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.

It'd be none of my sisters business at that point. If I wanted it to be my sisters business I wouldn't have signed the contract or ensured that in such circumstances the decision was my next of kins, not the adoptive parents. As I've said many many times now, there is no one size fits all, it should be discussed and agreed before the pregnancy.

@Powergower many many parents don't stay together.

mypuddin

By acknowledging that parents could decide not to take a baby home, despite agreeing to in a pre-pregnancy contract, you’re acknowledging that contracts are meaningless. So it doesn’t matter what is agreed upon before.

You cannot successfully contract a surrogacy arrangement. It just can’t be done.

It'd be none of my sisters business at that point

I asked you a question 3 times and you still haven't read it!

Again: Would you think it totally right and fair that complete strangers should be allowed to keep your sister artificially alive so they can take delivery of the end product, over and above the desires of the people who love her? Yes or no?

And again I ask: Since you think the law should regulate such matters, why should we not have a contract whereby a mother can give away her 5 month old in order to give the 'joy of parenthood' to complete strangers?

Erm I think I have answered your question very clearly. If that's the terms of their contract that in that situation that would be right.

If that's the terms of their contract that in that situation that would be right.

So you believe it is 'right' that a woman - in the eyes of the law - should be seen primarily as a human incubator for strangers, rather than as someone loved dearly by those closest to her?

I really don't know how to respond to that.

I think that’s incredibly sad, mypuddin, if you’d happily let your sister vegetate on a ventilator, clinically brain dead.

I also think, given that contracts are unenforceable, no intensive care unit worth its salt would deliberately keep a woman dead but warm just to serve as a commercial human incubator.

I think that’s incredibly sad, mypuddin, if you’d happily let your sister vegetate on a ventilator, clinically brain dead.

But hey, once the end product is delivered to its legal proprieters, the woman's value as incubator has expired so the people who actually love her rather than seek to use her body for their own desires can take over.

So that's OK.

We disagree. That's life. I think that you are making a lot of assumptions to presume that a surrogate isn't capable of making these considerations before they decide to do it.

Why stop though? If she’s warm and functional, why not put another embryo in there? I mean, once we’ve crossed the line into a state where clinically brain dead women can incubate fetuses for money, why not just keep going?

Well indeed? I think you've tapped a viable market there!

I guess we could just have it inserted as an additonal clause in the small text of the contract. Because it's all about contracts and not human dignity.

No mypuddin I am making two assumptions. Firstly, that a surrogate mother may consider everything, only for things to change and then it’s a can of worms everywhere. And second, that inevitably, vulnerable women will be exploited, as happens with the majority of surrogacy around the world.

Where do you stand on sperm donation? Egg donation? ICSI? Genetic testing? There's always a new ethical conversation to be had.

Where do you stand on sperm donation? Egg donation? ICSI? Genetic testing? There's always a new ethical conversation to be had.

There is - though if your ethics allow for the use of women as brain dead human incubators I'd wonder what would be off limits.

If you're interested in discussing any of the above topics, why not start a separate thread?

A new ethical conversation to be had? Do you mean rather than the ethical conversation about the hypothetical situation where you leave your dead sister on a ventilator to complete a contract?

I can see why you’d want to move on from that, but none of those topics are the same.

No mypuddin I am making two assumptions. Firstly, that a surrogate mother may consider everything, only for things to change and then it’s a can of worms everywhere. And second, that inevitably, vulnerable women will be exploited, as happens with the majority of surrogacy around the world.

I'd say that's a bigger argument that every country should have proper legislation and parties should have tight legal contracts. You can say the same for many things, women not being allowed to drive, prostitution being legal in some countries, it's up to each country to legislate. Maybe part of uk legislation should be that you can't adopt babies from surrogate mothers outside of the uk? Just a thought of how we could move forward rather than a blanket ban when that's not what everyone would want.

A lot of this comes back to the point I made several pages back: we don't just legislate to cover the easy, Mary Poppins cases, we legislate to cover the really hard cases and protect the vulnerable.

A surrogate with hyperemisis to the point of it making her life a living hell - can she abort for the sake of her health and mental well-being if the commissioning parents say no? A Catholic surrogate - can she be forced to abort a foetus found to have Downs syndrome on the say so of the Commissioning parents?

The baby is born and the commissioning parents don't want it - who picks up the pieces? The birth mother realises in the third trimester that agreeing to surrogacy was a mistake and she's bonded with the child she's carrying - has she irrevocably waived all rights?

All these genuine issues don't go away by focusing on the Mary Poppins version.

@FannyCann, interesting stats that actually also say that women shouldnt conceive via donor egg either.....

As far as I am aconcerned, there are several parents there

• the biological father
• the woman who gave the eggs
• the woman who carried the baby
• the man wo will play the role of a father for the child (the second partner in the gay couple)

Tbh, the one role that is quite clear is the one of the biological father. The one of his partner is also quote well defined.
Who is or isnt 'the mother' in that equation is to be discussed (is it the woman who gave the eggs or the one who ccried the baby?) and what is impact of missing one of them is to be established (I include there the children born from egg donor - there many of them nowdays, some of which might never 'know' who gave them their genetic make up).
There is some sort of experiment going on there much on much wider scale than just the issue of gay men becoming fathers.

The issue of 'renting'/paying for the use of a woman's body is another issue entirely imo. I do not agree with that one but bthis is an entirely american issue. Surrogacy is totally different in the UK. And the women I have met who do that do it from an entirely altruistic pov.

@NotBadConsidering if that's what my dead sister wanted and signed to, then I'd have to suck it up.

I HRTFT because I really need to leave the house but just my 2 pence. Whilst I agree and completely understand where you are coming from, I know a amazing mum at school who is from NZ and she did this. She said it's just what you do back home and if I can help someone who can't have children then I'd love to! She see the now 3 year old a couple of times a year and the family even named him after her son. So, I do think some people are really happy to do this.

parties should have tight legal contracts

This is just NOT possible. Read the link I posted. It’s from FannyCann from a previous thread, but it highlights the problems with contracts. You just cannot do it.

I do agree that people should not be allowed to Womb and Baby shop from poor countries. It’s exploitation.

She said it's just what you do back home and if I can help someone who can't have children then I'd love to!

So putting yourself through pregnancy and childbirth to 'help' someone is 'just what you do' in NZ? So there's no problem with infertility because some other woman will happily volunteer her own body to 'help'?

Must be an incredibly generous society. Could you ask her just what men do to help others? Or is it only women being called upon to make sacrifices?

if that's what my dead sister wanted and signed to, then I'd have to suck it up.

And if she 'wanted and signed to' a contract which, as described above, allowed her to be kept 'alive' indefinitely as a human incubator for strangers, you'd be shrugging your shoulders at that too?

It's what SOME people do, yes @IcedPurple . I don't understand why you find it so difficult to understand that some people chose to be surrogates and go into it with their eyes open. That's what my point is, why should YOU decide that they can't?

If that what I wanted then yes.