The Baby Has Landed

[Sotiredsomuch]

Anyone watching?

I love stuff like this.

How did the two Dads know which babies were theirs biologically?
SleepingStandingUp beautiful babies.

Gorgeous boys. Congratulations. And they are not wearing hats ! ;)

Thank you all, I promise they've hats on tbe other 23 hours of the day and at present 😂

@stairway in general yes, but there's nothing to suggest this women has been exploited, nothing to suggest she's a vulnerable woman being taken advantage of by predatory men, and nothing to suggest these men "did" anything to her outside of what she wanted the doctors to do. We don't know her motivation so not let's pretend we know she's somehow a victim of these men

To me sleeping it obviously involved exploitation. Her reasons for wanting to be a surrogate had nothing to do with being a twin mum. They wanted to father a child each which is why they wanted twins. The risks for mum and babies is much higher for twin pregnancies. In the UK this would never be allowed as it’s unethical which is why they did it in Cyprus.
I’m sure the men are nice people but I can’t get over the exploitation.

@stairway I think we're just seeing two different women
I'm seeing someone who volunteered to be a surrogate, who for whatever reason wanted to do this and chose to take on a pregnancy fully aware and comfortable with the increased risks it posed.

You are seemingly seeing someone who was coerced into a dangerous venture when she'd only ever opted the safer option (singleton)!, who felt powerless to say no in the face of these two men who had decided what they would do with her body.

I just don't know where you're getting your version of the story from.

Sleeping I saw a women her was delighted to be a surrogate too, at least while she was still pregnant. The thing is there is no such think as absolute altruism. She did it because it fulfilled some need for her that even she couldn’t really understand. So in a singleton situation the trade off might be at least more equal. She would have been just as fulfilled carrying a singleton which would have been much safer for her and baby. It was them that wouldn’t have got what they wanted which was a baby each with a singleton pregnancy. Things could have gone terribly wrong. I know someone who is carrying around a dead twin along with a living twin in her womb. The living twin may be brained damaged. The risks are real, so yes it was very selfish of the two men not start with a singleton.

Some absolute fruitcakes on this post. Most of my friends who've done ivf have had two eggs put in. There's no guarantee you'll get two babies out of it. You might get two, one or none.

Mel willingly volunteered to act as a surrogate for the two dad's. She wasn't coerced into it. They weren't exploiting her. They're free adults who knew what they were entering into.

The two baby girls haven't been shipped off with "randoms" as a PP said. They've gone to live with their biological fathers. Yes they won't be breastfed but they'll still have the emotional contact needed from birth. Plenty of mum's don't breastfeed their babies. And plenty of mum's aren't the nurturing/attachment /4th trimester types anyway.

Seems to be a lot of hate on here aimed at three consenting adults who have brought two very much loved little girls into the world!

The thing is there is no such think as absolute altruism. She did it because it fulfilled some need for her that even she couldn’t really understand. totally agree.
So in a singleton situation the trade off might be at least more equal. She would have been just as fulfilled carrying a singleton which would have been much safer for her and baby. but maybe she wouldn't. Maybe doing 2 instead of 1 was actually part of the thing for her, knowing she was going beyond what lots of surrogates would do, was doing something extra special. People push themselves beyond their own limits for lots of foolish reasons.
Things could have gone terribly wrong... The risks are real Trust me, 7 months f tears and fears for the ones I've just delivered, I totally agree.
so yes it was very selfish of the two men not start with a singleton. but it was also selfish of the woman to agree, given it isn't for totally altruistic reasons, given she was also threatening the future of her own children if something had happened to her

I suppose you are calling me a fruitcake Lola. I’m sure the doctors would have warned your IVF friends of the risks of having a twin pregnancy but it was their body and their risk to take. Doctors in the UK do not try to achieve a twin pregnancy as it’s risky . They may put two back if the chances of pregnancy are low. A UK doctor would not put two embryos back into a fertile surrogate in order to achieve a twin pregnancy. There is no hate involved just a concern for the risk surrogacy posses for women. I’ve explained how exploitation can come even when consent is given. I don’t understand why people only see two cute newborns and smiling dads and non of the ethical issues. Its like some people are blind.

Sleeping I think it sad in away that for a women like Mel to be fulfilled she has to sacrifice so much and put her own health at risk. In order for people, like on this thread to call her brave and wonderful. It would be her own children who suffer at the end of the day if she developed complications or PND as a consequence.

Not singling anyone out just very surprised at the tone of the recent pages on this thread. Implying that somehow Mel is being exploited, having her babies torn out of her, weeping whilst the two bad men stroll out of the hospital gleefully without a look backwards.

They all knew what they were getting into. Unless Mel has specifically voiced her upset/concerns (which she hasn't - some people are making massive assumptions) I think all parties were shown to have benefited from the agreement. Mel didn't have to have those babies, she offered knowing full well what it meant.

I don’t doubt the dads parenting or love- I actually don’t doubt Mel was fine with everything and went into it willingly. My worry is only for the babies- newborns ideally need to be with their mother- in this case the body they grew in for 9 months.

There are so many cases where babies are with their ‘mother’ from birth and have turned out absolutely fine

From what I gather anyway Mel is going to know the twins and I imagine the twins will be well informed as to how they came into the world. However that is an assumption and I may be wrong. Just as all the other assumptions on here are probably may be wrong. None of us know their situation fully so can people stop judging these lovely strangers?

Of course Mel was crying when they left, she’s full of hormones!! I’d be surprised if she wasn’t crying. She’s a very brave woman but in no way was she exploited!

The first sentence was meant to say “where babies aren’t with their ‘mother’ from birth”

@LolaLollypop I think you’re speaking sense, I too think that this thread took a turn for the worse.

Denying a child it's mother is wrong. And the same goes for a female same sex couple, denying a child their father is also wrong). This is all about people wanting children but not thinking about what a child needs. Yes it's unfortunate if you can't have children but that doesn't mean you should do whatever it takes. They are depriving the children for their own needs. There's always adoption.

I imagine Mel was paid well.

Surrogates are paid.

And I disagree that the twins need a mother, they are getting two carers. That is what a baby needs, love and care, regardless of gender.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy_laws_by_country

It is not legal in the UK to pay a surrogate.

Iirc you pay a surrogate 'expenses' and I imagine that's really open to interpretation.

No one one here can decide that someone doesn’t need a mother. The children themselves will decide that and they may grow up to say I wish I had had a mother. They might not of course but it’s something that is important to most people, even those with perfectly good parents. They may well have an identity crisis. It’s another risk really that the twins have been put through. It’s a new concept, creating new people from donor eggs and surrogates, we don’t understand the psychological implications at the moment.

For lots of reasons many children do not grow up with a mother or father. Those twins will be loved so much and will likely have a much better and happier life than many children in the UK

I don’t think there’s any evidence that a baby needs a male and a female parent. I think that the evidence is that they need a secure attachment to one adult.

I think, again without references to hand, that the evidence is that young children benefit from interaction with much more than two adults. The village context is far healthier than our nuclear family approach.

I don’t think there’s any evidence that a baby needs a male and a female parent. I think that the evidence is that they need a secure attachment to one adult well i think the idea is children benefit from knowing their biological parents- and that's a man and a woman

There’s a difference between knowing who your biological parents are and being psychologically damaged if you’re not brought up by them.

Many people are not brought up by their biological parents and many are better off because of this.

"Many people are not brought up by their biological parents and many are better off because of this" Such rubbish- fine if your mother or father is an abusive addict, its hardly the majority.

my mother died when I was young, ok shit happens I survived and am pretty together- i wouldn't choose to distance a child from a capable biological parent for my own wants.