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.

[RabbitSaysWoof]

I think the birth Mother should be allowed to raise the child, but he does have 2 genetic siblings I would hope he had contact with the biological father and siblings.

[TheCraicDealer]

I don't know. The woman's actions just seem so underhand that I would question whether she would really be able to consider the child's best interests in the future. She may have considered that she was protecting the baby from her perceived view of the men as parents, but telling them the child had died? Nope. Not ok and not a reasonable reaction to the situation. Changing your mind and seeking legal advice? Yes. Lying about a tragic event and denying a child access to the only blood relatives they have? No.

I don't think criminalising this is the way to go. With gay couples becoming more integrated and same sex parents being accepted by mainstream society, then it's only going to increase demand which can't be supplied by purely altruistic individuals. Legislating and ensuring that there's a process (STD testing, regular counselling for all parties, documented discussions re. access and plans for birth, etc.) could prevent so much heartache. I think that if you enter into an agreement like this you should do so on the basis that should you change your mind, you accept that you default to a 50:50 residency agreement with the couple you have agreed to be a surrogacy for, unless there are legitimate welfare concerns.

[SnowBells]

The gay couple should have used a surrogate in the U.S.

More expensive, but it would have been better for them.

[ReallyTired]

Surrogacy is legally unenforcable in the UK. The couple cannot force the mother to hand over the baby. There is no legally binding contract. Maybe the biological father has some rights, but the mother's rights are stronger. Having a baby is not a right. I feel that the birth mother should raise the child.

It should be illegal to enter into an unregulated surrogacy agreement. There needs to be pychological checks on the surrogate mother and the couple who wants the baby. It is vital that the sperm/ ova doner is tested for nasty diseases like AIDs. A formal contract makes it easier to enforce expenses claims. Issues like disablity needs to be discussed. Ie. what would the gay couple had done if a baby had been born severely disabled?

[SnowBells]

ReallyTired

Having a baby is not a right.

The same can be said for women, a.k.a. the birth mother.

And didn't we already have a surrogacy case earlier this year where the baby was given to the gay parents? In that case, it was very rightly so.

This case is different in that both parties are crooks. Neither should have the baby.