Surrogacy puff piece in the Times

[WildWindySeascape]

‘I’m a gay, single, surrogate dad — and proud of it’

https://www.thetimes.com/article/4e09e57c-a9e9-4148-be9c-4d2e8b791f59?shareToken=15a2b0448c8da7ef68e6469110563c23

I wanted to draw attention to this appalling puff piece about international surrogacy in today’s Times. A single man purchased an egg from a Venezuelan woman and paid a Mexican woman to carry the baby which he now fathers in the UK (with a live in nanny of course). It’s written in his own words and he talks about how he could have purchased the egg for £4,000 but decided to go with a beautiful woman who ‘priced herself’ (his words) at £15,000. He describes how the Mexican mother looked after the baby well while he was in her womb, by eating well, taking exercise and staying low stress throughout. She expressed breastmilk for eight weeks after the baby was born which her boyfriend delivered to the father.

There are so many disturbing angles to this story which is told entirely from the male perspective, with the women described as he sees them, commodities giving him what he wants.

I am going to write to the Times about this and encourage others to do the same.

Completely agree OP. I can't even bring myself to read these kinds of articles. Those poor babies being ripped away from their mothers at birth. We wouldn't treat animals that way.

Surrogacy is so, so wrong.

The Times is very pro-surrogacy, they publish articles like this every couple of months. Usually the comments are about 90% against, they are turned off for this one funnily enough.

Disgusting. Poor baby

Something that I find upsetting in the article is that the mother expressed her milk for 8 weeks after the birth. Yes, this is best for the baby’s health. But can you imagine giving up a baby, only to pump your breasts for 2 months afterwards? This would completely mess with one’s hormones, expressing milk for a baby you can’t hold.

The entire article is terrible, especially they way it is peppered with glamorous photos of his celebrity clients. The implication is that surrogacy is also glamorous. Horrible.

@ExquisiteDecoration

Yes, except for the wonderful Janice Turner who is very a outspoken opponent of surrogacy.

It's half promotion of his hairdressing business and half promotion of what a brilliant human he is for buying a baby. He doesn't like Mumsnet or comments about buying a baby but that is what he has done. He chose to go to Mexico because he has more control over the purchase of buying a baby than he would be allowed in the UK.

At 47 he's considering buying a 2nd baby. Presumably via Central American counties. Maybe he will be able to cope with a live in nanny then. Can't take anytime off doing people's hair. He spent three months in Mexico with the baby and an array of guests and since then has been back at work with a nanny but she presumably isn't living in his Mile End gaff

It was interesting (but predictable) how much of the article centred around him and his feelings. So tediously performative with I or me in most sentences.

@MrsOvertonsWindow yes, no mention of the baby’s best interests at all. I also wondered about the surrogate. The article refers to her boyfriend and her mother having six children. I wonder how old she was?

He didn’t get the irony of the baby being born on International Women’s Day did he? It’s lucky he has got to much money he can choose a beautiful woman to exploit, not just a cheap one. But he saved by going to Mexico instead of the US.

@WildWindySeascape it says she has three adult sons so not young.

Its the ultimate in human trafficking. Its illegal to let puppies and kittens leave their mother's home before 8 weeks old, even when we bred rabbits we wouldn't let the babies go before 8 weeks - so why do humans babies and mothers have less rights? That gay couple earlier in the year who killed their adopted baby, one of them was a teacher (sorry I can't remember names) and I remember a woman saying that there would have been a hundred of council estate mums who would have loved that baby boy given half a chance, but the preference goes to the middle class gay men.

I wonder if there’s a “let them speak” angle going on at The Times. I’m not sure that effect of this article is what the surrogacy advocates intend…

It's just horrendous. "typical me, I kept going for the expensive options...... I went for the beautiful donor who priced herself at £15,000. Then there was the cost of the breast milk..."

It's fucking vile. Commodifying mothers and babies.