Rejected by 35 women - two men become fathers through surrogacy

[OhHolyJesus]

Apparently it's because they were gay but 35, really? Could there have been another reason at play?

I wonder if they are still in touch with the single mother who they 'bonded' with?

"After being turned down by over 35 different surrogates, we connected with a single mom who was ready to make the ultimate sacrifice to help give us the gift of being parents. It turns out, the beginning of the surrogacy process for a gestational carrier is often unpredictable. Medically preparing a woman’s uterus for successfully growing a child is not an easy task.
Already having formed a special bond with our surrogate, we were devastated when told her likelihood of being able to become pregnant through an embryo transfer was extremely low. It was time to seek out a new surrogate, and we were back at square one. After continued searching, we finally met Julie.

When we first met over lunch with her husband, we felt an instant connection.
We hit it off and we sailed through all the preliminary steps and started the steps (medications) to prepare Julie. Sadly, we discovered she was having similar problems to our first gestational carrier. We were starting to feel cursed. History seemed to be repeating itself when the doctor told us there was only a small chance this cycle would be successful.
We figured a chance is a chance, and two perfect embryos were implanted in Julie’s uterus, Bryce biologically connected to one and Jeffrey to the other. Then, it was time to wait. After boxes of pregnancy tests and some confirmation through bloodwork, we were pregnant! The transfer was a success!"

cafemom.com/news/surrogates-refuse-to-carry-babies-gay-dads

@LastRoloIsMine
It’s my understanding that they were turned down by surrogates. As in women who had already decided to be surrogates. Which, once again, I’m against.

@LastRoloIsMine

It is not homophobic for women to refuse to conceive and birth a child. There body their choice. No person on this earth deserves to be a parent at the expense of another no matter what their sexual orientation may be.

Amen.

Mumoblue

They were turned down by women. Not surrogates. Look at your language...

You are conflating women risking their life with the plight of 2 males who are unable to conceive Really?

@LastRoloIsMine

You seem to be missing my point. Maybe it’s intentional, maybe I worded it badly. Saying I think two things are bad does not mean I think they are equally bad or that I’m comparing them. They’re completely separate things.
I won’t keep on because this thread is about surrogacy so I don’t want to derail it.

Maybe I am missing the point. Maybe it's not clear.

Two males who are unable to conceive a child because they are male decided they wanted one so vetted women like cattle. They are male they have zero experience of the affects of pregnancy and birth. They viewed this like shopping for a kitchen. The human involved was nothing more than a set of requirements.
I see this as purely misogynistic.
You see homophobia too. Why?

@LastRoloIsMine

Maybe I am missing the point. Maybe it's not clear.

Two males who are unable to conceive a child because they are male decided they wanted one so vetted women like cattle. They are male they have zero experience of the affects of pregnancy and birth. They viewed this like shopping for a kitchen. The human involved was nothing more than a set of requirements.
I see this as purely misogynistic.
You see homophobia too. Why?

I do t mean to disrupt your debate, but I think the fact that these men have no idea what pregnancy and childbirth entails is important. Every time I pee myself when I sneeze, I think of my DCs.

Don't.

You can not want to be a surrogate for 2 men and still not be homophobic. You can be against surrogacy for gay men and not be homophobic.

@LastRoloIsMine

Four other people mentioned homophobia in this thread, so I’m not sure why my post set you off.
I didn’t mention anything about the vetting of women. I just said that THEY said they were turned down 35 times for being gay, which while I cannot verify as true, I would not have a hard time believing. It doesn’t mean I think they’re entitled to anything or that I’m comparing the issues. I’m not really wanting to have a barny about it tbh.

Back to the topic at hand, I actually at one point thought about being a surrogate. In my early 20s I thought if I had my own kids and found it an easy experience I’d want to help a family have a baby. It’s remarkable how views can change with experience. Having my son really opened my eyes to what a physical toll pregnancy takes on a person and also the instant bond I had with him. I looked at more surrogacy threads on here after that and totally had my eyes opened about it.

It was time to seek out a new surrogate

Oh just fuck off

There's something horrifyingly transactional about this, whether or not any money changed hands.

Four other people mentioned homophobia in this thread, so I’m not sure why my post set you off.

I am not a remote control car. I am not set off uncontrollably on a whim. Women who refuse to be surrogates for men are not homophobic.

That said I do apologise if I targeted you. I came back to the thread and yours was the first post I read. However my posts are directed at the other 3 also.

You accuse 35 women if being homophobic but overlook the misogyny of 2 males who believe women should risk their life their body and their mental health because you believe you deserve a baby.
Men don't know shit.

When we first met over lunch with her husband

So many men in this sentence.

Ok donors perfectly possible in a state that is deeply religious has 35 women ping there who are homophobic.

It's also possible that 35 women turned them down because even though they wanted to be surrogate mothers - for money or glory or whatever reason - they didn't agree to an unmediated natural birth.

What I have a problem with is framing it as the first point and not exploring it so we, as the reader, can't know.

The quote referring to their neighbour suggested that they found her comment homophobic when actually she sounded like she was paying them a compliment and recognising that primary care usually comes from the mother as she said 'maternal skills'. I don't think that's homophobic, it's not homophobic to think children have a mother, though these men may perceive it as such.

I was shocked that they seemed completely unaware of how their lives would change with newborn twins and again, no one really can envisaged how it feels, but what did they think was going to happen? Both twins would sleep at night and it would all be really easy?

The first woman who was to be 'their' surrogate mother, or rather, the birth mother to a child or children, will be long forgotten.

At least these twins will probably know who their birth mother is. It's not clear but I imagine they used two eggs from the same woman with each of their sperm so the twins shared a womb and a birth and a birth mother and have a genetic connection through the woman who have her eggs.

They would have no biological connection to Julie and her children.

The point is it doesn't actually matter if the 35 women are homophobic.

THEIR BODY THEIR CHOICE.

Nobody has rights to a womens body or her child.
It does not matter what her reasons are if we take away her body autonomy for 1 reason then we take away her autonomy for any reason.

I'm more shocked that Utah has over 35 women who actually offer to give birth to other people's babies than I am they turned down same sex partners.

^or in fact turned them down for other valid reasons

I just recently found this Instagram page for a US surrogacy agency.
One of the shocking things, scrolling through the pictures, is the number of twin pregnancies. I don't understand how CPs cannot realise that this is much more difficult and dangerous for the mother, but also for the babies they claim to want so much. In this case they were born at 34 weeks and needed to be in NICU for two weeks. It just seems like another thoughtless consume decision. I wonder how many surrogate mothers dare to refuse risking a twin pregnancy. No doubt it is sold as "we'll put two in and hope one takes, it'll improve the chances...". Then again, especially in the USA where a surrogate born baby can cost well over $100k getting two for the price of one must be irresistible.

instagram.com/pinkbluesurro?igshid=17fzwf9vqtfh6

Twins, twins, twins!

Well your not a good gestator unless you can produce a multiple birth...

Two things leap out to me. They wanted a twin pregnancy.

Multiple pregnancies are automatically high-risk pregnancies, both for the mother, and for the babies. The chances of premature birth, with all its risks for the babies, are markedly increased.

And oh look. "We were kinda pregnant for 34 weeks, but not really."

So, premature then. I'd say self-inflicted, but the essence of this issue is that the health effects of prematurity will be inflicted on the children, not the men who pushed for two embryos to be transferred.

Did they have a catalogue? Sounds like they certainly had a specific list of buyer's requirements. As PP's have pointed out they were seeking a woman prepared to carry out a highly risky procedure and (although not mentioned) I can well imagine that an unmedicated birth would be another of their requests. I mean giving birth to twins unmedicated is a massive labour of love if their your own and there's a huge emotional connection - why would you do that if you were about to detach yourself from the emotions of the process? If they requested an unmedicated birth of twins it's horrendous.

Not that they aren't her own, because that's the elephant in the bloody room.

@LastRoloIsMine

Well your not a good gestator unless you can produce a multiple birth...

Only if it's not medicated.

The "we were pregnant for 34 weeks" is like nails on a chalkboard.