Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

And so it came to pass: Mail on Sunday - gay male couple offered fertility treatment including surrogacy

186 replies

Needmoresleep · 27/01/2019 09:42

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6636419/Gay-male-couple-offered-IVF-treatment-NHS-time-Britain.html

Oh ffs, think of the women.

OP posts:
Funkyfunkybeat12 · 27/01/2019 15:32

IVF should only be used if the surrogate can't get pregnant naturally, surely? Have they tried?

I think nearly all surrogacy is done through IVF clinics, not the surrogate sleeping with the father of the child. It does also tend to be donor egg. If it was a heterosexual couple wanting to use a surrogate, would people be expecting that the surrogate has sex with the man?

There is a question here about use of NHS funds BUT the NHS is not sourcing a woman for them or anything like that. I presume they have a surrogate lined up, but want funding for the clinic process.

FlyingOink · 27/01/2019 15:34

the anxiety felt for the health of the babies, and by the tensions that arise when a woman's body is rented for the benefit of others and where the unit of exchange is measured in the life of a new human being
Sensible words by the judge. I wonder why they let him keep the girl when he is a child molester? Presumably the girl went straight on an at-risk register?

Oxytocindeficient · 27/01/2019 15:39

FlyingOink hmmm then no adoption, ever? I cant see I see much merit in those reasons, so I’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve known plenty of families with adoption and despite the challenges, including open adoption, and they’re all loving families. Not perfect, but the children are cherished like any other.

NothingOnTellyAgain · 27/01/2019 15:39

Funkyfunky you don't need to have sex with a man to get pregnant, you just need the semen! Remember turkey baster jokes? It's not complicated. No need for a special clinic!

It did remind me of this story though where due to a reduction in sperm being donated, lesbians seeking semen in order to get pregnant are being pressured into conceiving "naturally" by men on the net I'll try to find it.

Seems to me that when it comes to sex and reproduction a large minority of men just can't help / see anythign wrong with trying to exploit women TBH

AsdaCentralAisle · 27/01/2019 15:40

No idea if Wikipedia is accurate as the article quoted is behind a paywall but:

“It was ruled Pipah is not allowed to be alone with David Farnell and the agreement that she must be read a photobook with age appropriate language every three months for the foreseeable future that explains her father's offenses.”Hmm

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Thai_surrogacy_controversy

Anyway sorry for the derail! I’ll stop now.

FlyingOink · 27/01/2019 15:41

Chanbua, 22, in April unsuccessfully fought to claim custody of Pipah after learning David Farnell was a convicted paedophile.

During his judgment, Family Court of Western Australia Chief Judge Stephen Thackray said the Farnells had lied under oath about Wendy Farnell being the egg donor for the twins when the pair actually used an anonymous egg donor, together with David Farnell's sperm.
i.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/85811462/not-in-the-public-interest-farnells-escape-perjury-charge-over-baby-gammy-lie
They really bought a product didn't they? Then rejected the boy because he has Down's. Incidentally she is 50 in that article so there's a higher risk of Down's if she used her own egg anyway, right?
I'm glad for him that he's with his birth mother and money has been raised for him, but this link explains the Farnells tried to get at the fund too
i.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/71910671/null
I worry for the baby girl. What a start to life.

FlyingOink · 27/01/2019 15:42

Oxytocindeficient I'm not anti adoption at all, I was just listing the downsides as discussed on here

SonicVersusGynaephobia · 27/01/2019 15:43

In Dustin's podcasts he recoils at the thought of the surrogate providing the egg. This is for two reasons:

In the USA you can choose the egg donor from a catalogue. Particular physical features maybe but especially high IQ is valued.
I assume clever college students get to partially fund their fees by selling their eggs.

The person who chooses surrogacy as a career is unlikely to be part of that demographic.

This is so... I don't even have the words.

But I 100% believe that people who are buying a baby/use of a woman's body don't want to have to accept the genetics of the sort of person who would be desperate enough to have to do it. Why should the buyer not be able to choose every part of the women they want.

It's so twisted and sick.

FlyingOink · 27/01/2019 15:43

AsdaCentralAisle cross post derail. Interesting case, thanks for the info

Fleetwoodsnack · 27/01/2019 15:44

I cant see I see much merit in those reasons, so I’ll have to agree to disagree.

Adopt because you want to adopt, not because it's the only option left.

Its a bit trickier in this circumstance but as someone who has heard "you could always adopt" so often, it's not always the answer and it's never simple.

Funkyfunkybeat12 · 27/01/2019 15:45

Nothing, yes, but I think that most of the time, that insemination takes place at a clinic rather than e.g. at home. Maybe I am wrong but I also thought that the surrogate using her own eggs was quite rare too and that the vast majority of surrogacy agreements involve using a clinic.

NothingOnTellyAgain · 27/01/2019 15:48

A lot of surrogates around the world are for some reason less white than the people who want to use their wombs and then hand over the baby.

Funny that isn't it.

Donated egg gets around that. Baby is white.

Needmoresleep · 27/01/2019 15:50

Adoption involves lots of deeply instrusive checks and assessments.

I wonder if the couple in the article, referred by their GP and left to find their own egg donor and surrogate, will be subject to anything like the same. And indeed what welfare checks there will be on either woman, in the way that say, an altruistic kidney donor might receive counselling.

OP posts:
FlyingOink · 27/01/2019 15:53

NothingOnTellyAgain
The picture of the donor guy. I made assumptions about him before I read on and found he was a very principled sperm donor (not a "natural insemination donor")
He opposes NI and sought to explain his reasons for doing so by positing a question: "How do you explain to a child that they were just a commodity so that the [biological] father could get laid? Is this not the ultimate indignity to a human being – being reduced to commodity status to be traded off against another commodity, like sex?"...Referring to NI as "ersatz rape" a couple of times, he continued asking questions: "What sort of rock spider would force his children's mothers into sex?" he demanded. "How do I uphold my own dignity and sense of self-worth knowing that I had to bribe or force her into sex [with the promise of children]? I will not destroy my ego for the sake of my sexual pleasure."
Fair play to him.

FlyingOink · 27/01/2019 15:55

Needmoresleep well the Australian father wouldn't have passed any checks

MargueritaPink · 27/01/2019 15:56

it's not fair on the adopted child to be the fulfilment of someone's wish rather than their own person

But that applies with bells on to a baby created by surrogacy.

NothingOnTellyAgain · 27/01/2019 15:57

funkyfunky

Lesbians have been using turkey baster + usually male friend who is sympathetic for ages

Surrogates used to use own eggs and get pregnant via semen introduction (no sex) for ages as donor eggs / IVF was much less developed / or didn't exist yet

None of these things involved sexual intercourse.

Where did you get the idea that gettign pregnant with a mans semen meant they had to have sex?

Oxytocindeficient · 27/01/2019 15:58

it's not always the answer and it's never simple.

Of course I realise that. I don’t think the answer is surrogacy at all, and I don’t think we can afford to pay for IVF on the NHS. I have really complicated hormones and my current thyroid medication I have to pay myself. Still waiting for a referral for suspected endometriosis. I resent suffering in pain every month and paying for my essential medication, while people get fertility treatment.

FlyingOink · 27/01/2019 15:58

MargueritaPink true, as I said I was just trying to jot down the reasons I've read here before why adoption isn't the automatic go-to. As usual someone else puts it more succinctly:
Adopt because you want to adopt, not because it's the only option left

NothingOnTellyAgain · 27/01/2019 16:01

If you have sperm and a woman you don't need a clinic for anything

If you want a baby and have a functioning womb it's not tricky

Where it gets tricky is where no-one in the euqation has a womb
Or one that is functioning
Then you need a woman outside the relationship
And by law it is her baby
So you get more formal stuff, legal stuff and clinics
As mentioned earlier, there are reasons that IVF is more common now even though it introduces addiitonal risk to BOTH the woman carrying the baby and of course it's a tough process for the donor.

Funkyfunkybeat12 · 27/01/2019 16:02

Nothing you already made that comment! I said that I think that most surrogacy does involve a clinic, whether that is implantation of an embryo or just fertilisation with sperm. A friend had a baby via sperm donor and went through a clinic- they didn't just give her a pot of sperm and tell her to DIY. The thing is we don't know how intrusive this IVF treatment is going to be, but I don't think the involvement of a fertility clinic is in any way unusual. Oh and my friend ended up having to take IVF drugs in the end because apparently basic insertion doesn't have a fantastic success rate and it didn't work on her. It did after she took the drugs though.

Fleetwoodsnack · 27/01/2019 16:04

I have really complicated hormones and my current thyroid medication I have to pay myself

Thyroid conditions were at the back of my mind but I forgot to type it! I've noticed from on here the nhs doesn't fund certain drugs and also has much higher thresholds for treatment. For me (non sufferer) that's more important than me or anyone else having a baby.

Iused2BanOptimist · 27/01/2019 16:04

Purple
I’ve been wondering for a while about the purpose of the survey carried out by Surrogacy UK that said the 65% of surrogates (who responded) wanted to give up their parental rights at birth.

I listened to all of Dustin's blogs on radio 5. He talks a lot about keeping parents (commissioning) and surrogates "Safe". (No mention of the baby).

Basically when he and Tom Daley had their baby in California the law allowed them to draw up contracts, they took the paperwork to hospital with them, they left the hospital with a baby with their names on the birth certificate. He praises how everyone knew where they stood. The surrogate mother (and her husband), the nurses, Tom and Dustin. The surrogate was protected from them making a last minute decision they didn't want the baby for whatever reason. They were protected from the surrogate making a last minute decision to keep the baby.

He was appalled, arriving in the UK with the baby to have to go through the British court system to officially get a parental responsibility order. (Sorry, I can't remember precisely what it is called). And that someone would visit their home to check everything was in order, with the implication the baby could be taken from them if certain standards or conditions were not met. That it could all take several months during which time they weren't the official parents of their baby.
In some ways I had a certain sympathy with him as presumably the baby is an American citizen, American parent, born in USA, but Tom is British and they want to raise the baby here, and presumably want it also to have British citizenship, so they have to satisfy the British courts.

Which is all a bit of a side issue. But in the UK the children's act protects children. So babies born through surrogacy have some protection which presumably doesn't exist in USA/California in that the surrogate mother, whether or not she is the biological mother, is assumed to be the mother and has parental rights until such time as the commissioning parents have applied for and acquired a parental responsibility order. It takes a few months. I assume enquiries are made to ascertain their suitability as parents similar (but probably less rigorous) to adoption but I'm just going by what I can remember from Dustin's blog.

Surrogate mothers, especially those who are not the biological mothers, appear to want similar "protections" that American surrogate mothers can have, ensuring they will not be left holding the baby. (Apparently this does happen from time to time, with relationship breakdown between the commissioning parents being cited as a common cause). They want the "protection" of a contract meaning they hand over the baby and their responsibility ends then, a clean cut contract similar to in California.

Anyway 65% of how many exactly?

I've tried to explain as per my understanding from Dustin's blogs. Others may have a more accurate understanding of the law.

1hello2hello · 27/01/2019 16:05

Baracker at 14.38 encapsulates the issues beautifully.