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

I'm not surprised that there are many women in Utah who are surrogates-Mormonism sees women as vessels for motherhood...and there's an idea of multiple heavenly mothers. While I'm sure there's homophobia, there's also deeply engrained patriarchal and a woman's role is to have babies...so I'm sure plenty of women could be convinced to offer up their bodies as they may have been brought up to see pregnancy as THE role of women. Technically the LDS church is against it, but Mitt Romney's son (Romney is respected Republican Senator) had twins via surrogacy so clearly it's not a conflict.

www.politico.com/story/2012/05/romneys-son-has-twin-boys-through-surrogate-075939

*patriarchal culture

@Delphinium20

*patriarchal culture

Yup. I'm just boosting.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

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.

Twins and different fathers.

It's sounds like they're making a bespoke order at McDonald's, not putting a woman through a life threatening experience.

Men cannot be pregnant, even when they're buying babies

Our sweet neighbor mentioned the other day how she was so impressed we’d learned "motherly instincts" as fathers. Haha.
We were a little offended, but she had good intentions. She meant well.

Oh the irony of THEM being offended when they throw around terms like "gestational carrier".

@SulisMinerva

‘Gestational carrier’ - that is a fucking awful phrase! Made me feel sick reading that...like the woman is just a handy short-term container.

I stoped reading at that. Bleugh.

A baby is not a right. So many children need adoptive parents.

I'm also guessing that the "rejection" was based on a number of their requests including:

• a "twin" pregnancy (increased risk to mother and babies)
• that used embryos from different fathers (massively increased risk to babies and possibly mother)
• apparently a strong preference for an unmedicated birth (stupidly risky with twins, plus a serious indicator of their lack of consideration for the mother)

The fact they are so blasé about the twins being 34 weeks and premature makes me think they're pretty oblivious to the realities of pregnancy as well.

I can't help thinking that men - gay or straight - looking for "surrogates" - aka women - to gestate babies for them would jump at an artificial substitute if one became available. And at some point, no doubt it will, as foretold in Huxley's 'Brave New World'.

There is something breathtaking in the entitlement and commodification wrapped up in the whole surrogacy business. I can understand a close friend or sister offering altruistically to carry a child for a woman who is infertile or suffered recurrent pregnancy loss or a hysterectomy, but there is a real danger of men exploiting or ultimately commandeering the bodily functions of poor and vulnerable women and seeing it as their right.

We see it with prostitution, with sexual harassment and assault, with 'wifework' already. Women are widely regarded as service humans and surrogacy is one aspect.

I'm not surprised that there are many women in Utah who are surrogates-Mormonism sees women as vessels for motherhood...and there's an idea of multiple heavenly mothers. While I'm sure there's homophobia, there's also deeply engrained patriarchal and a woman's role is to have babies...so I'm sure plenty of women could be convinced to offer up their bodies as they may have been brought up to see pregnancy as THE role of women.

It's interesting in the context of a very patriarchal society. I assume many of these women are married. I find it amazing that even within a liberal society that so many husbands seem to be happy to go along with it. A surrogate pregnancy means a partner/husband has to deal with many of the downsides of pregnancy, supporting his wife, helping with childcare, probably getting a lot less sex all for another man/men. (Yes obv in some cases there will be a female commissioning parent but I'm thinking about the men here). I very much see it as loaning your wife's body to another man. Iirc (and my knowledge and memory are shaky here) but I think the Catholic Church opposes surrogacy as it sees it as being unfaithful within a marriage. They oppose IVF anyway so I suppose the having a baby for another man is another layer of their opposition.

I'm on my phone and late for work so will have to come back to this. But I'm thinking in the direction of men just generally not understanding what pregnancy entails and within a society such as in Utah the men just having the attitude very much of women as breeders. Interesting that they are happy to share it around though.

'The ultimate sacrifice' is a phrase that has a specific meaning: to die for a cause.

They need to be more careful about the hyperbolic words they use.

Why do they want surrogacy? Only one of them will be the father which I would find odd, unless maybe they get two but yea, still odd to me, and they don't know the mother either. I would adopt if I were gay. So many kids in the world that could use parents.

My thoughts exactly. Most twin births are C-sections, for safety of both babies and mother. Not a factor, apparently.

Especially in the States where births are more medicalised. That doesn't sound like a coincidence..

I remember a grey-faced woman in my antenatal classes whose husband banged on for hours about how 'they' wanted a natural birth and 'they' were going to avoid drugs. SHE had a shit birth that was highly medicated because that is what was called for. I often think of her and how she thinks of the birth. I feel great about mine, which went the same way. Best for me and DD. DH didn't get a vote (except for being pretty glad I got the epidural in the end because he didn't like seeing me in pain). The only man involved in the decision was the surgeon who was very supportive of it being my choice (even though DD wasn't coming out any other way than section).

Only one of them will be the father which I would find odd, unless maybe they get two

Part of the medical screening seems to be that they want the surrogate mother to carry embryos from both partners at the same time. Fitness to carry a twin birth, plus the notionally increased immunological risk of carrying what might be very different foetuses is not necessarily that straightforward to identify.

Presumably there are plans to monitor any emotional fall out if the embryos of only one partner implant or flourish.

They want the surrogate to carry twins? But they won't really be twins, because the father will be different. So bizarre.

They will still be twins, which actually refers to being gestated and birthed together. You could put two completely unrelated embryos in and they would be twins.

@swimlittlefishy

They will still be twins, which actually refers to being gestated and birthed together. You could put two completely unrelated embryos in and they would be twins.

I think it's more a two-for-one offer than truly twins.

Oh Clymene! You had me laughing so out loud at that my husband thought I'd choked! Please, can I use that?

bespoke order at McDonald's

@LastRoloIsMine

We hit it off and we sailed through all the preliminary steps and started the steps (medications) to prepare Julie.

So they were upset this vessel they had bought may not preform just like their last one and they may have to buy again...prepare Julie??
My dad was a farmer and he would talk about heifers in a similar tone.

Yes. The woman here is being talked of as if she is a passive animal. Or an object.

The more I read and hear about surrogacy, the more I feel it is anti-feminist. And gay men who go down the surrogacy route get away with it because far too many people feel it would be homophobic to object.

Of course this couple "sailed through all the preliminary steps". . . it's not their body that is carrying the pregnancy and all of the risks!

Of course this couple "sailed through all the preliminary steps". . . it's not their body that is carrying the pregnancy and all of the risks!

Absolutely Turquoise, though I think the preliminary steps were probably the surrogacy agency doing the matching or perhaps they are referring to the contractual stage.

I find it difficult to see how homophobic Utah can be if a surrogacy agency was involved and lawyers were able to process this surrogacy for two gay men. They reference the law changing and how they had to work at speed to get it done, but they managed it with the difficulty in having 35 women 'reject' them, the time it took to find a willing women, and the time it took for a pregnancy to result in a live birth, it must have taken a while. I guess the law reform wasn't as dramatic and pressing as they first thought.

The article is written by them so it won't be balanced, it's not even journalism (loose on facts and details), but this is the sort of thing that happens around surrogacy all the time. I miss proper journalism.

I would have liked to have heard from Julie, the previous woman they 'matched' with and quite honestly the 35 women who apparently rejected these two men based on their homophobia.

The more I read and hear about surrogacy, the more I feel it is anti-feminist.

Me too, though 'choice feminists' are all for it. Body autonomy you see? A woman must be allowed to do with her body what she wishes, even if it involves another 'body', another human life.

Part of the medical screening seems to be that they want the surrogate mother to carry embryos from both partners at the same time. Fitness to carry a twin birth, plus the notionally increased immunological risk of carrying what might be very different foetuses is not necessarily that straightforward to identify.

This seems to be an increasingly popular option with gay couples. They want one each. No thought or concern for the woman carrying twins which also increases risks to those babies they say they want so badly.

As regards whether the risks of a twin pregnancy are further increased by carrying genetically different foetuses - does anyone know if this is the case or if there is any research into this? It would certainly seem likely. I'm not sure anyone is keeping records or doing sensible research into these things.

@FannyCann

I'm not surprised that there are many women in Utah who are surrogates-Mormonism sees women as vessels for motherhood...and there's an idea of multiple heavenly mothers. While I'm sure there's homophobia, there's also deeply engrained patriarchal and a woman's role is to have babies...so I'm sure plenty of women could be convinced to offer up their bodies as they may have been brought up to see pregnancy as THE role of women.

It's interesting in the context of a very patriarchal society. I assume many of these women are married. I find it amazing that even within a liberal society that so many husbands seem to be happy to go along with it. A surrogate pregnancy means a partner/husband has to deal with many of the downsides of pregnancy, supporting his wife, helping with childcare, probably getting a lot less sex all for another man/men. (Yes obv in some cases there will be a female commissioning parent but I'm thinking about the men here). I very much see it as loaning your wife's body to another man. Iirc (and my knowledge and memory are shaky here) but I think the Catholic Church opposes surrogacy as it sees it as being unfaithful within a marriage. They oppose IVF anyway so I suppose the having a baby for another man is another layer of their opposition.

I'm on my phone and late for work so will have to come back to this. But I'm thinking in the direction of men just generally not understanding what pregnancy entails and within a society such as in Utah the men just having the attitude very much of women as breeders. Interesting that they are happy to share it around though.

I think you're right. The more I read stuff like this, the more i feel that men just don't understand pregnancy at all. More than that, that far too many of them are severely short on empathy. The men who wrote the above article don't even seem to grasp that women are fully human.

The women as breeders thing is still very much alive. And religion (most religions, at least) have had a large role to play in that perception.