Single man looking for a surrogate - BBC

[OhHolyJesus]

At 34 he really doesn't need to rush to have a biological child to meet his "burning desire" but he has two embryos on ice with an attractive-sounding egg donor, rather than a partner and I'm sure he hopes the BBC article will mean someone 'comes forward' (don't all rush at once ladies) to grow a "little person" for him.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56162721

So women need to grow and deliver babies, and possibly risk their lives for:

Infertile heterosexual couples
Gay men
Single men

...and someone will be along to say this is discriminatory against single women with careers soon, thus the new age of social surrogacy is born.

The issue is that it's easier for women as sperm donation is a non-invasive procedure.

Why is that an issue? One of the few instances where women's reproductive biology has an advantage for her over men.... can't be having that, can we?

I don't mean that's what you think, WhoStoleMyCheese, my ire is directed at anyone who thinks surrogacy has to be allowed because sperm donation has fewer problems and it's not fair if women have something men can't.

Are surrogate pregnancies more risky than other pregnancies then Why?

IVF pregnancies are higher risk than “natural” pregnancies. And using donor eggs seems to further increase the risk of complications.

It's such a shame that a woman is required, really. Surely someone can find a way to incubate offspring in the lab, while choosing all the desired features precisely?

@ArabellaScott

It's such a shame that a woman is required, really. Surely someone can find a way to incubate offspring in the lab, while choosing all the desired features precisely?

Cloning would be ideal for someone wanting a 'mini me', surely?

If he wants "mini-me" what will he do if he gets a girl?

Some friends of ours are embarking on the adoption process. I have been surprised but impressed at the level of scrutiny they have been under, even though they have a child already. It has been a huge commitment of time and emotion over many months. Happily they have just been approved, and I know they will be wonderful parents.

Am I right in assuming the "commissioning" parents in a surrogacy arrangement don't get assessed in this way? Sorry if I've misunderstood.

There is something chilling about this as a previous poster says. He created these embryos without having a surrogate.

Being removed from your mother at birth (even if he has deliberately obscured his baby's parentage by choosing an egg donor) is only very rarely in the baby's best interests. And being purchased by a man isn't one of these situations. I find it desperately sad that in all of these discussions around surrogacy that it is always the baby's needs that always come last to adult wants.

Be a coparent but you should never be able to buy a baby or rent a woman's body.

Am I reading this correctly ftom the article?

The child may not have a mother on their Birth Certificate?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

that would have been my right to do so for them. My body, my choice.

No. In many countries it isn't a right. Just like selling your organs isn't a "right". I think all surrogacy should be banned.

I agree. That article is all about him. There is no mention of the long term damage done when you take a baby away from its mother, or the deliberate attempt to destroy that bond by using eggs from one woman and the body of another. Surrogacy is utterly selfish, it is all about people who want a baby, not about the child or the mother. I think anyone this selfish is unfit for parenthood for a start, and that surrogacy is a disgusting way to treat women and babies. Would he think it ethical for buy a kidney I wonder ? Women and babies should not be commodities.

I'd ban surrogacy completely if I could.

Is this the guy who was on Woman's Hour this morning?

@HollowTalk

Is this the guy who was on Woman's Hour this morning?

I believe the guy on WH was called David, and the guy in this article is Stephen... how many does it take before it becomes a “thing”

@GretaGip it would appear so yes, though the surrogate mother and her husband in the case of the guy on woman's hour would have both names removed and his own, so yes it would appear that his child, baby Miles, is a child that has no mother.

That doesn't sound right does it? I wonder if her name remains and the BBC have got this wrong?

I'm also wondering if this single commissioning father has paternity leave extended or if he is teaching from home since he is in lock down, if not then the school would have had to change their policy to allow him extended paternity leave for what, up to a year like maternity leave? Maybe that's the next thing, equal rights for single fathers to have 'maternity' leave...

If not if this little baby boy in childcare whilst he teaches? Maybe his parents are leading in that desire being older and perhaps without the vaccine for part of that time.

The surrogate mother's words about treating her sons as equals and letting them have a say in a very adult decision with complex issues they couldn't possibly be expected to understand.

Inclusive parenting = letting your kids decide.

Just No! What women in her right mind would agree to have a child for a single man. I'd be amazed if he gets some poor woman to agree.

@OhHolyJesus

Yes, you're right about the language. I haven't engaged with his man's story at all so I was referring to the infertility stories I see frequently on threads here but that was unclear reading back.

What alternatives are there to situations where infertility doesn't apply? Is childlessness acceptable? Although I can see objections from the people experiencing that.. What a minefield.

I am so uncomfortable about surrogacy. I think the only time it's acceptable is if you do it for a close family member who is infertile. The woman on WH today just wanted to do some good in the world - I can't reconcile that desire with giving a stranger a baby, knowing that baby will grow up motherless.

Maybe that's the next thing, equal rights for single fathers to have 'maternity' leave...

The sad edge case where that definitely ought to pertain is when the mother dies in childbirth or during her maternity leave. There might be other cases where the mother is incapacitated for some reason. Is there currently any legal provision in those sort of unforeseen circumstances?

@jurr

@Jurassicperk infertility is a medical condition classified as such by the WHO. You don’t get to just airbrush it out as not existing to suit yourself.

Seems like a lot of women here ‘once they had their babies’ realised they are against surrogacy - how convenient.

I wonder if you would’ve reached the same views after 17 miscarriages like Rosanna Davidson!

I am not saying I’m in favour of surrogacy. I am not sure. But this blanket black and white view while you sit happily with your own children and have never experienced what it’s like to want a baby with every fibre of your being rankles me.

Also the ‘just adopt’. If adoption and having your own biological child are exactly the same why did any of you have children? There are plenty of children out there who need good homes. You could have given them a home instead of bringing more children into the world? Why didn’t you?

Also @Cattenberg There is no evidence that I have read that shows implanting an embryo in a woman with no fertility issues is higher risk. You can’t disentangle it as women who do ivf generally need it for a fertility based reason and that reason often makes them higher risk in pregnancy

A lot of women on here have firsthand experience of subfertility and infertility. Your characterisation is facile and inaccurate, to say the least.

@igiveyouanonion

Please read the full thread before calling me out on something that's incorrect. The OP rightly pointed out that infertility does not apply to this case (protecting the term for people who are experiencing the medical condition).

Incidentally, I have a disability that prevents me from safely carrying children. I've no idea if I'm infertile or not but I have a connective tissue disorder that means pregnancy could cause a major haemorrhage and kill me. I also risk passing my condition on to any biological child of mine. I have no children despite longing for a large, close family of my own like the one I grew up in.

It's still not a right to have children and I'm still against surrogacy in every single circumstance.

@Igiveyouanonion

(protecting the term for people who are experiencing the medical condition).
And my reply to that was regarding the terms that we could use when infertility is not the causal factor. Hence my example childessness.

@ErrolTheDragon can you explain what you mean? “Your characterisation is facile and inaccurate”

Many of the posters here have stated outright ‘once they had their children’ they realised they were against surrogacy. Again, very convenient.

Like I said I have not decided if I am for or against surrogacy. It may be something I need to do myself down the road and I will investigate and decide then. I don’t personally look at someone like Rosanna Davidson and think she was wrong to have a child via surrogacy after what she has been through. She seems very happy and her child will be well loved and extremely well looked after.

"This might be wrong, but I also might need to benefit from it, so I'll wait and see if it affects me"

Implying women on this board don't understand or care about actual infertility. Inaccurate. And your misunderstanding here is facile:

Many of the posters here have stated outright ‘once they had their children’ they realised they were against surrogacy. Again, very convenient.

No, not 'convenient'. The experience of having children deepens ones understanding of the needs of the child, as well as what pregnancy and parenthood entails.