Coronation Street

It's true, of course, that pregnancy and giving birth, are huge things in a woman's life (although surprisingly quickly forgotten where things have been straightforward).

I did say that I am sure parents of adopted children love their babies, but I stand by my belief in the genes thing. We are animals and still have the inborn insticts of the animal world. Nature's way of making sure the young are protected.

I appreciate it doesn't work out like that in cases.

Nice to have drawn you out of lurker mode em.

in all cases

MrsSB - he does come across as a bit thick!

Perhaps he still thinks it's all cut and dried and hasn't given any more thought to it.

Are there any men in Corrie who are not on the thick side j08?

Maybe Ken, but .....?

Nope! I've had a think, petallus and I can't think of any!

Roy's quite bright....

Oh yes!!! I like Roy.

I like Roy and Norris

Norris is shrewd!

Yes, Norris is a good character. Roy a bit creepy sometimes.

Norris has a very expressive face!

Isn't it a shame that the 'gene thing' seems to have no effect on the large number of men who lose all contact with their children after divorce? Of course, sometimes that is the fault of the mother, but not always.
On the other hand, I know a step-father who could not love his step children more if they were his biologically and they all adore him.

I believe its much more often the father who is denied contact with his child after divorce.

I think these days the courts make every effort to maintain the father/child relationship, sometimes with tragic results unfortunately.

I know of a few cases where the father was keen to keep in contact until he found a new partner.

Only being a mother Greatnan, I can only speak for mothers. I don't know if it is the same for fathers. I think so, going by immediate family.

I'm sorry I can't think of any more intelligent way of phrasing it than "gene thing". Perhaps age and other things are cutting in.

You think of something.

Not true-I know from my son's experience -- see F4J website

I can't speak about my son's personal experiences in child rearing. He is nowhere the point of fathering a child. (I bloody hope )

Still trying to catch up on Corrie after our holiday, but the whole surrogacy thing is interesting - I found this:

"The law says that the birth mother is the natural birth mother, whether she conceived the child naturally or artificially, and therefore has parental responsibility. Thus, the surrogate has the legal right to keep the child, even if it is not genetically related to her.

Surrogacy agreements are also unenforceable in UK courts. Even if a contract has been signed and the expenses of the surrogate have been paid, it is not legally enforceable. However, in practise the court system has been sympathetic towards intended parents who try to enforce a surrogacy arrangement.

The surrogate will be the legal mother of the child unless or until parenthood is transferred to the intended mother through a parental order or adoption of the child after the birth. As for who the father is, this is more complex. If the woman bearing the child is married, her husband is the father. The only exception to this is if he does not consent to having his name on the birth certificate. If he does not want to be named as the child’s father then the man who helped conceive the child can be named on the birth certificate. The other alternative is to transfer parenthood through a parental order or an adoption order, as with the mother. If neither person in the commissioning couple is genetically related to the baby, they cannot apply for a parental order and adoption is the only option available.

- See more at: http://solicitors.contactlaw.co.uk/family-law/what-are-the-laws-on-surrogacy"

So Tina could keep the baby. I don't think there is a genetic pull, as several GNs have pointed out, but how very, very hard for all concerned.

That's interesting Ariadne

The few surrogacy arrangements I have heard about involve a surrogate mother who already has children. It would also probably be advisable that everyone concerned does not live in the same street!

DH and I argue about Tina's motives. I think she is protective towards the child and doesn't think Izzy and Gary, now apart, will make good parents. DH disapproves of Tina and thinks she just wants the baby for herself, period.

I think the surrogacy law needs sorting out. I mean, it's Izzy's egg and wots-'is-name's sperm. There is absolutely nothing of Tina in that baby. Even the baby's blood stays separate while it's inside. She will feel so bad when she starts seeing Tina/Tina's dad in the baby's face.

And she'd have to tell the child at some point who his biological parents are - how hard would all that be for him to take on board?

There was a lady in hospital the same time as me when I had DD 25 yrs ago.
She had four children of her own and was carrying a child for someone else. I had not come across the situation before. But I admired her for what she was doing. I have often wondered how things are for them all.

Tina is wrong in my opinion.

I think Tina is wrong too but I do think Izzy should have tried again as I'm sure the Drs said she could.

Ooh heck! Watch out Dev!

Why is Dev constantly wearing that huge raincoat? Even in the house?