Parental order for donor embryo

[KazBuck]

Ok I was wondering if anyone can give me advice. I was thinking to use a surrogate with a donor embryo but when looking at getting a parental order the child must be biologically related to the intended parents… Surely there must be a way around this ? I know I should speak to a solicitor and I’m waiting on a call just wondered if anyone has any experience with this topic x

If you look in the pregnancy boards you will see umpteen threads from women who have found themselves pregnant or actually planned a pregnancy with men who are either completely unsuitable or have voiced that they absolutely do not want children. The responses are always the same “Your body, your choice. You keep the baby if you want you can do it on your own “ etc. with absolutely no thought for the child who will in all likelihood end up with an absent father. While I agree it is the woman’s choice and I absolutely agree women can do it on their own ,I don’t know why this is a lot more socially acceptable than women deciding to do it on their own from the very start without involving a man who does not want to be involved. It’s complete double standards and ridiculous.

@Cornflakes123 Getting intentionally pregnant knowing that you are going to deny the father presence in a child's life or knowing fine well that they will fuck off/wont be interested isn't acceptable nor encouraged, or it shouldn't be, and I've never seen this cheer-leaded on any board. So it's not 'double standards'.

To quote this post from another poster I agree with entirely -

And yes I know there could be lots of whataboutery re. lots of women have children with unsuitable men who abandon them etc; but those women and children are victim to their circumstances, rather than a deliberate choice.

Deliberate choice. Putting your wants and needs over that of the baby.

@AccidentallyWesAnderson i think children can and do thrive with one loving parent. And lots of women deliberately plan children with unsuitable partners because they are desperate for a child. it’s not whataboutery at all in a lot of cases. It absolutely is a deliberate choice in some cases. Yet these women don’t get the same level of criticism as single women who can provide a loving and stable environment for a child using a sperm donor and not involving a deadbeat dad. I know what choice I’d prefer for my child anyway.

@Cornflakes123 the mother and child bond is very different from the father/ child bond. Taking away a child from the woman who carried them for 9 months is very different to using a sperm donor.

@Pyjamatimenow I’m directly talking about sperm donors at the moment though as that’s where this conversation has led.

Oops sorry!

But that deadbeat dad might have a mother and/or father or siblings that is willing and able to have a relationship with said child, not to mention paternal cousins etc. and you can often read threads on here where that is very much the case. I don’t think it is useful to compare single mothers by circumstance to purposely creating another human who is completely cut off from one side of their genetic family, and who will need therapy and counselling to attempt come to terms with that fact. It is really a bit of a strawman argument to compare the two.

@OolongTeaDrinker but I’m talking about mothers who purposefully create a human with a dad who does not want a baby.

There’s still a potential paternal family for the child though. It’s not all about the adults involved. If a donor conceived child one day finds their father, it’s unlikely the wider paternal family will be interested so the adult child will have to deal with that rejection. It’s just setting the child up for a lifetime of rejection, identity issues and confusion. Yes you could say it’s the same for people whose mothers ‘tricked’ their fathers into having a child blah blah blah (how often does this really happen anyway?), but it is not the same issue at all and it’s disingenuous to imply otherwise.

I didn’t say it was the same. I just don’t think people who do this are in any way morally superior. And with regard to tricking bla bla bla let’s not pretend that doesn’t happen. It does happen.

Clearly it's not worth the time or effort explaining it to you

Still nothing to do with the ethics of donor conception or surrogacy though.

It’s fine to make comparisons as part of conversation.

Gestating and giving birth to a child makes you its mother.

In the US, they use the term Gestational Carrier for a Surrogate. I don't like the term personally but it is more accurate than mother.

No one has an inalienable right to be a parent. Especially not by using another woman’s body as a mere receptacle to satisfy your “dream”. A lot of women can’t have children for all sorts of reasons. There are other ways of making a valuable and worthwhile life.

There are many children in huge need of foster care, for example. That’s parenting too.

No it isn't! That's the mother, that's just fact. The baby's body is literally built from hers, even if it's a donor egg. Hers is the first voice the baby will become aware of, from within, etc.

Later on the mother may choose to hand the baby over but she'll always be the original mother of that child.

'Gestational Carrier' is offensive.

It's literally less accurate.

I see that you've ignored my posts, @IMBCRound2 which you're perfectly entitled to, but since I appear to be the only person on this thread with direct experience of being the child in a family on the spectrum of the one being proposed by the OP and share commonalities around identity questions with donor conceived children, as yours appear to be, I am a little surprised.

I need to come back to this, not to pick on you, but because I cannot in good conscience let several of the things you have said stand and I was on my phone yesterday.

(I am going to set aside the comments about the single mothers on from various posters on this thread. The scenarios are nothing alike, but I'm not going to debate that point for now.)

Firstly - you say you discuss the donor, but you have outlined a tight mechanism for controlling discussions around it, even proposing the use of intermediaries like therapists and other third parties should the child show an interest in meeting him "for their views." You've spoken about the differences, as you see it, between a 'genetic father' and a real parent. Yes, DC and adopted children can benefit from therapy to process their origins - but no responsible therapist would ever approach it in the way you have outlined. The only person whose views matter here are the child's - your child will decide what the word 'father' means to them and what they are looking for from any relationship, not you, not a therapist, or any other 'third parties' around who (I fear) would be carefully curated to support your view.

You are articulate and I suppose in theory well-meaning? Or at least well-trained to say the right things regarding your child's rights. But none of it comes across as authentic. If you value your child's mental health and your relationship with them, if you do not want to set them up for a cognitive dissonance that can permeate multiple areas of their lives (personally, professionally, you name it) you will take a hard step back and think about how to centre your child's needs in this situation. NOT what social justice goals you might have, rights you might feel you are owed etc. What they need.

Adopters are put through the ringer these days about how the goal of the process is to find parents for children not children for adults. I am not persuaded, when the mask falls, that the same is true for DC children. That is a tragedy.

Also - you must know that one DNA test on a commercial site and your best laid plans will be blown to pieces?

Wombs are not ovens, and pregnancy is not the biological equivalent of baking a cake.

Gestation involves a complex interplay between hormones produced by the woman and the placenta and baby growing inside her, the full details of which are not understood. A woman who is pregnant is not just 'a carrier', she has an intimate biological relationship with her child. Her body is permanently changed by it, and she will carry traces of her child's DNA in her body for the rest of her life. The baby will hear her heartbeat and learn to recognise her voice, and bonds with her before birth.

The word for a woman growing a baby in her womb and giving birth to it is 'mother'. To refer to her as 'a carrier' is frankly offensive, and typifies the contempt for female biology innate to the process of 'surrogacy'.

The Americans use the term Gestational Carrier, which I agree is offensive.

The Eastern European countries that practice commercial surrogacy refer to the Surrogate as a Surrogate Mother. Is that more palatable?

This!

Plus with dogs they don't remove them from their mother straight away as the importance of that bond to the wellbeing of the baby is well known & accepted, yet for human babies, they take them from their mother straight away.

Surrogacy centres the wants of the adults rather than the needs of the baby - it's abhorrent & should be outlawed & shame on all involved.

Wombs are not ovens, and pregnancy is not the biological equivalent of baking a cake.

Brilliant post @AnnaFrith thank you for putting it so clearly.

Surrogacy is an abhorrent trade in women’s bodies.

Poster here might be interested in this thread.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminism/5243792-call-to-action-on-surrogacy-email-your-mp

Thank you @OhHolyJesus - letter sent to my MP.