Another gushing story in The Times about surrogacy

[Theluggage15]

The Times seems really to be pushing surrogacy at the moment. Another’feel good’ story today, this time about a single man who couldn’t find another man to share his dream of becoming a father, so went and found a surrogate himself. Now the law has changed that you don’t have to be in a couple to use a surrogate, he was able to go ahead.

Lots of gushing comments underneath and a comment from one of the staff who I think is the bloke The Times had an article about last week (2 dads have surrogate baby) explaining to one negative commenter that no this is not a womb for hire at all, as only expenses are paid so it’s all lovely.

What with these stories and the Sophie Beresiner column, it feels like they’re doing all they can to promote surrogacy.

Apologies, I don’t know how to do the share token thing.

I saw the picture for this on the times Facebook page with two men in suits standing and a baby in a nappy sitting at their feet.

It remained me of the photos of men standing beside status objects like cars. I don't know what whoever set up the photo was thinking.

Reminded me. Autocorrect...

In the Daily Mail piece he says that using a surrogate was “just like an extreme form of babysitting”. I don’t even know where to begin with that statement tbh.

Or this perhaps Flavia

That article came complete with credits where the clothes were from and who did the make up Flavia

“just like an extreme form of babysitting”

An often-used phrased in the surrogacy 'community'. I don't know where to begin with it either, except perhaps to compare it to slavery.

I have emailed the editor to complain about the uncritical reporting and moderation of the comments.

Well done Lone! I will try to conjure up the strength over the weekend to do the same.

The self-absorption and lack of self-awareness of this guy and of Sophie B are staggering. Do they not realise that, in about a decade, their kids are going be reading these articles, which show no concern - or even thought - for their needs as children? It literally does not seem to have occurred to either of them that it might not be in a newborn's best interests to be removed from its biological mother. Imagine the psychological impact on the children, once they are old enough to understand this

If I was Sophie B's daughter I'd like to know about the 8 egg donors (and I genuinely can't remember how many other surrogate mothers, it might just have been the one in America, maybe she cost too much?).

Also...We're the egg donors from Russia? I'll have to go check now.

I'd also like to know how many siblings I had.

I'm not without sympathy for Sophie's situation with cancer but it's not a get out of jail free card that excuses you from all other narc behaviour.

Something about how she jokes about not having cracked nipples and not getting the chance of a baby shower is so superficial and somehow gloating. I don't know, I read it every week and I haven't changed my mind about her.

Jennifer Lahl has just posted this interview on CBC YouTube channel.

Jennifer Lahl interviews Veronica, a California surrogate about her nightmare surrogacy experience.

"When Veronica agreed to be a surrogate, she never imagined that the intended father would be caught luring a minor to his hotel room, to film himself having sex with her and posting the video.

When the FBI showed up at her door, she learned that the intended father was also involved in a baby-trafficking ring."

I haven't listened to it yet, will be on it after supper, it sounds appalling. I wonder if the surrogate mother decided to keep the baby - if she was allowed to.

And another one:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7926f2fa-64c1-11eb-908c-00b0fcb974f6?shareToken=f9f05bbfddeae12734291e0e862dfc70

So the law allows a single man to commission an egg from an anonymous donor and commission a surrogate mother to bear the child. The father can then take sole responsibility for the child from baby to age 18.

No checks in the same way that you would get in the adoption process.

I can see this having very serious consequences in the future.

What a disgrace the Times are. They had a gushing article about this man just a week ago and now another. They have set themselves up as a pro surrogacy lobbyists. It will only get worse.

From the article:

"Yet the single dad by choice movement is just beginning."

Men demanding their right to a baby.

Superb comment from Benny Blanco:

This article is no better than the one the other day with a complete glossing over of any of the negatives with surrogacy. No one - gay, straight, single or couple - has a right to a baby. 99.99% of surrogacy is hugely exploitative - wealthy people paying poor women in the Ukraine for the use of their bodies mostly. Cosy altruistic arrangements just distract from this and avoid being challenged. Maybe these questions could be answered:

1. what gives anyone the right to hire the use of a woman’s body? Even if it’s “just expenses” it’s still a transaction. If I hire a car from Hertz and through their generosity they decide I only have to pay for petrol, I’m still hiring a car from them. In surrogacy women are seen as just that - a mode of transport, incubation, to get the baby into the arms of those who demand one.
2. why are babies now seen as commodities that can be acquired when desired? I can’t pay the expenses of a woman to get her to hand over her 5 year old child, but it’s ok with a newborn?
3. there is no way to cover all eventualities of pregnancy, and any changes to circumstances of any party involved, which is why contracts aren’t binding. How is it ethical to enter into an arrangement in which all three parties have no legal recourse should they be aggrieved?
4. women have died as surrogates and suffered major complications. How can this be acceptable to allow people to put women they don’t know at risk for their own wants?
5. it is well recognised that, in other circumstances, to remove a baby from its mother is at best suboptimal - if baby or mother is critically unwell for example - and at worst, traumatic. This is why if social services want to remove a newborn baby from its mother it usually involves a judge. Why then are we creating situations where babies are immediately being removed from their mothers, then celebrating the fact?
6. how do you determine true altruism? There is no way of ever being 100% sure that someone isn’t being coerced in some way or profiting in another.

Essentially, surrogacy is only successful through sheer blind luck - that all the parties are in agreement and remain so, nothing serious happens to the mother or baby, nothing happens to any of the relationships involved, and the child grows up without being mentally impacted by it all. The many, many cases of surrogacy gone wrong seem to do little to deter people from making an ethical decision to not proceed, they just say “that won’t happen to us” then secretly prey it won’t.

it should be banned worldwide.

He's set up a website and a Facebook group?

So there really will be more demand for surrogate mothers and their wombs (and donated eggs too), more than ever.

COTS have had their books closed for 2 years I think I read somewhere. Where are all these women going to come from?

Also he was in a co parenting situation but that broke down after a miscarriage (and left that women, his friend high and dry after already agreeing and trying to have a child together) because he says he didn't want to have a child with someone he didn't love, but he just did exactly that by having a surrogate mother have one for him.

He wants to raise the kid alone so not have to share decision making? It just sounds more and more like ownership to me.

The website mentioned and the expenses page breakdown

www.dadbe.uk/finances

To your point Edge the DBS is for the surrogate mother not for commissioning parent/s though I'm told that commissioning parents also get DBS checks done through an agency.

Hmmm.

If an independent journey you will need to pay for a DBS check and a medical report for your surrogate. Surrogacy organisations will cover this cost.

Does anyone else find it nightmarish that the erasure of the female biological sex (but not the erasure of the male biological sex) is happening at the same time as the promotion of surrogacy (which depends on the actual existence of the female biological sex) and the idea that sex work is a good career choice for women (which never mentions that 99% of the customers belong to one sex while the majority of workers belong to the other sex)?

In a word nepeta , yes.

Surrogacy has been becoming more and more mainstream, more socially acceptable and more common and the erasure of women at the same time is now truly frightening.

Though women are not being erased here, the father is.

www.out.com/news/2021/2/02/lesbian-couples-race-change-law-appear-birth-certificate

But here women are helping their own erasure, the egg donor and surrogate were 'used'. (Same guy from the Times story, getting a bit of a media profile for his website).

www.dailystar.co.uk/tv/lorraine-fans-broody-single-dad-23426633

A lot more critical comments on that article, which shows that when the general public is asked they can see the realities. Some really good comments. I think the one about a staff member having a surrogacy child is most relevant...

All these 'feel good' pro surrogacy stories seem to be appearing exponentially at the minute. Feels like the work of stealth lobbyists and we've been here before with the pushing of 'trans kids' stories. Nothing about it feels organic.

I fear over the next few years there will be a blanket push to groom young girls and women for egg donation and surrogacy by the same people who push sex work is work.

I'm horrified at the push for single men as purchasers (what could possibly go wrong?). It's a potentially large demographic and one with deep pockets.

Ultimately it will be profit driving this. Anywhere that surrogacy is legal and has lax regulations sees a huge uptick in for profit clinics buying and selling women and children as commodities. It's truly disgusting and the only way to prevent harm is for surrogacy to be outright banned as many countries do.

Why was my post deleted. Am I not allowed to talk about profit driven industries commodifying women's bodies or the stealth pushing of feel good stories by lobby groups?

Good to see it’s been reinstated Ova can’t see what was wrong with it .

A complete ban is the only option.

The mother’s name was removed from the birth certificate.

That really seems wrong!