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

It's okay. We're back again. That was a speedy journey.

thanks @MNHQ

Why has this been moved from Feminism to Infertility?

Indeed - it is about two men who are demanding it is made easier for them to procure a child.

No previous of highlighting infertility issues to the press or speaking on MIC about a woman’s inability to carry full term .

No - just men demanding better access for when they decide they want a child. No concerns for anyone else until it affected them.

They are not infertile but incapable of doing this without a woman.

Therefore this not a thread about their infertility and so it does not belong in ‘infertility’.

Cross post.

Thank you MNHQ.

Well said @Porridgeislife ironic for a thread purporting to support women who enjoy kicking certain women who are suffering from a medical disease. Seems women with infertility are an easy target for nastiness. Very insightful as to the types of women on this board.

@KimikosNightmare are you for real? You’re the one who brought up how you align with the Catholic Church and are against all artificial contraception and ‘test tube babies’ and then wrote a nasty spiteful comment to a woman who had children via ivf. Now you’re concerned about people detailing the thread?

I didn't see the thread move and am glad the thread is back in what I consider to be the relevant section.

I was about to suggest you discuss IVF on the relevant board @Inabitoftime but I understand your frustrations and I wasn't suggesting I was an authority to give you permission, (the OP was clearly about surrogacy though, not about IVF) and the snarky nature of your posts aimed at me have no impact but I understand why, when the thread was briefly moved, you would take it personally and react as such.

Thank you @Sofawithoutstuffing - I make no secret of my interest in surrogacy discussions, anyone can see my posting history and how my interest in surrogacy was sparked by threads on the proposed surrogacy law reform back in 2019 I think it was. I have learnt a great deal from here and though I have shared examples of same-sex male couples, there is no shortage of similar contempt for women and their purposes as baby-makers by heterosexual couples, it's just not connected to the OP, though the Twitter thread I shared earlier covers a lot of the main points against surrogacy.

@OhHolyJesus again I am not sure who you think you are to suggest or tell people where and when they can comment. Yes this thread is about surrogacy but the nasty comments made in this thread were specifically about IVF not surrogacy. In particular a spiteful comment made to a woman who had her children via IVF.

It amazes me you take no issue with these comments yet see fit to tell someone who is responding to these posters where and when they should discuss them.

All over mumsnet on many boards including this one nasty and spiteful comments are made about women who suffer infertility and who are undergoing IVF. There is already so much stigma associated with infertility. I don’t see why I should as you suggest only discuss this on the infertility boards. I respond to these comments as and when I see them.

Well I agree with him - I don't see how this is different to an infertile couple and yes it's a different issue but ultimately both can't have babies naturally. If you treat one you should help the other.

I don't wish to take this out of context of your full comment but wanted to ask whether, if you see same-sex couples as being infertile and therefore in need of 'help', would you agree that the same applies to single people, who are also 'infertile' in the same sense that they can't have a baby naturally on their own?

Personally I don't see someone who is physically and medically able to conceive as infertile. Just because someone is same-sex attracted doesn't make them infertile, they simply don't fit the definition for one. Two men could try to get pregnant for 12 months and still find they couldn't get pregnant. Same as two women. This will not be a surprise to anyone!

No one is to blame, the NHS aren't responsible, their same-see attraction doesn't need 'fixing'. Their sexual partner just happens to be the same sex as themselves and therefore unable biologically to provide the opposite sex gametes (and maybe also the womb) that is necessary to conceive, grow and give birth.

The Lockes are no more 'infertile' than my single female friend who doesn't have a male sexual partner to get her pregnant. The NHS, society, other women don't owe her a baby either. Same applies to infertile opposite sex couples, though I have no issue with IVF (though I have some concerns over donor gametes, mainly re prolific sperm donors, anon donors and their children, international imports and a lack of a global register ...and having read many stories and testimonies of donor conceived children I think it's fair to say there are some bioethical concerns at play that should be discussed without people jumping to the conclusion that must mean I'm against IVF or it must mean I look down upon people who require donated gametes in order to have a genetically related child).

@Inabitoftime - can you take your personal beef with @OhHolyJesus elsewhere please? As she's said, it's not her thread and lots of posters just ignored the discussion about ivf. I'm not sure why you're singling her out.

OhHolyJesus There isn’t a part of that which isn’t horrific. Thank you for sharing, it’s horrible but people need to know the attitudes of these men (re the gay couple who have split).

[quote Clymene]**@Inabitoftime* - can you take your personal beef with @OhHolyJesus* elsewhere please? As she's said, it's not her thread and lots of posters just ignored the discussion about ivf. I'm not sure why you're singling her out. [/quote]
She is the only poster who had told me I can’t post here about these comments when the thread is about surrogacy and who then again told me I should be posting in infertility not here. Hence my direct response to her.

Again very telling that none of you have an issue with @KimikosNightmare posts yet take issue with mine.

I don’t see why I should as you suggest only discuss this on the infertility boards. I respond to these comments as and when I see them.

For clarity I was going to suggest you discuss IVF in an IVF thread or on the relevant board, which is where this thread was temporarily moved to? As I said I didn't see it move.

I have explained very clearly that you a) can talk about IVF and followed up with b) you don't need permission from me. This thread is about surrogacy though isn't it?

You appear to be upset that I have not commented on another posters comments and I have resolutely stuck to the subject of the OP. I haven't read every single comment on this thread and some I don't agree with I will skip past, I don't feel compelled to pull up others in their opinions, not all the time, not when I have other things to say.

You can talk about IVF, we can talk about that now if you like...

I don't think IVF can be compared to life-saving treatment like cancer treatment, nor can it be compared, in my view, with life-affirming treatment or helping with life limiting treatments for certain conditions such as diabetes. I don't think IVF can be compared to adoption, or surrogacy, or fostering or having Botox.

I recognise that as you seek or are in the process of IVF (I haven't read all your comments) then you are sensitive and informed about the topic, but I have no interest in discussing that here particularly. You can and have discussed IVF. Crack on. I don't think it's irrelevant, not at all, it's just not surrogacy.

I am talking about the Lockes and those who are similar to them and their situation, as my links and shared content would make clear. Including the alternative thread I was a contributor to.

@Inabitoftime. I have to agree that it is notable that people have issue with you but not the posters being quite unpleasant about ivf in general. It makes me uncomfortable about being involved in further discussions on surrogacy on this forum. I'm concerned that actually these people are against any kind of help for couples struggling with infertility. Is clomid OK?!

[quote Franca123]@Inabitoftime. I have to agree that it is notable that people have issue with you but not the posters being quite unpleasant about ivf in general. It makes me uncomfortable about being involved in further discussions on surrogacy on this forum. I'm concerned that actually these people are against any kind of help for couples struggling with infertility. Is clomid OK?![/quote]
I am not taking issue with what @Inabitoftime has said. I don't agree with @KimikosNightmare's POV at all. I chose not to respond to it because I'd like to keep this thread on track.

As I've said.

Sorry not sure what that bonding is about. Posting while eating

Yes this thread is about surrogacy but the nasty comments made in this thread were specifically about IVF not surrogacy. In particular a spiteful comment made to a woman who had her children via IVF.

That wasn't me.

It amazes me you take no issue with these comments yet see fit to tell someone who is responding to these posters where and when they should discuss them.

Again, I have not said you cannot discuss IVF. In fact I have said the opposite.

Again. I'm not the thread police. Please quote back at me where I said you shouldn't talk about IVF. I'm happy to be corrected or clarify a comment if I have been misunderstood and I will apologise if I should.

@OhHolyJesus you said, and I quote

*Turning a thread about surrogacy (commodification of women's bodies, the selling of babies) into a broader conversation about medicine/diabetes/cancer treatment and comparing wanting to live to wanting to start or add to a family through surrogacy is a complete nonsense.

Not Dying vs IVF. Yeah, totally the same thing*

So you did not stick to the thread title. You did not see fit to call our posters who made nasty comments about articulate conception and a woman’s ivf experience which were also not relevant to the thread. You just saw fit to call out those posters who were responding to the nasty comments and putting forward their point of view.

And please do not patronise me as being sensitive or frustrated due to having undergone ivf. Next you will be calling my hysterical 🙄🙄

@KimikosNightmare

I've changed my views on many things since I was 19, including moving to the right in a way which would horrify my 19 year old self. I have not however changed my view that artificially assisted conception is wrong.

It was very odd for 19 year old me to be aligned with the Catholic Church that "test tube babies" were wrong- that was the start of this slippery slope.

My wee boy wouldn't be alive if not for IVF. I'm Catholic, so we chose to do IVF that granted a chance at life to every foetus created. Only one took, despite 12 embryo transfers, but I feel at peace with God that we did the right thing. Who are you to judge me?

I'm also against surrogacy unless it's 100% altruistic (which is extremely difficult to measure) - nobody should be able to purchase a baby or rent a woman's body like that.

The gay equality angle is a red herring, men cannot gestate and birth a baby. That doesn't mean they should have the "right" to a woman's body.

@MrsColon well said

It seems the response of this entire board is to berate and judge people in situations the privileged women on this board will never be in. I see now why mumsnet split feminism into two. This section is toxic. I won’t be reading it again.

@Inabitoftime

It seems the response of this entire board is to berate and judge people in situations the privileged women on this board will never be in. I see now why mumsnet split feminism into two. This section is toxic. I won’t be reading it again.

So you're not interested in discussing surrogacy then?

Ha! I only just realised I'm in feminism chat!!!!! That'll explain it.

Turning a thread about surrogacy (commodification of women's bodies, the selling of babies) into a broader conversation about medicine/diabetes/cancer treatment and comparing wanting to live to wanting to start or add to a family through surrogacy is a complete nonsense.
Not Dying vs IVF. Yeah, totally the same thing

I stand by that. Surrogacy is not connected to diabetes/cancer treatment. Not wanting to die, receiving life saving treatment is in no way the same as starting a family or adding to your family through IVF. The only similarity is that both as provided by medical professionals and made possible by science.

So you did not stick to the thread title. You did not see fit to call our posters who made nasty comments about articulate conception and a woman’s ivf experience which were also not relevant to the thread. You just saw fit to call out those posters who were responding to the nasty comments and putting forward their point of view.

No, I have consistently stuck to the point, even noting how IVF created a new form of surrogacy - gestational surrogacy, which was in connection to an earlier point. Calling out poster on their own comments is not my job, nor is it yours by the way.

And please do not patronise me as being sensitive or frustrated due to having undergone ivf. Next you will be calling my hysterical

I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing, I was trying to express how I recognise that this must be a difficult topic for you and that earlier comments on IVF could be read as offensive and I will point out again that this thread did not start on the donor conception/infertility board and I was not aware of the move.

Infertility is of course an awful thing to go through, please don't assume that I myself have not experienced it, nor should anyone here assume that if other posters. I have close personal friends still struggling with it and know those who have adopted as a result of not being able to conceive, despite years of trying.

Your continued focus on me not responding to comments one poster made about their views in IFV is getting a bit circular now. I've made myself clear. I'll return to the topic in the OP now.

@KimikosNightmare my ivf went wrong , I’m very religious and when it was converted last minute to a procedure which would have left me less than 5% chance of success , I prayed to God for a miracle. By the grace of God he is here after multiple losses.

Can't believe this very important discussion has been completely derailed by one post by one poster? This thread is about surrogacy, specifically men who want to use women's bodies for their own ends, not IVF. The reason most people ignored that post is because they don't agree with it (hence the lack of 'yes, I agree IVF in general is bad' posts) and want to keep the discussion focused on the issue in hand.