Researchers have created eggs from the cells of male mice, raising the prospect of male couples having their own children...

Why is it wrong for a woman to offer to carry a child for two people who desperately want one?

Same argument as used for a kidney or other body part as they become available I suppose.

I’m still interested in the rights of the child.

What a child with any condition knows is that their parent chose to keep them

I've always been interested in the rights of the child. Which right exactly do you think surrogacy doesn't adhere to Mollygo?

It's really another subject but I would like to know, if abortion of Downs syndrome babies was banned would women be forced to give birth to them? And what would happen if after the child was born the mother refused to accept the child?

glorianny this is what concerns me about banning abortion in any circumstance:

Families pushed into poverty

Parents forced to raise unwanted children

Parents who are unfit raising children

It's a disaster for children

Heidi Crowter would disagree with your POV of Down’s, Glorianny. She didn’t win her case but I imagine she still holds the same view today. www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/25/heidi-crowter-woman-downs-syndrome-loses-court-of-appeal-abortion-law-case?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Rosie said The baby has heard that woman's voice and heartbeat for 9 months, then they're taken away from that major source of comfort.
My son’s neighbours had a surrogate baby for the wife’s sister. After the baby was born he for some months consistently turned towards his birth mother whenever he heard her voice or could seemingly scent her presence.

Sadly the surrogate mother’s marriage broke down eventually due to her husband and older children’s unhappiness at the sibling/not sibling relationship in their lives.

I know lots of people would disagree with my views on abortion SueDonim. They are based on two things I honestly believe.
Firstly that every child should be a wanted child
Secondly that many women denied the right to a safe and legal abortion will resort to illegal and unsafe methods which have terrible consequences in some cases.

I have no doubt that some surrogacies are difficult, life is difficult.
I believe many surrogate mothers play the genetic parents' voices to the baby during their pregnancy to establish connections.

Thanks for that link SueDonim I do remember her case but didn't remember her name. It's heart rending to read how it makes her feel. I don't see that her perception of her right to exist is any different to Glorianny's proposed surrogate children's perception if surrogacy was made harder or even illegal.

And what would happen if after the child was born the mother refused to accept the child?
Not that I'm advocating for the banning of late abortions, but if Down syndrome was not an accepted reason for a very late abortion, then if the parents rejected the baby it would be offered for adoption just like any other child. Plenty of people have adopted babies with Down syndrome.
There have been recorded cases of a surrogate baby being rejected after its birth, particularly in USA.

I would never want to go back to pre legal abortion times. There will always be abortions, the difference is whether they're safe legal ones or dangerous back street ones. But there should be a strict limit on the number of weeks unless the mother's life is in danger. To deliberately end the life of a foetus at close to term is hardly what the abortion act was supposed to be about.

This is a somewhat disconcerting development with unknown ramifications, although probably a long way from being possible with human beings. It is not equivalent to IVF which uses naturally occurring gametes to combine in an artificial environment. Presumably, this is verging on the opposite. Implantation of a fertilised ovum in the uterus is, as we all know, a vital part of the process and, as we all know, the uterus is an organ in only the female body – for now, at least.

Glorianny

Children are permitted to discuss their origins and how they feel about them. Saying you would ban surrogacy is simply expressing prejudice about one group of people (in this case mostly children). It isn't just hurting someone's feelings to deny them the right to exist, it is dehumanising them And once it is done for one group of people it is easier to extend to another.

I didn't actually say surrogate children would be upset by the discussion about their existence. I said denying anyone the right to surrogacy would be discriminating against and targeting a particular group of children
The only parallel that could possibly be drawn would be if someone was proposing that all Downs syndrome children should be aborted.
Something I would certainly completely oppose but which is a logical view. If you ban one set of children from being born why not another?

The part of this scientific breakthrough which I am totally uncomfortable with is that they have artificially created an egg from male sperm/chromosomes.

This could be the beginning of a slippery road whereby humans are made for the convenience of others

I read a book many years ago whereby humans were made in a laboratory, gestated in a mechanical womb and kept alive in limbo in order to provide body parts, stem cells etc for those rich enough to pay…

If a gay male couple wish to use a surrogate they should have the same opportunities as a male/female couple where the female is unable to carry a child.

As I posted previously the above should come with a clause that the resulting child is informed and allowed to contact the surrogate if they wish to do so.

Are people who decide not to have children targeting a group of children who would never be born, are they denying their existence. Surrogacy is illegal in many countries because of the ethical issues.

Galaxy

Are people who decide not to have children targeting a group of children who would never be born, are they denying their existence. Surrogacy is illegal in many countries because of the ethical issues.

Can you deny the existence of people who don't exist? Is what you are actually asking.

Surrogacy is banned in many countries, and paid surrogacy in many more, are you saying these countries are denying childrens right to exist.
There are reasons that removing a child from its parents is something we try not to do. I am concerned about a policy that creates that situation.

Actually forms of surrogacy have existed for ever. There are numerous stories about babies smuggled in and out of birthing rooms.

All sorts of things have existed forever, something existing forever doesnt give it legitimacy so to speak.

Galaxy

Are people who decide not to have children targeting a group of children who would never be born, are they denying their existence. Surrogacy is illegal in many countries because of the ethical issues.

If the ethics of surrogacy could be sorted out, clear guidelines laid down in law for both the surrogates and the would be parents it could be all above board.

Uppermost should be the rights of the child and to ensure that the surrogate is not being exploited.

I was in the position of being an older mother who received tests back saying that my unborn child was highly likely to have Downs Syndrome. I could already feel my baby moving and decided to continue with the pregnancy with the full support of DH and family. I was fortunate that I delivered a healthy baby, not everyone is as lucky.

I would not like to live in a world where pregnant women are forced to continue with a pregnancy when the foetus is known to be either unlike to survive or be severely disabled, victim of rape or even failed contraception.

Well no of course not.
I think when money is involved you cant avoid explotation. It's why there are laws against selling kidneys etc.

I think it is a law which would be difficult if not impossible to administer if some people chose to ignore it. After all if one woman gives birth to a child for another couple, who would you punish and how? Take the baby into care? Fine the woman and the couple. Insist the birth mother keep the baby?
Nothing really helps does it?

The only parallel that could possibly be drawn would be if someone was proposing that all Downs syndrome children should be aborted.
Something I would certainly completely oppose but which is a logical view. If you ban one set of children from being born why not another?

Except that virtually every child with Down syndrome has been conceived naturally and is just an element of nature. You are deliberately destroying an actual foetus. Banning surrogacy does not destroy something already in existence. Do you consider contraception as "banning children from being born" in which case you already have your precedent.

Well most laws are difficult to enforce, it's why people break them. I will never support paid surrogacy, what I would be interested in is long term follow up of the children of those born to altruistic surrogacy and then we could look at what safeguards need to be in place. I think that was the theme from the programme on DNA testing, IVF, etc that these adults were given information that impacted them greatly and were just left to get on with it.

I don’t support the idea, because God made Male and Female for a reason. God made women to carry children, not men. But how can a male be carry a baby without having a WOMB? That is impossible. The world with sick ideas is going to ZERO.

VioletSky

I'm so angry about this

Furious

Why make it so men can procreate when us women could have got rid of the lot of them

👏👏👏 I'm with you VioletSky

When will scientists learn that nature knows best? It may be a ’good idea’ for now, but what of the long term effects?
Poor Dolly the sheep was riddled with arthritis. Scientists would be better researching how we can continue to live on the planet here and now, than going off into ridiculous fantasies.

I'm far from old-fashioned. Infact I am alot more the other way than most. This though just gives me the creeps