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

I’m not anti IVF at all but I can see how ivf sort of kick started the idea of surrogacy.
As I understand it the woman is given hormones to trigger ovulation, and eggs collected to be fertilised with sperm?
It’s straightforward with the original owner of the egg and sperm. It gets a little more ethically complicated with donor sperm or eggs ( especially eggs-why do I feel that?) and there is an element of “I want and I must have” that I totally understand, as I suffered with secondary infertility and considered ivf but couldn’t afford it.
It’s not that ivf is bad- it’s a Godsend to many. It’s just that it was the start of a process to where we are now, where two men can complain how unfair it is that they want a biological child and can’t easily make one. It’s a gradual moving of perspective I guess.

No it didn't.

It sort of did. Surrogacy is as old as the Bible but before an egg could be fertilised outside of a woman's body it was only possible to have 'traditional' surrogacy, where the woman uses her own egg.

IVF, or more specifically, the harvesting and fertilising of eggs outside of the body, including women who donate their eggs, made it possible to have a different type of surrogacy, 'gestational' surrogacy. This is popular with women who become surrogate mothers as they can disassociate from the pregnancy, telling themselves they are not related to the child as it's not their egg. Traditional surrogacy is popular with same-sex male couples as it bypasses the need and cost of involving a clinic, though gestational surrogacy is still a way for the mother be further removed and to ensure, and should she want to fight in court, an argument for her to have less of a chance of succeeding.

It’s a bit like saying that plastic surgery should be banned because it gives rise to occasional death from entirely unnecessary surgery and some grotesque outcomes where people with psychological issues are exploited by surgeons.

Meanwhile, if we did that, burns victims would go untreated and post mastectomy women would be left disfigured.

It’s the same with IVF. Very good for the majority of couples it helps, but unfortunately just like plastic surgery, for those willing to pay there’s countries with few regulations and some unethical doctors.

I'm another who is wondering why one of Ollie's many female MIC friends are not carrying a baby for him.

It's almost as if there is a reason why women are not falling over themselves to be 'surrogates'.

@Clymene

Is their surrogate mother in Mexico, not Cyprus *@OhHolyJesus*?

Yes Mexico, they have said as such on Instagram and as has been shared in articles about them. (Them obviously, not her.)

Hope that explains me sharing surrogacy videos about Mexico

@Omicrone

I'm another who is wondering why one of Ollie's many female MIC friends are not carrying a baby for him.

It's almost as if there is a reason why women are not falling over themselves to be 'surrogates'.

And given his co-star Louise Thompson just spent 5 weeks in hospital for post birth complications, you’d think they’d have a good grasp of what can go wrong.

Indeed porridge

Plenty of mentions about their trauma and pain.

Nothing about Louise. Not a peep.

Oh I see! I did wonder. That was their first purchase earlier this year I think. The woman who miscarried was in Cyprus.

www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/made-chelseas-ollie-locke-devastated-25808059

I'm another who is wondering why one of Ollie's many female MIC friends are not carrying a baby for him.

It's almost as if there is a reason why women are not falling over themselves to be 'surrogates'.

Exactly. 10k to carry a baby for someone else, with all the associated risks and changes to your body or 10k for a few Instagram posts? Tough call. But wait, no-one’s even interested in doing it for free, altruistically? Colour me shocked.

@Porridgeislife

They will understand the risks perfectly well. Understanding and giving a shit are two very different things though.

Sorry posted too soon. That's why I mentioned Cyprus @OhHolyJesus

International surrogacy tourism

Ah okay. Is any info known about the mother? I assumed it was someone from similar background to them. I thought they'd go for someone who was going to be very comfortable during pregnancy with regard to nutrition, medical care, housing etc? Unless they are providing this aswell?

You big daftie

The ‘we’re pregnant’ from two men irritated me

The whole running commentary is distasteful

I know they are social media people and that is what they do but still makes me wanna gip

Is it worth complaining to channel 4 about any of this?

I've found watching them on made in chelsea quite difficult tbh.. I do empathise with them in that they want a family and are struggling, but I think I've found it difficult watching because of my own struggles, it's not the same, they are relying on another person for it but I am relying on my own body and it's letting me down. I also think they come across slightly entitled, it's like it's the first time they haven't instantly gotten what they wanted. And don't get me started on them saying 'we're pregnant' ... Although I was very sad to hear about the miscarriage.

@Anythingbutsnow I highly doubt channel 4 give a shit

Yes, I think that for two men who have probably been able to have whatever they wanted in life, as soon as they wanted it, this whole 'making a baby' thing is proving to be quite the shock.

Their surrogate is British. I watched an interview he gave about it. Their surrogate is British but they used an American egg donor because you get more background info on the donor there. But then due to COVID restrictions they couldn’t travel to the US to do the transfer. So they moved the embryos to a clinic in Mexico and went out there with their surrogate to do the transfer. I think they have since moved the embryos to Cyprus as it wasn’t feasible for them all to keep making multiple trips to Mexico.

@Policyschmolicy

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.

People lock themselves into a certain line of thought, because they take as their premise that there must be equality of outcome, or it's "not fair". So whatever will achieve that end is perceived as good.

Most people really argue points backwards. They know where they need to get to, so they subconciously construct arguments that will get them to that place.

@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.

Having no other options is hardly a choice.

The mother may make the choice, but you can hardly say the baby does. With all the information we have on the importance of the fourth trimester, it is utter cruelty to plan to take a baby away from the only mother it knows as soon as it is born. Even puppies get 10 weeks before being separated from their mother!

@SantaClawsServiette that’s a really interesting point

I know it’s not my business but there are so many children in the U.K. that do not have adoptive families. It would be good if the Lockes could consider opening their hearts to some disadvantaged children who desperately need parents to adopt them.
I know they want a shiny new baby but they just sound so naïve about the process. There are many ways to be parents.
I think they seem lovely men but as others have said- none of their wealthy MIC girlfriends are lining up to make a baby for them. It’s a sad affair.

@Ifitistobesaid

Their surrogate is British. I watched an interview he gave about it. Their surrogate is British but they used an American egg donor because you get more background info on the donor there. But then due to COVID restrictions they couldn’t travel to the US to do the transfer. So they moved the embryos to a clinic in Mexico and went out there with their surrogate to do the transfer. I think they have since moved the embryos to Cyprus as it wasn’t feasible for them all to keep making multiple trips to Mexico.

So they've schlepped the same woman to Mexico for one round of IVF and then to Cyprus for the next one? Why aren't they just doing the IVF in the U.K. then?

Incidentally, American gamete donors are anonymous, unlike in the U.K. so Ollie and his husband may know some facts about her but if a baby is born from her egg, that child has no ability to find out any more information about her.

KimikosNightmare wrote:

I'm sure they are wonderful for you personally but it isn't a glorious miracle. It's the commodification of babies. It's the ultimate "I want, so I must get".

bedheadedzombie replied:

Surely the same principle goes for everything medical? Like you want to live if you have cancer so you do chemo? Infertility is a medical problem after all.

Another poster (sorry, can’t find the username) suggested it’s similar to withholding insulin from diabetics or not performing appendectomies.

Without judgment, I’d suggest those counter-arguments don’t work. Cancer, appendicitis, and diabetes are all life-threatening.

Not being able to have a baby is not life-threatening. I’d look for a better analogy and argument.

This topic has brought out some interesting points of view and an area that clearly needs to be discussed thoroughly.