Anythingbutsnow

I agree with everything bring said against surrogacy here, but no one has mentioned that the mothers in question have made the choice to do this.

I don’t believe financial coercion is really having a choice.

NotBadConsidering · 30/12/2021 09:28

@Anythingbutsnow

I agree with everything bring said against surrogacy here, but no one has mentioned that the mothers in question have made the choice to do this.

Even if it can be absolutely 100% guaranteed that the mother is completely, and without the slightest bit of coercion, choosing to be the surrogate, there exists no legal framework within which all three parties can have their rights protected. Someone has to give up rights. And no framework exists in which all the potential possibilities of what can go wrong with a pregnancy and a delivery can be covered, which means that should something go wrong outside of the agreement, then someone loses out.

And when one of three parties of surrogacy loses out, it’s properly losing out. We’re not talking having to pay to remove the conservatory you didn’t get planning permission for. We are talking, trauma, death, disability, grief and loss.

No surrogacy has completely worked ever. The only “successful” surrogacies are the ones where the intended parents got what they wanted, the mother came out of it relatively unscathed, and everyone is hoping and/or pretending the child won’t grow up and see the trauma of it all.

EmmaGrundyForPM · 30/12/2021 09:39

Surrogacy is absolutely the commodification of birth, and is basically baby farming.

Conflating it with IVF isn't helpful. They are two different things.

MiladyBerserko · 30/12/2021 09:40

@Anythingbutsnow

I agree with everything bring said against surrogacy here, but no one has mentioned that the mothers in question have made the choice to do this.

I disagree that this is a free choice in the same way i disagree that hiring out one's vagina in prostitution is rarely a free choice. I will grant there night be the occasional mythical happy hooker and altruistic friend but mostly both 'choices' are borne of poverty and desperation.

The child has no such 'choice'.

Adoption can be regarded as making the best decision under the circumstances where a mother cannot keep her child , Magdalen laundries and the like notwithstanding .
Surrogacy isn't a choice for the baby's besr interests, if is a decision based purely on self interest and wants .. 'I want it, I can pay for it, I should have it'....
'It' is a human being and human beings should not be for sale.

Flickflak · 30/12/2021 09:43

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

Anythingbutsnow · 30/12/2021 09:45

The Locke's won't have chosen a surrogate that was in need of the money though. Surely it's greed on the mothers part, putting money ahead of an innocent child?

AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken · 30/12/2021 09:49

@Anythingbutsnow

The Locke's won't have chosen a surrogate that was in need of the money though. Surely it's greed on the mothers part, putting money ahead of an innocent child?

Yes. Probably. It’s always those evil women’s fault.

Interesting that the largest chunk of surrogacies come from impoverished countries. I know their first attempt was in Mexico. Not the safest, easiest place for those evil women to live.

Flickflak · 30/12/2021 09:50

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

MiladyBerserko · 30/12/2021 09:53

Also, the end game of all this is simply reducing women to bodily functions, without legal rights and without even a name.
They will be 'Birthing bodies', but not women, because, as you know, not all 'women' have uteruses, some have penises
Then the commodification of women will be complete, sex work and 'birthing work' (because it is gojng to start being called that soon) will be considered viable income options for menstruators and people with a cavity between their legs.

These will 'be choices' and the price for these services will be subject to the open market, like every other commodity.

Progressive. As. Fuck.

WomanStillNotAFeeling · 30/12/2021 09:54

@FionnulaTheCooler

What stood out for me was the fact she was 6 weeks pregnant. So probably only just found out, and they've already announced it to the world, announced it on instagram, and had a dressing gown personalised

Yes, me too. This couple seem spectacularly naive to the risks and complications involved in pregnancy and birth.

It felt like a part of me died each time I miscarried. For about 20 years after I’d get horribly vivid flashbacks to my horror and distress at the loss and the accompanying blood. One was on an overseas business trip and I had to pretend I was ok to my colleagues as they didn’t know I was pregnant and I wasn’t telling them.

Artfully arranged toddler clothing for a photo opportunity would never have occurred to me or been relevant to the distress I was in.

SheldonesqueTheBstard · 30/12/2021 09:59

Indeed.

The men in question here may well be upset.

But they will never ever know how it actually feels to lose a baby.

Only a woman will ever know that.

OhHolyJesus · 30/12/2021 09:59

Here's something on the surrogacy industry - yes it is very much an industry - in Mexico.

I remember one story of a couple having two surrogacy pregnancies simultaneously growing twins and a singleton, or 'triplings', both women did not have access to adequate medical care of accommodation, though both them and the babies survived, the women were living in poverty and doing it for money.

The couple, from New Zealand, were exposed for having a crowdfunder to return home as they claimed to be 'stuck'. Only according to a lawyer, they had the birth certificates and all documentation required so they could return with the children.

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/surrogacy-couples-pleas-for-help-from-mexican-hell-hole-draw-anger-and-offence

Starcup · 30/12/2021 10:00

I disagree that this is a free choice in the same way i disagree that hiring out one's vagina in prostitution is rarely a free choice. I will grant there night be the occasional mythical happy hooker and altruistic friend but mostly both 'choices' are borne of poverty and desperation

@MiladyBerserko

I disagree with this. There are plenty of extremely poor people that still wouldn’t sell their bodies for sex. It is a choice.