The Baby Has Landed

[Sotiredsomuch]

Anyone watching?

I love stuff like this.

Having a biological child each was important for the men, which is why they took the risky and unethical decision to go for twins and get a child each. At the same time the importance of the twins knowing their own maternal biology is seen as completely unimportant.
I also don’t get the argument that many children are brought into worse circumstances. It’s a bit of a rubbish argument really.

Denying a child it's mother is wrong..., denying a child their father is also wrong)
So if a woman has an unplanned pregnancy and doesn't know the father, should she ways abort or put the baby up for adoption?

Denying a child it's mother is wrong..., denying a child their father is also wrong

That would go for sperm donation too then? Lots of babies conceived by anonymous sperm donor. Either for women on their own, lesbian couples, or M/F couples.

@SleepingStandingUp
So if a woman has an unplanned pregnancy and doesn't know the father, should she ways abort or put the baby up for adoption?

Too ridiculous to even answer.

@IWorkAtTheCheese...
That would go for sperm donation too then? Lots of babies conceived by anonymous sperm donor. Either for women on their own, lesbian couples, or M/F couples.

Yes, exactly.

So no anonymous sperm donation anymore then?

@IWorkAtTheCheese

Just because it's allowed doesn't make it right. Babies are not a commodity. There are plenty of children needing a loving home - adopt!

Oh so no sperm donation AT ALL then?

This thread gets better and better. We’re now down to adoption only for infertile people. But only if you’re a hetero couple. and the baby has to stay with its birth mum for the first 3 months and also you must keep in touch with both its biological parents throughout its life.

@SidSparrow adoption would still leave children without a mum, or in the case of gay women without a dad. Do you want that banning too?

@SimonJT I don't see the point in creating motherless or fatherless children to satisfy your own needs when there are plenty of children in the world in need of a loving home. Sadly these children are guinea pigs because we don't know what affect disconnecting them from on of their genetic parents will actually have on them. Adoption is a solution to a sad state of affairs and anyone who wants to adopt should be welcomed and supported.

In nature we have children and stay with them. This goes against nature and I'm sure with that there are emotional consequences because of that, consequences to be faced by the children not the adults. Abandonment, divorce, losing a parent, trauma, are all things which would very much affect a child. Why do we think that robbing them of their mother or father, on purpose, would not have an affect of them? Frankly, we're messing about too much playing God because we have the science, and in some countries, a hugely profitible business, but for me we are lacking the ethics, especially since there are plenty of children who would welcome a loving home.

My opinion on this won't change. For me, it's wrong and incredibly selfish. Those two little girls will grow up and guaranteed there will be times when they will wonder to themselves what it would have been like to have a Mother.

@SidSparrow in an ideal world children would grow up with a loving mum and dad who never split up and are happy but we live in a far from ideal world.

It is pretty common now, sadly, for children to grow up without a dad living with them. Some see their dad maybe once or twice a week, some even less or not at all,

Just in my road of 20 houses I know of 3 single mums. Two lots of the children have no contact with their dad and the third lot spend from Friday to Sunday every week with their dad.

@lynsey91 Yes that is very sad. Surrogacy and what you're talking about are separate issues though.

Also... Gay couples also have relationship problems and can split up. Any couple can have relationship problems. Just because you have children naturally or unnaturally doesn't mean your relationship is any different...

There are plenty of adults today who were raised by same-sex parents, or single parents, and while I'm sure not every single one had a happy childhood this is not some brand new phenomenon. For what it's worth the adult children of gay couples who I know are happy with their parental setups.

This goes against nature

This sort of thinking is treading on shaky ground I feel. If everything that isn't as "nature intended" in our modern society is measured on that rule then you are condemning a lot.
I mean where does that argument begin and end? .. bottle feeding? homosexuality? IVF? mothers leaving babies in childcare to work? medically assisted births? We are too far evolved too think in the black and white terms of "what nature intended".

I agree that surrogacy should adhere to tight legal obligations to prevent abuse of women or the system for financial gain.
I think the early baby days and the bond between mother and baby is often over romanticised. For example; Posters on this thread continually referring to the trauma and emotional damage the babies will suffer by being taken home by their dads and the surrogate mum crying as a clear indication that this was all a terrible mistake she'll regret for ever
In the grand scale of it, they have two loving attentive parents that will nurture and provide for them.

It's also misconceived to think everyone wanting a child can "Just Adopt!" The adoption process is incredibly rigorous and drawn out and parents have to be prepared to adopt a child who has been damaged by difficult circumstances; often resulting in severe behavioral issues. There certainly aren't cot fulls of newborns waiting to be taken home.

2 girls being raised by two men, with a mother being purposely left out is wrong. It's that simple. Pretending it's anything else is just being ignorant.

This sort of thinking is treading on shaky ground I think it is equally as worrisome the dismissal of the role of a mother. Nature may not be politically correct but it is a fact- it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, a woman's body is where a baby develops and to rip that away to coincide the wants of the couple in question is wrong.

2 girls being raised by two men is wrong I disagree that it's wrong. It's unusual but it's entirely likely that those girls will have women figures in their lives; grandmothers, aunties, child minders and their friend Mel who carried them. As well as having two fathers. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with that set up as a family.
You could debate the ethics of surrogacy without making blanket statements about the ability of men to raise children.

I respect your view and appreciate women shouldn't be dismissed in their role as mothers. However I think there's a lot of emotive language being used on this thread to be deliberately provocative.
Babies aren't being "ripped away" the men aren't "walking off without a backward glance" and the mothers/egg donors are giving full consent to the process.

2 girls being raised by two men, with a mother being purposely left out is wrong. It's that simple. Pretending it's anything else is just being ignorant.

It's not that simple though. Why is it wrong? Why is it ignorant to not agree with you?

2 girls being raised by two men, with a mother being purposely left out is wrong. It's that simple. Pretending it's anything else is just being ignorant
So if they'd be boys?

Nature may not be politically correct but it is a fact nature also states vaginal delivery as a fact, imagine the mortality rate if we obliged her whim

I’ve just watched the third episode now. The expression in Mel’s husbands face says it all really. It must have taken a toll on her whole family. She looked really sad and that’s before the hormone drop. Only one of the men realised she looked sad and started to feel guilty. Personally I’m glad I had a mother (female). I wish them all a happy life together but to me there were too many ethical issues completely brushed over by the adults involved.

Sid, I'm with you. It was wrong. We mess about with this stuff at our peril.

More rescources should be put into supporting families where children are suffering. The family should be supported. Not rich people basically getting designer babies.

More rescources should be put into supporting families where children are suffering. The family should be supported. Not rich people basically getting designer babies what resources have gone into this couple having this baby that would be better directed at poorer families? And egg / sperm donation isn't yet eugenics, these aren't designer babies.

They have put their own rescources into it, which could have been directed elsewhere to support children who need help. I don't like their language round those babies.

" it's a ball ache"