Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

who should baby "Charlie" live with?

55 replies

cantbelieveimonhere · 12/07/2015 22:15

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157706/I-ll-never-Burger-King-baby-gay-fathers-Surrogate-mother-reveals-heartbreaking-story-lifts-lid-Britain-s-chaotic-cruel-baby-trade.html

What do you think MN?

Can't believe this isn't being featured in the news more. Major ethical issues in this scenario.

OP posts:
sleepyhead · 12/07/2015 22:22

Well it's all pretty dreadful and no-one comes out of it looking particularly good.

The best outcome I guess is that the baby stays with his mother who carried him but that he's able to build a relationship with his biological father.

Original poster
cantbelieveimonhere · 13/07/2015 09:06

It's just so sad

OP posts:
hiddenhome · 15/07/2015 21:46

He should be adopted by an independent third party and be totally distanced from these people.

weeburrower1 · 16/07/2015 12:15

Awful story, you feel like the poor wee thing is going to be pulled from pillar to post.

My instinctive answer would be for him to stay with the woman who carried him but I'm not sure I could articulate why.

It seems a bit of a horrible, murky world.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 16/07/2015 12:20

He should be adopted by an independent third party and be totally distanced from these people.

Harsh, but I agree. No-one in the story comes across particularly well, and the only way this baby can get away from being fought over is to be taken out of the situation completely.

Am Shock at that Facebook group though - how can people be so reckless?

BeeRayKay · 16/07/2015 12:21

Well it's not her baby, and she shouldn't have agreed to do it in the first place if she thought that this would be the outcome.

I agree with PP. Adoption by 3rd party.

Backforthis · 16/07/2015 12:27

I'd assume that the man who is the biological father of the child will be able to ask for a DNA test and get parental rights. The law will probably regard the woman who carried the baby as a parent too.

SoupDragon · 16/07/2015 12:28

It is impossible to say because all the allegations against the gay couple appear to be purely based on what Jennifer has said.

I would like to hear their side of the story.

Personally, I feel for the gay couple. One of them is the father and Jennifer told them that his baby had died.

WereJamming · 16/07/2015 12:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

UrethraFranklin1 · 16/07/2015 12:31

I'm surprised anyone thinks they can judge the correct outcome for a childs life based on an article in the Daily Mail.

The only thing we can know from this article, if any of it is true, is that we clearly need strict legislation to protect children from the kind of idiots involved in this appalling saga.

SoupDragon · 16/07/2015 12:32

I don't think a 6 day old baby cares one jot who feeds them and cares for them provided they get that care.

BathtimeFunkster · 16/07/2015 12:34

Well it's not her baby

It is her baby.

With just a tiny bit of genetic material her body created a human baby capable of independent life, and her body is still providing the baby's nourishment.

Women and babies are human beings and attempting to rent one and but the other is extremely unethical.

The men took a chance here, and they lost.

PerspicaciaTick · 16/07/2015 12:35

TBH the Daily Mail story is frantic to show the woman in the best possible light - and she still comes out of it badly. It is very hard to get the full picture without hearing the father's side of the story. But I think lying to a couple who are desperately TTC, telling them that their children have died is absolutely horrific and pretty much ended any sympathy I may have had for her at the start.

BathtimeFunkster · 16/07/2015 12:35

Rent one and buy the other.

basgetti · 16/07/2015 12:37

Legally the baby is hers, he should stay with her and have contact with his father, the same as separated parents.

SoupDragon · 16/07/2015 12:39

With just a tiny bit of genetic material her body created a human baby capable of independent life, and her body is still providing the baby's nourishment.

And without that tiny bit of genetic material there would be no baby whatsoever. The baby "belongs" equally to the father. I assume the egg donor signed away any rights at the time of donation.

BathtimeFunkster · 16/07/2015 12:39

a couple who are desperately TTC

Hmm

They weren't "trying to conceive", since two men can't conceive a child.

They were trying to rent a woman's body for 9 months so they could get a baby and live the heteronormative dream.

They picked a young woman who had not had children before and obviously didn't know what she was agreeing to.

They thought they could exploit her, but they were wrong.

Backforthis · 16/07/2015 12:39

'I don't think a 6 day old baby cares one jot who feeds them and cares for them provided they get that care'

I disagree completely. They've already been with the woman that gave birth to them for 9 months. That's the voice and the heartbeat they know.

SoupDragon · 16/07/2015 12:40

They picked a young woman who had not had children before

Well, apart from her son.

UrethraFranklin1 · 16/07/2015 12:41

She exploited them. The women equals victim routine is demeaning and unhelpful.

BarbarianMum · 16/07/2015 12:41

Actually I feel for all of them (although I agree none of them are above reproach in this).

I think surrogate mothers should be allowed to change their mind during surrogacy and keep the child they bear, albeit with access for the biological father as you would have for a separated couple. And I think that's what should happen here.

BathtimeFunkster · 16/07/2015 12:43
Grin

That'll teach me to read Daily Mail articles more closely.

Either way, she's the baby's mother. Their baby buying attempt didn't work out.

I'm sure the genetic father's parental rights will be recognised.

SoupDragon · 16/07/2015 12:44

Lets not forget that Jennifer sought out the surrogacy. The gay couple didn't bully her into it after simply meeting her in a bar and thinking "she'll do"

SoupDragon · 16/07/2015 12:48

They were trying to rent a woman's body for 9 months so they could get a baby and live the heteronormative dream.

This is really quite offensive. They want children. They have no option bar surrogacy.

Would you be quite so offensive about two lesbians wanting children and say they want to live the "heteronormative dream"?

Would you accuse a heterosexual couple where the woman is unable to carry a child of "renting a woman's body for 9 months" and exploiting her?

AngelsWithSilverWings · 16/07/2015 12:49

Goodness what an awful situation which highlights the need for surrogacy to be properly regulated.

The birth mother should have had thorough counselling before being allowed to act as a surrogate.

My gut feeling is that the child should stay with his birth mother and have court agreed contact with the bio father. This will cause the child the least amount of emotional harm in my opinion. ( assuming both parties are capable of parenting)

I don't agree that adoption by a third party is the right course of action and I say that as an adoptive mother.

Adoption should be an absolute last resort and I believe that even my own DS's mental and emotional well being would have been better had his birth mother been able to parent him herself.

We are doing the best we can as adoptive parents but the trauma of being removed from his primary carer as a 10 month old still causes him problems even as a 10 year old - and will continue to do so for the rest of his life.

I really feel for everyone involved in this sorry story but the child's well being is the most important thing to consider.