who should baby "Charlie" live with?

[cantbelieveimonhere]

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.

I think it's reasonable to discuss whether surrogacy is exploitative towards women and towards couples who desperately want a baby. I don't think it's reasonable to ascribe motives to the couple in this case or the woman concerned. I doubt the woman went into this thinking she would end up with a baby to raise and I doubt the men were thinking beyond having a baby, that one of them fathered, to raise. You could argue that gestational surrogacy is the less 'risky' form of surrogacy as the woman carrying the baby doesn't provide the egg.

The one think this case does is the unpredictable nature of human emotions and the ethical dilemmas surrogacy creates. There would still be this kind of issue if the meeting had taken place in a solicitor's office and legally enforceable contracts had been signed.

Two lesbians probably have two wombs, so there unlikely to be a need for them to rent another woman's body so they can have a baby.

I would feel the same about a couple of any mix of genders who was using a paid surrogate found on Facebook.

There are situations in which surrogacy isn't exploitative, but this obviously wasn't one of them.

Two lesbians probably have two wombs, so there unlikely to be a need for them to rent another woman's body so they can have a baby.

That wasn't the question I asked though was it?

There is something very seedy and immoral about buying and selling babies through a facebook page, no one comes out of this story looking good. She sounds incredibly naive and it annoys me that she clearly takes no responsibility for the situation. She could have backed away from this long before she became pregnant. I have very little sympathy for anyone stupid enough to take prescription meds sent to them through the post by people they barely know.

What a mess.

Why don't you pop over to the LGBT parents topic and tell them they are simply trying to live the heteronormative dream.

Why would I?

I have no problem with non-straight parents.

I have an issue with two men renting a woman's body so they can buy a baby.

I have no problem with non-straight parents.

Really? Why the offensive shit about them wanting to live out the heteronormative dream rather than accepting they just wanted children like many other people then?

It's odd how it is exploitative for the gay couple to have sought out a willing surrogate yet not exploitative for a woman to willingly offer to be one and then say the baby died.

Regardless, the DM is a shit, nasty little rag and there is only one side of the story presented so I am out,

Of course the child should remain with his mother. Adoption is only appropriate in cases of severe neglect or abuse.

Why the offensive shit about them wanting to live out the heteronormative dream rather than accepting they just wanted children like many other people then?

Because two men thought so little of women that they tried to rent a woman's womb on Facebook.

There's nothing wrong with wanting children.

There's something very wrong with treating women as incubators.

Two men who want to have a baby to raise together when neither has any of the equipment for gestating or nourishing a baby are in a tough position.

But they don't get to avoid their biological reality by exploiting poorer women.

That's the heteronormative dream - a gay male couple is just the same as a heterosexual couple, and poor women must be exploited so that we can all pretend that the possession of female anatomy isn't important for creating babies.

So do you think surrogacy should be banned Bathtime? Or can it be OK in certain situations eg if heavily regulated?

*I have no problem with non-straight parents.

I have an issue with two men renting a woman's body so they can buy a baby*

These contradict each other. Which you know.

A woman who seeks out 2 men, takes a large amount of money to carry a child for them, and then lies to them that said child is dead while planning to keep it is not being exploited. She is the exploiter. And calling her the victim and exploited simply because she is the one with a vagina is antifeminist and downright dumbass.

These contradict each other. Which you know.

They don't at all contradict each other.

Which you should know.

You can't possibly imagine that the only way gay people can have children is paid surrogacy?

Barbarian - I don't know.

Banning seems harsh on the small number of willing surrogates who do it for entirely altruistic reasons (apart from loving pregnancy, which some seem to).

But as a general proposition, in a world where women are so far from the equals of men in terms of either power or money, I'm not at all comfortable with the normalisation of renting wombs.

The idea that the way to solve this kind of problem is to change the law so a woman who gives birth to a baby can have that baby forcibly removed by "the real parents" is barbaric to me.

And when it comes to regulation of surrogacy, that normally seems to be the suggestion - that all the problems will disappear if we can just make the "gestational carriers" a bit less human.

Of course the child should remain with his mother. Adoption is only appropriate in cases of severe neglect or abuse.

But the mother is out of the picture and doesn't want the baby, so far as we know.

what a mess!

shared residence probably fairest but god only knows how that would work!

i am glad we consider the surrogate mum to be the mother until she agrees to let someone else adopt

Is it not the case that the 'birth' mother has the option after the birth to change her mind? Even though the child isn't biologically hers she still carried him and gave birth to him which I feel should give her the option of keeping him if she chooses to.

Would not be comfortable with the baby being forcibly handed over to the gay parents, am amazed any of this is legal tbh!

i dont think it is legal. the men should be prosecuted imo (and the 'fixer')

According to this:
www.gov.uk/rights-for-surrogate-mothers

"The woman who gives birth is always treated as the legal mother and has the right to keep the child - even if they’re not genetically related."

"The child’s legal father or ‘second parent’ is the surrogate’s husband or civil partner [...]
If a surrogate has no partner, or they’re unmarried and not in a civil partnership, the child will have no legal father or second parent unless the partner actively consents."

So the gay couple have no rights at all.

I'm possibly missing something but I don't think the couple have done anything wrong! (except going to Burger King... and doing all this via FB...)
They wanted a surrogate. The fixer arranged it. The woman was willing.
She then lied to the biological father saying the babies had both died.
And went on to give birth to HIS child with the intention that he would never find out about his own baby?! How is this ok?

What if she'd told him it was a successful pregnancy but directly after birth told him that the child hadn't survived? Would that be the same? Is that essentially child abduction?
I think she's behaved appalling and shouldn't get to keep the boy.
I am ignorant on the subject generally so sorry if I have used wrong terms or am generally wrong. That's just my feeling on the subject.

the men were no better - no getting to know her, building a relationship etc, just a commercial transaction on facebook. little wonder it went wrong! and was the go between acting out of the goodness of her heart?!?
all very dodgy. no wonder it all went wrong.

I haven't read the article yet but just want to comment on the people saying 'she's behaved badly and shouldn't get to keep the baby' or 'she doesn't deserve the baby'
The baby is the important one here. The baby has a right to be cared for by its parent unless there is a very good reason not to. She is is his parent and so if she wants him she should keep him.

And attachment doesn't start at birth. Prenatal experiences prime the baby to bond with its mother.

Sad for the couple, but the baby should stay with his mother unless she is unsafe to raise him. Parenting is about more than genetics.

Of course the baby should have the right to some contact with his biological father if it is in his best interests.

Generally surrogacy is rich people using poor women's bodies. They took a risk.

I should say commercial surrogacy, I wouldn't want to see women gifting the chance to have a baby to their sisters or friends banned.