Famous men and surrogacy

[Annasgirl]

OK, so this is not to bash the specific person involved but last night I was heading to bed and a story came up on my phone - a person from Westlife was announcing the birth of their baby - through surrogacy (he is gay) and showed a pic of him, his boyfriend and the baby - there was no mother.

So, I totally lost it and poor DH had to listen to me rant for about an hour - but when, oh God, when, are we going to stand up and be counted and take back the rights of women and children?????

DH mentioned that there will always be women poor enough to agree to do this and I countered that you cannot sell a kidney (legally) or buy one so why should you be able to buy or sell a baby???????

BTW, DH agrees with me, but why do I feel I am the only person alive who is angry about this?

And I live in Wokesville (AKA Ireland) and I am worried that we are so keen to be woke and the most liberal place to be gay in the world, that we will soon legalise surrogacy or at least make it easy for people to legally buy a baby overseas and then take it home here. That is what the person was arguing for on his gushing post.

I don't agree with you at all.

People donate kidneys all the time, they sign to say that the know death is a risk.

I don't agree with you at all.

What don't you agree with? Do you think that a British court would recognise a contract which stipulated, for example, that if the surrogate falls into an irreversible coma, she should not be taken off life support until the commissioning couple receive the product they signed up for, ie the baby?

People donate kidneys all the time, they sign to say that the know death is a risk.

Organ donation does not involve the creation of a 3rd party who is entirely innocent and did not ask to be born.

People who donate kidneys - living relating donors - have to go through extensive testing to make sure they fully consent to what they’re getting into. Who will provide the extensive screening and consent procedures to make sure a birth mother fully understands the risk she is taking?

Let’s go back to my post and start with the first part. Beforehand there’s a “contract” to decide who has a say in possible termination. Is that what you think could happen? Say it’s written in the contract that there is to be no termination whatsoever but the birth mother changes her mind. Then what?

On that argument no one asks to be born. I'm sure there are millions of people born to shit parents in shit circumstances that didn't ask to be born into those circumstances.

Re the comma scenario, I would expect that to be covered in the contract. I'll repeat again, not one size fits all. One groups contract might agree that the decision will be the adoptive parents, another contract might be that the decision is with the birth mothers next of kin. To be agreed prior to the pregnancy.

Or the opposite: the adopting parents say in their “contract” they will care for a baby even if it has a severe disability. But when it comes down to it, they won’t take the baby home. Should they be forced to? By whom?

If I was a surrogate I wouldn't sign that contract. That's the thing with a contract, both parties have to agree to the terms. It's not a dictatorship, it's a mutual agreement. You're making a lot of assumptions about the people involved.

But mypuddin what about if things change and those things agreed beforehand don’t work any more? Should a woman be forced to continue a pregnancy for example? Should she be forced to have Caesarean section if she doesn’t want one?

Same as what happens in any situation where parents face that decision as to whether they are capable of bringing up a disabled child.

On that argument no one asks to be born. I'm sure there are millions of people born to shit parents in shit circumstances that didn't ask to be born into those circumstances.

No. But we don't encourage this by drawing up contracts to regulate it.

Re the comma scenario, I would expect that to be covered in the contract.

Let me get this straight: You are saying that under English law, a couple who might be complete strangers to the mother, should have the legal right to force her to stay attached to life support machines, against the will of those who love her, just so that the commissioning couple can have the product - the baby - they contracted for?

This is what you believe? You'd be perfectly happy if this were to happen to your sister, for example?

Same as what happens in any situation where parents face that decision as to whether they are capable of bringing up a disabled child.

In that case, you’re admitting any contract isn’t worth jack shit. Which means you can’t legislate, you can’t protect everyone’s rights and when things go wrong, someone suffers.

notbadconsidering

I’d just like to say how great i think your posts have been, its brought up stuff I’d never considered

Let me ask you. If I, being aware of all the risks you have put forward, if I choose to be a surrogate mother , what right have you got to tell me not to?

In that scenario for example, a birth mother has entered the agreement under the impression that no matter what, the child they birth will be taken home and loved. But if the adopting parents feel they can’t, and renege on the contract, that birth mother has to face the possibility the child they birthed will go into care, unless she takes the child home. And your ok with this sort of stuff?

And no one can say “ how like is THAT?” because it’s inevitable that something utterly shit will happen; it has already.

I'm happy to answer your question if you answer mine first @mypuddin.

I've repeatedly answered your questions, I don't agree with you in the slightest to the things you've said.

You have not answered my questions. So I'll repeat:

*Let me get this straight: You are saying that under English law, a couple who might be complete strangers to the mother, should have the legal right to force her to stay attached to life support machines, against the will of those who love her, just so that the commissioning couple can have the product - the baby - they contracted for?

This is what you believe? You'd be perfectly happy if this were to happen to your sister, for example?*

If that is what both parties agreed when they drew up the contract, then yes. I'm not the moral judge of what these people should agree in their contract.

what right have you got to tell me not to?

I’d expect the State to take action in the same way they stop you selling a kidney, despite knowing all the risks, but if you absolutely had to, and you went through extensive psychological assessment to make sure you fully understood, and you met physical criteria to make sure you were low risk, and you had all legal rights to your own body, I would still say you shouldn’t because you’re creating a baby solely for the intention of giving it away. It’s not like adoption when mothers find themselves in circumstances beyond their control; you would be deliberately making a baby to dispatch to someone else. If that was for money I would be appalled. If it was truly altruistic I could accept but not be happy about.

So it's payment you oppose, not the concept itself?

If that is what both parties agreed when they drew up the contract, then yes.

And for the 3rd time - since you still haven't answered - you'd be more than happy if your sister were forced to remain in a coma until she produced the commissioned baby for complete strangers, even if you and the rest of her family found this heartbreaking?

I'm not the moral judge of what these people should agree in their contract.

This is an internet discussion so we are all moral judges. You believe the right of a commissioning couple to get the end product is more important than the woman's dignity or the rights of the person's next of kin. That's a moral judgement, one I thoroughly disagree with, but still a moral judgement.

But what I also asked - and you did not answer -is if you think such a 'contract' would or should be recognised in English law. If so, where do you think such legal rights should end. Should a mother have the legal right to sign a contract to give away her 5 month old? If not, why not?

Babies in exchange for money, in any contact whatsoever, it's despicable. Life and birth should not be commodotised. The 2 gay male couples I know who have used surrogates for children didn't stay together anyway. It's completely selfish tho buy in a baby, not to mention immoral and unethical.

I'm not the moral judge of what these people should agree in their contract

Well luckily other people are. The fact that there are people like you who would happily accept a contract stating a brain dead mother should be kept warm with circulation to get a fetus to a viable gestation is so abhorrent, it needs people like us to stand in the way of that.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20390/

Thanks Rufus

I oppose the concept completely. But exchanging a baby for money makes it so much worse.