Smug British couple using Indian Surrogate as 'receptacle' for their biological child

[Romilly70]

This article was in the DM (yes I do read it, although I know it's shit).

I was hoping this was a spoof article given their names.
I just cannot believe that people like this woman actually exist!

Yes she does come across as incredibly smug doesn't she. What a terrible way to talk about another human being. Perhaps it's a defence mechanism - she's had a pretty traumatic time so maybe this is the only way she can cope?

I'd take it with a pinch of salt - it is the Daily mail after all (take how it's written with a pinch of salt, I mean. Not the story itself).

My take on the MAIL article is that it is set out and worded in such a way to make this couple appear smug when they might not be actually. She's quite defended but desperate for another child and still traumatised by recent experiences that have made her unable to carry her own baby.

Thought it was a combo of a typical DM article designed to outrage but also representative of a certain attitude & culture found in Hong Kong.

I'm not sure there is a nice way to describe the process they are going through.

I can understand a lot of the points the couple make, tbh. They are desperate for a baby and very few avenues are open to them. I think in their position I would probably try and distance myself as much as possible too. I suppose by not meeting their surrogate and seeing her as a real person they can pretend she is living a better life than she probably is.

Personally I think commercial surrogacy in the UK should be legalised.

Octavia and Dominic FFS? Christ, where does the DM find these people? A business transaction indeed and the surrogate mother 'just a vessel'. Charming!

I saw this on the Mail app, it was (may still be) the 'headline' article, IMO that should be Hannah Cockcroft's amazingly inspiring 100m gold medal

I'm a bit bemused by them not being interested in finding out how much the 'receptacle' will be paid, whilst assuming she'll be skipping merrily into the sunset in the future to buy herself a house. Talk about not actually facing up to the ethical issues.

Melinda - yea that struck me. It's like they have a fantasy in their head that they're doing the surrogate some huge favour without bothering to find out anything about her life at all.
Wasn't there a documentary on these clinic recently?

The thing I found most heartbreaking about this article is that the couple know that this woman is single and is raising her own children alone, but has to live in the clinic without them for the entire duration of her pregnancy.

That poor women, to be without her own children for 9 months so that this couple can have their baby.

"Sounds to me like the dm have set her up a bit. Maybe they said 'so to you she's just a receptacle?' etc etc"

I also think the 'receptacle' word may have been planted and suggested by the MAIL journalist at interview.

Regardless of how the Mail article is worded, you can't get away from the fact that this couple are using their relative wealth and power to buy a poor woman's body so they can get what they want. They should have bought a puppy instead.

I found her smug too when I read it and rather cold. Its possible the DM have portrayed them differently to what they expected, nevertheless it seems they have little knowledge or interest in the surrogate mother. It's just a business transaction. Yet the Indian lady may not receive much of the money, is living away from her family, who knows in what conditions. It's quite uncomfortable reading.

Rubirosa, but they don't want a puppy, they want a child. Other than paying a surrogate they don't have any other options open to them to get their baby. Would it be more acceptable if they paid heir 20k to an English woman?

It's a argument that gets brought up every time, the poor surrogate having to do this etc

The money is life changing for them, they aren't giving away a child, they are a vessel, it's not to say that I would do it that way, but I don't think the couple should be vilified.

If I had the money, I'd go to India

You don't always get what you want in life though Melindaaa, or at least you shouldn't. However much money you have.

Oh come on. The way the article has been 'written' is a total wind up. They have made it sound as unpleasant as they possibly can for what is basically a simple transaction. Not sure how I feel about that itself but the article sucks.

As for the names, Dominic was top of my list had I had a ds and we considered Octavia. So what?

What is that supposed to mean?

Why don't you go over to the Conception boards and tell that to women who have been trying for years to get pregnant? Let's see how you like the new hole they rip you.

That was to Rubirosa.

It's extremely patronising of us westerners to assume that the surrogate is being taken advantage of, and can't make decisions for herself about whether this is a wise arrangement. Compared to her other options in life, this is probably a pretty good deal.

Of course it's a business arrangement. Ordinary people don't chuck £20k about without making sure they'll get back what they want for that investment.

Can we assume you have children you conceived easily Rubirosa?

It means just because you want to buy a woman doesn't mean you should. Even if she is really, really poor and should be super grateful for your money.

But what's wrong with it Rubirosa? The couple have the money to pay, the surrogate has a working womb and wants to do it, where's the problem?