Surrogacy summed up in one photo

[Imnobody4]

This is absolutely chilling, twitter.com/liambrunetti/status/1540966900556959744?t=l6UnV24IZ7Kzv0-MrClalA&s=09

Can't see her face

Don't see the issue. Yeah, it's a bit tacky, but aside from that, the woman has chosen to do this. The baby will have two loving parents, the baby probably isn't the woman's anyway, and she's not part of the family.

People on here are always suggesting that women should take their child away from its dad. Double standards, as usual.

I got you beat

Theres quite a few on this list that is alarming but this is the worst

If you can’t read it, it says on the mens about about the new baby. On the woman’s, it just says uterus

link

Shame on them

@anystropheus alright! 1 in the background, 1 with her facing away from the dads with one of them holding her hand whilst looking at his husband,

1 of her holding her bump with their hands on it
1 in the background
1 in the forground alone
whilst the men are behind her
1 of all 3 together where the men are holding hands,
1 of them holding hands with her behind them. One of them holding pinky fingers with her behind them

So that makes 5 photos of her alone in the back ground

And she's happy enough with them all to post them on social media

Is that really the same two men??

Honestly, just pretend it's a man + a woman at the front if you must, and the photo becomes perfectly acceptable i.e. it's a photograph of the parents for their family album.

But with the baby in the background?

Blessed be the fruit.

Nope. Makes no difference.

That bit isn't the problem!!

It doesn't matter who the baby is going to, it matters that the maternal mother is in the back of the shot, cradling a bump full of baby she's giving away, looking down sadly with her face covered.

It just feels really insensitively set up.

And has a random pregnant woman just wandered into the background in this scenario? Or is that still someone they've paid to impregnate?

That's vile.

Talk about reducing a woman to cattle status.

It's a problem for me. Why would the pregnancy be in the background all blurry and just have the couple looking at each other like the baby doesn't matter.

I'm assuming the red dress wasn't deliberate, but it's a bit of an unfortunate choice!

Talk about reducing a woman to cattle status.

Yep. And reducing a baby to a commodity.

It would be lovely if she was front and centre.

But when the other woman is front and centre, her role is clearly defined. Uterus. Not so lovely.

i don’t know which picture is worse.

Regardless of the family the baby will be born into, it wouldn’t happen without the woman who is nurturing the baby.

I don’t think either photo is celebrating that.

There's other photos in the set where she's standing alongside the couple. But they are not the one which has been chosen to be shared by other people (who are not in the photo at all) on twitter an Mumsnet. I wonder why ..

You’re missing quite a lot.

There are photos like that in the set. But sharing them wouldn't cause maximum outrage would it?

To be fair, the Lawnmower family and The Prego family really don't deserve to be on that list.

I thought the whole set up was satirical.

I couldn’t care less if they’re kissing the woman or if she’s on their shoulders like a hero, surrogacy should be banned. It exploits women and treats children like commodities. A few ‘nicer’ photos , including the mother, (because she is the mother), doesn’t make this disgusting practice ok.

Oh yes. There are some on there that aren’t that bad. But some are just appalling