Another celebrity womb renter

[userxchhrfok]

Name changed as I've commented

Why do women not see the issue with people renting wombs?

www.instagram.com/p/CwNiYZLNtIK/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

This is the second time they have tried for a twin pregnancy. Very unlikely in the U.K. that this would have been pushed for by the fertility clinic

OK well I have now looked these people up and they specifically said that this, their fourth round, was when The London Women's Clinic said they should transfer 2 embryos and though it was suggested to them after the second round it wasn't until the fourth round that they did it. They've publicly named the clinic in reporting the advice they were given. I would never personally choose to be involved with any kind of surrogacy but there's no point in just making stuff up because you disagree with the practice.

Except they've already paid another woman to act as a surrogate mother who miscarried twins. So that's not true.

www.thesun.co.uk/tv/17843479/ollie-locke-surrogate-twins-miscarriage/

People who give their babies such stupid names, as if they are dogs rather than humans, should not be allowed to have babies.

In spite of all the claims to the contrary on this thread, Ollie doesn't come across as lovely respectful person who will put the needs of his children first in this interview.

This is a dystopian nightmare not a fairytale.

They shouldn't have the babies at all. A baby is a privilege, not a right and unfortunately their sex means they can't have children. Women are needed for that and neither are in a relationship with one.

Some gems from the interview posted above.

"We're all holding each other's hands. We're hoping that next year will be the year we get the baby we want and deserve and need."

No one deserves a baby.

"If anything it’s pulled us apart slightly - we’ve spent over £100,000 trying to do this so far and we’ve got no embryos left.
"You sit there and think ‘where has that money gone, have we done something wrong?” We get angry at each other - that’s what a relationship is."

Yes, you keep trying to rent a womb to make a baby because you don't have the right equipment. It's not nature, this is science and you are throwing money at it and hoping something sticks.

"Behind the show and the red carpet events we’re all human. Fertility doesn’t care how much money you’ve got. It’s like heartbreak, there’s not enough money in the world to get rid of it"

I mean, you wouldn't have a chance of having a baby at all if you didn't have the money to rent a womb.

And I don't really like how this is compared to the heartbreak of fertility issues a woman maybe experiencing and going through all the physical as well as the mental. You are a man just watching and paying and waiting. You have no idea.

So your dad coerced your mother into having a baby using emotions. Surrogacy coerces a mother using money.

The good alternative is simply to not use a woman as an incubator, not just find a different method of doing so.

Being rich really is no guarantee that you can be a good parent, is it?

And my dad's mum died the same day she gave birth to him. He was and is fine. I must ask him if he is massively traumatised with losing his biological mum who he never knew 🤔 (I have, he isn't)

I don't agree with surrogacy but let's not pretend that if you don't have your bio mum from birth all is lost. That's just not true.

Edit to add: I know his dad was traumatised after losing his young wife but my dad was never really privy to that, he had a wonderful childhood.

You can have a twin pregnancy from one embryo. The interview they gave suggested the previous twins would have been a result of this. I've now read/listened to more about this annoying tv reality couple than I would ever have thought I would but some of the comments about gay man paying extra so they can buy a baby each etc. are not true and not necessary. The argument against the exploitation of women is strong enough without the need for tittle tattle and speculation.

some of the comments about gay man paying extra so they can buy a baby each etc. are not true and not necessary

Adam Kay and his husband commissioned surrogate babies just a few months apart (I can’t be bothered to check Twitter but the age gap is 4-6 months - totally implausible for regular siblings). There is also a gay couple on Tiktok (account is “mrvaughntrainor”) who have twin girls, and they fathered one each. It is happening, commonplace even.

I'm aware of that. I don't suppose we'll know either way as that article doesn't make it clear. Obviously there's no way they could pretend it was a surprise this time given the sexes of the babies.

Twin pregnancies have more health risks for the mother and the babies.

But why couldn't they have used their terrific parenting skills to love, care and provide for a baby that they adopted from the UK system?

But, one could argue that if men are seen as inferior less natural fathers to babies, which many seem to be saying on this thread, then why should an already likely traumatized baby or child with complex needs be placed with them?

What are the particular main objections here?

Is it that they are celebrities and the perceived negative associations with this?
Is it that they are 2 men?
Is it that surrogacy is looked down on regardless of any circumstances whatsoever?
Is surrogacy with egg donors viewed worse than surrogacy with own eggs? Would it be ok, for example, for a sister to carry her sisters and bils fully biological child on their behalf?
Would it be ok for a woman to carry a donated egg inseminated with her husband's sperm, where she can carry a baby but her eggs are faulty or she doesn't want to risk passing on a hereditary condition?
Is accepting sperm donations also human trafficking?
Should older mothers be allowed to give birth because that also places babies at increased risk of being twins or being born prematurely? Or is that ok because it is natural?
What about living organ donation? Is that ok?
There are so many different layers and contradictions to people's objections. I think that people ought to think what is behind their objectives to this couple and whether some are contradictory.

Surrogacy is wrong. It is people trafficking. I don't care who the parents are - if they're doing it because they're infertile, gay or can't be bothered to get pregnant. The reasons are immaterial.

Paying a woman to put her body at risk to create a baby solely to remove it from its mother is morally and ethically abhorrent.

There is no concern whatsoever for the rights of the child.

And you can't sell organs in the U.K. but you can rent an organ and sell a baby.

Why?

So your dad coerced your mother into having a baby using emotions. Surrogacy coerces a mother using money.

But some individuals aren't coerced. Some make an informed choice. Like in this case.

Is it wrong for a woman to return to work after having a baby, which entails ripping the baby away from its mother, when the pair have already bonded? Society coerces women back into work in order to fuel the economy and so that people can afford the trappings of modern life.

What if a woman made a genuine lifestyle choice to carry a baby for someone else in order to be able to afford to spend more quality time at home with her young children?

My point is that it's just not straightforward. I suspect that in this case it's the perception that celebrities are vacuous spoiled individuals who can click their fingers and exploit others to get what they want. And I think that there is truth in that in many cases. I think that a large objection is to them being gay men. However, I stand by my comments that in this particular case involving these particular parties, I have no concerns and wish them all well. Ollie and Gareth are two very genuine, kind, mature and moral individuals whom, I believe, will be wonderful father's and raise their babies to be happy and settled.

So Adam Kay did not target twins then and really there's one couple mentioned so far who actively have (I can't be bothered to look them up having already looked up this Locke couple so will take your word for it). I've got no particular interest in defending a pair of reality tv clowns (I agree that they come across as grossly entitled and insensitive) but I imagine the London Women's Clinic would be having something to say if a celebrity couple were publicly stating that it was the clinic's decision to transfer 2 embryos when in the past rounds they'd only transferred 1 unless that were the case. They would not have been able to pretend if twins born were non-identical irrespective of sex.

I agree with a PP who said that there is surely a tidal wave of lawsuits waiting to happen down the line... and not simply against the burgeoning surrogacy industry but also the lack of protection/rights of kids being exploited for entertainmnet.

Surrogacy is wrong. It is people trafficking.

What is your definition of people trafficking? Where is the line between that and modern day slavery? If you own any name band trainers, for example, chances are that those workers have been heavily coerced.

There is no concern whatsoever for the rights of the child.

What are those rights of the child and how do they differ from a child born to a heterosexual couple through a natural process? Do they extend to being breastfed for example? Do they have the right to know both parents? I bet that most parents don't consider the rights of their babies when they decide to have one.

Am not intending to be obstropulous, but genuinely trying to understand the complexity of the issue.

@Clymene

Is it the monetary aspect that you object to then? Or are sperm and egg donations also morally wrong? Would surrogacy be wrong if you weren't allowed to pay the surrogate any expenses (and would this include medical expenses?)

Is it the fear of the coercion of the woman or the rights of the baby that are paramount here? And if the latter, what about the case of abortion where the two come into direct conflict?

They weren't using the London women's clinic for previous attempts. The first one was in Mexico with a Brazilian egg donor and the one with the miscarried twins was in Cyprus. I don't know where the third one was but given it's much cheaper to use clinics and egg donors outside the U.K., I'd imagine that's what they did.

I suspect the only reason they used a U.K. clinic this time is because the children's mother has two other children.

@Oioicaptain I've been through the arguments many times on other threads and I can't be bothered to type them out again and I'm going out for the afternoon. Have a read here on the FWR boards or have a look at the Stop surrogacy website - stopsurrogacynowuk.org

What if a woman made a genuine lifestyle choice to carry a baby for someone else in order to be able to afford to spend more quality time at home with her young children?

Have you thought about the emotional impact on young children to know that their mother has just had a baby that's been given to someone else? However age-appropriately you explain it, the question "could Mummy give me away, someday?" is likely to float through the older children's heads.

She's not going to be able to conceal the pregnancy, is she?

One last thing before I go. I posted this downthread so it may have been missed. The the diary of a woman who had children who became a surrogate for her brother and his wife.

Even though that is about the most altruistic scenario possible, she details the very complex emotions and issues. This is an article which is 10 years old and I'm pretty confident wouldn't be published in a mainstream publication nowadays

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/secret-diary-of-a-surrogate-mother