Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Appalling Ukrainian surrogacy case

79 replies

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2024 07:45

https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/couple-face-spending-months-in-kyiv-to-claim-their-baby-h2fnqtn62
‘We’ll be trapped in a war zone’: couple face months in Kyiv to claim their baby
Fliss and Memet Demir are travelling to the Ukrainian capital, where a surrogate mother is due to deliver the child

Particularly appalling article on a surrogacy in Ukraine without any comment on the mother or the fact it's commercial surrogacy which is illegal here.

Couple can't have children because woman had cancer five years ago. She's still on hormone medication.

They sent embryos to Ukraine in 2021 but they were implanted only in Autumn last year.

They are whinging because the British government withdrew the emergency passport scheme for surrogate babies born in Ukraine to discourage the continued trade. So they now have to go to Ukraine and apply for a passport in person which might take 16 weeks and this is so awful because they might die. They have been told they won't be fast tracked and they should not travel to Ukraine by the government.

This emergency scheme was withdrawn in August. You'll note this is prior to the surrogate being implanted.

They didn't want to do surrogacy in the UK because
The couple were concerned about surrogacy in the UK, which has been long criticised for its poor legal framework. Demand also far outstrips supply because surrogates can not be paid except for expenses, so they turned to Ukraine, where surrogacy costs about £40,000 and their parental rights would be immediately acknowledged.

Natalie Gamble, a solicitor at NGA Law, a specialist reproduction firm, said Ukraine had been a popular choice for British parents before the Russian invasion because of its clear surrogacy laws and established agencies. In contrast, the “murky and fudged” UK law initially treats the surrogate and her spouse as parents, making everyone nervous, she said.

Two attempts to implant the couple’s embryos failed and, devastated, Demir and her husband explored surrogacy in the UK. They attended charity events to meet potential philanthropic surrogates, but said the process felt like speed dating.
^^
Mr Demir says: “They tell you to try and arrange social events, barbecues, to meet surrogates. The charity organising it, they say, ‘Fliss, you need to work on your social media profile, just put up pictures with nice people’. It just felt like a popularity contest.”

Demir was still going through treatment, and her body had started rejecting one of the breast implants. She was having weekly injections to remove a litre of fluid from the breast, and was rushed to A&E because of infections.

“I was so unwell, we were just broken,” she says. “And there’s all these fresh-faced lovely couples who also want a baby. The surrogate is going to pick them, not the woman who might die of cancer.”

They did not get a surrogate offer, and began to come to terms they would never have a child. War had broken out in Ukraine, and they feared their remaining two embryos were lost.

But in the autumn, after the situation stabilised, the surrogate agency got in touch with the option of trying again. Demir recalls: “We thought, it’s our final chance, what have we got to lose? Desperate people do desperate things.”

So no thought to the surrogate and just how exploitative this is. Or the risk to their unborn child.

Just a tantrum that THEY will now have to travel to Ukraine and won't get special treatment and how it's dreadfully unfair to their British daughter that they have to wait up to 16 weeks for a passport

Plenty of time to reflect on conditions when they've been told

Doctors have asked that they bring everything for their baby, including bed sheets, because supplies are scarce. The couple, who have never been to Ukraine, chose a hotel because it had a generator and a bomb shelter.

Of course 16 weeks in Ukraine is not acceptable for them because the wife can only get 3 months of hormone therapy from the NHS. And this is putting her health as risk.

Nothing about the conditions their daughter will be born in and how risky / awful that might be for the mother. It was perfectly fine for their daughter to be at risk from the war during the pregnancy, but it's somehow dreadful that they have to go there themselves and wait around.

If Ukraine is good enough for them to have a surrogacy pregnancy in, then it's good enough for them to travel to as well. Who deliberately creates a baby in these circumstances and then has the brass neck to complain that they will also have to experience the war zone first hand.

The staggering selfishness is off the scale. The article doesn't reflect on it at all - just that our surrogacy laws aren't lax enough so it's driving couples abroad.

If we tightened our laws here to recognise this as people trafficking then maybe that would give pause for thought because these 'respectable' couples go abroad because our lax laws allow us to do so. We should and could criminalise this. 'Respectable couples' are precisely the ones who should be clamped down on precisely because they are less likely to try and damage their status by acting in a criminal manner.

On the plus side I'm glad the government has said no fuck off to special treatment - they withdrew the emergency scheme to stop twats like this for good reason. These dickheads made a choice to go ahead in the middle of a war after the scheme was withdrawn so I'm all out of fucks to give to them.

At least the article may act as a deterrent for others. That's the only positive.

Monsters.

‘We’ll be trapped in a war zone’: couple face months in Kyiv to claim their baby

Fliss and Memet Demir are travelling to the Ukrainian capital, where a surrogate mother is due to deliver the child

https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/couple-face-spending-months-in-kyiv-to-claim-their-baby-h2fnqtn62

OP posts:
Squigwords · 08/06/2024 07:49

No sympathy from me.

InvisibleBuffy · 08/06/2024 07:53

They come across as incredibly entitled and lacking in empathy.
And agree with your comment about it being people trafficking. It should be criminalised.

ResisterRex · 08/06/2024 07:53

The Times seems to have a track record with these kinds of articles on this topic. It's concerning. They never seem to look at it from any other angle. Why?

sheroku · 08/06/2024 08:25

All I can think about is that somewhere right now is a woman heavily pregnant in a war zone. She'll risk her life giving birth and then hand that baby over to two people she doesn't know for 40k. It really is Handmaids Tale type stuff and I'm at least glad these two will have to experience some of it.

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2024 08:26

sheroku · 08/06/2024 08:25

All I can think about is that somewhere right now is a woman heavily pregnant in a war zone. She'll risk her life giving birth and then hand that baby over to two people she doesn't know for 40k. It really is Handmaids Tale type stuff and I'm at least glad these two will have to experience some of it.

Wrong.

She will get a fraction of the £40k. The agency will take a significant cut for themselves first.

OP posts:
TheClogLady · 08/06/2024 08:27

Imagine having the gall to buy a newborn baby from a woman in a war zone and then bleat to the media about how the government aren’t keen on helping you with your human trafficking project.

Justonemoresleep · 08/06/2024 08:31

TheClogLady · 08/06/2024 08:27

Imagine having the gall to buy a newborn baby from a woman in a war zone and then bleat to the media about how the government aren’t keen on helping you with your human trafficking project.

This.

DrJump · 08/06/2024 08:31

Arseholes. Really just absolutely arsehole behaviour. As if that woman isn't going though enough living in a country at war but to get her pregnant and then take the baby. Also that baby that poor baby. The level of stress to that poor baby. Arseholes.

MagnetCarHair · 08/06/2024 08:34

People who utilize other women's bodies to purchase a baby who will be uncoupled from their dyadic relationship with her mother and her home land, behave like self interested, myopic arseholes, shocker.

3peassuit · 08/06/2024 08:39

Thoughtless and selfish.

NotBadConsidering · 08/06/2024 08:44

Monsters.

100%. The smiling, Nurse Ratched kind of monster, convinced they’re the good guys of the story.

PTSDBarbiegirl · 08/06/2024 08:45

Puppies and kittens aren't allowed to be sold at birth. Poor little baby, I wish this was illegal.

DancefloorAcrobatics · 08/06/2024 08:47

How can something like this even make the news?
The story should be about the poor woman in a war zone being pregnant with limited access to health care and no money for essentials like food and shelter....

Teamsaction · 08/06/2024 08:50

DancefloorAcrobatics · 08/06/2024 08:47

How can something like this even make the news?
The story should be about the poor woman in a war zone being pregnant with limited access to health care and no money for essentials like food and shelter....

This.

BadSkiingMum · 08/06/2024 08:54

I do actually feel sorry for the woman on some levels because what she has been through in terms of illness is horrific. But I know how infertility can become all consuming, dominate your thoughts and distort all other considerations.

But I still don’t generally agree with surrogacy and what they are planning is wrong and utterly exploitative in a war-torn country.

I can hold both positions in my mind somehow.

DramaLlamaBangBang · 08/06/2024 08:56

I mean, did they not think this wasxa bad idea? The war has been raging for 2 years. They didn't even think about bringing her over to the UK for safety. I mean, it's devastating for her thst she couldn't have children, but if the alternative to just coming to terms with it is yo exploit a eomannin a war zone, then I'm afraid she shoukd have spent the money in counselling.

MumChp · 08/06/2024 08:59

They choose to have surrogat baby in a war zone and now they cry? Come on...

BeaFuddled · 08/06/2024 09:02

Surrogacy is disgusting but the UK government should ban buying babies from abroad. As they're not prepared to do that, then they should fast track the baby's passport so she gets to a place of safety ASAP.

The parents are going to have some uncomfortable conversations when the child grows up.

TWETMIRF · 08/06/2024 09:04

I truly believe that people who think it's ok to buy babies should not be parents. It's child abuse to take a baby away from its mother at birth and these people won't care about that at all. Utterly sick

heathspeedwell · 08/06/2024 09:08

@TWETMIRF I absolutely agree. They don't sound as if they are considering their child's welfare at all - let along the welfare of the poor surrogate mother.

LettuceTruss · 08/06/2024 09:32

Through a previous job I met a few families who had had babies through a surrogate in Ukraine. None of them had any regard for the woman who had given birth whatsoever. They were only focused on the child and sending the woman back to a war zone as soon as possible. One couple even faked the pregnancy with fake bumps and photos in the hospital, complete with hospital gown. Allegedly in U.K., but if you zoomed in on the baby’s hospital bracelet, you could see that it was in Cyrillic.

PurpleWhiteGreen123 · 08/06/2024 09:35

The phrase philanthropic surrogates gets me. WTAF?

No sympathy from me, either.

WickedSerious · 08/06/2024 09:48

Diddums.

AlisonDonut · 08/06/2024 09:53

I genuinely think if I wrote what I want to write about surrogacy I'd be banned.

Absolutely no care in the world for what they are doing or who they are doing it to.

Imnobody4 · 08/06/2024 10:13

I'm heartened by the comments below the Times article. Everyone is equally critical.
One says, 'The Times should be reporting on the poor women exploited in a war torn country to sell their bodies.'

I hope they take note.

Swipe left for the next trending thread