IVF embryo error, custody settlement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Her bio parents never gave her away either. But that's ok to you? They should just not have a chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Telling the birth parents "you can fight us in court, lose, and never see your child again, or sign this document that says you'll be allowed in its life" = "strongarming". Got it?

Do you know what a birth parent is?

You're being ridiculous. You get mad if they're called surrogates, you get mad if they're called "birth parents". I'm not going to call them biological parents to soothe your conscience. They're not.

No you’ve literally mixed up birth and genetic parents and seem to be calling the genetic parents the birth parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Her bio parents never gave her away either. But that's ok to you? They should just not have a chance?

None of it is “okay.” This was a horrible, negligent tragedy. Both sets of parents have equal and valid ties to the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Her bio parents never gave her away either. But that's ok to you? They should just not have a chance?

None of it is “okay.” This was a horrible, negligent tragedy. Both sets of parents have equal and valid ties to the child.

But they aren't equal. The people raising her have no genetic ties whatsoever it's purely emotional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1 These desperate childless parents wanted a baby by any means possible. They are putting their needs above the child's and that's what is absurd.

She carried a baby in her uterus that she genuinely believed was her own until she gave birth. I cannot believe people are blaming the birth mother for the situation.

I'm the one who said this is obvious but incredibly difficult. I don't blame her for the situation. I do think she's in a terrible situation not of her making, and I still think she's behaving unethically by keeping the child.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Her bio parents never gave her away either. But that's ok to you? They should just not have a chance?

None of it is “okay.” This was a horrible, negligent tragedy. Both sets of parents have equal and valid ties to the child.

Valid ties, yes. Equal, I disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

Just to be clear, you think taking a child from the woman who birthed, nursed, and raised her for six months won’t have any ill effects on the child?

I mean surrogacy is the same thing from the baby’s perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Her bio parents never gave her away either. But that's ok to you? They should just not have a chance?

None of it is “okay.” This was a horrible, negligent tragedy. Both sets of parents have equal and valid ties to the child.

But they aren't equal. The people raising her have no genetic ties whatsoever it's purely emotional.

Right she just grew in the birth mom’s womb for nine months and then the birth mom nursed and raised her. Screw that made up connection!

Also learn about epigentics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1 These desperate childless parents wanted a baby by any means possible. They are putting their needs above the child's and that's what is absurd.

She carried a baby in her uterus that she genuinely believed was her own until she gave birth. I cannot believe people are blaming the birth mother for the situation.

I'm the one who said this is obvious but incredibly difficult. I don't blame her for the situation. I do think she's in a terrible situation not of her making, and I still think she's behaving unethically by keeping the child.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

Just to be clear, you think taking a child from the woman who birthed, nursed, and raised her for six months won’t have any ill effects on the child?

I mean surrogacy is the same thing from the baby’s perspective.

Uh, no. It took months to track down the genetic parents. Surrogates don’t spend any time raising the children they birth.

But most people think surrogacy is also suboptimal and not ideal for the child. There is a real bond and attachment between the surrogate and the child that is severed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Her bio parents never gave her away either. But that's ok to you? They should just not have a chance?

None of it is “okay.” This was a horrible, negligent tragedy. Both sets of parents have equal and valid ties to the child.

But they aren't equal. The people raising her have no genetic ties whatsoever it's purely emotional.

Right she just grew in the birth mom’s womb for nine months and then the birth mom nursed and raised her. Screw that made up connection!

Also learn about epigentics.

Yes well screw it? They knew the second she was born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1 These desperate childless parents wanted a baby by any means possible. They are putting their needs above the child's and that's what is absurd.

She carried a baby in her uterus that she genuinely believed was her own until she gave birth. I cannot believe people are blaming the birth mother for the situation.

I'm the one who said this is obvious but incredibly difficult. I don't blame her for the situation. I do think she's in a terrible situation not of her making, and I still think she's behaving unethically by keeping the child.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1 These desperate childless parents wanted a baby by any means possible. They are putting their needs above the child's and that's what is absurd.

She carried a baby in her uterus that she genuinely believed was her own until she gave birth. I cannot believe people are blaming the birth mother for the situation.

I'm the one who said this is obvious but incredibly difficult. I don't blame her for the situation. I do think she's in a terrible situation not of her making, and I still think she's behaving unethically by keeping the child.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

No? I do disagree with non consensual, forced surrogacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

The genetic parents' lawyer said they were devastated to learn the law would not be on their side if they fought for custody.

The birth parents didn’t create “the law.” The law is what it is. And their lawyer was right. That doesn’t mean the birth family strong armed anyone.

Nobody said they created the law. Stop tilting at windmills. You asked if "anyone even [knew] if the genetic parents wanted another baby" and I told you how we know that they wanted THIS baby, which is their baby. The birthing parents made it clear they would fight for custody, the lawyers made it clear to the genetic parents that they would lose that fight, and trying to have any access to the child through a personal agreement to stay in its life was the only path forward. They were strongarmed.

Both families wanted the baby. The law said the birth mom gets the baby. Not strong arming. Just what the law is.

What a neat pivot from claiming they probably didn't even want the baby to "suck it up genetic parents, you lose."

You’re the one pivoting. The dispute is whether the birth family “strong armed” the genetic family.

Obviously they did. The law doesn't force them to keep her.

“Not giving the kid away” = “strong-arming”? Got it.

Her bio parents never gave her away either. But that's ok to you? They should just not have a chance?

None of it is “okay.” This was a horrible, negligent tragedy. Both sets of parents have equal and valid ties to the child.

But they aren't equal. The people raising her have no genetic ties whatsoever it's purely emotional.

Right she just grew in the birth mom’s womb for nine months and then the birth mom nursed and raised her. Screw that made up connection!

Also learn about epigentics.

Yes well screw it? They knew the second she was born.

It literally does not matter that she immediately knew at birth that there was mix up. She still carried and birthed the baby. And she had to raise the baby legally until she could track down the genetic parents, which took months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone here assume the birth family strong-armed the genetic parents? Is there any evidence of that? Does anyone even know if the genetic parents wanted another baby?

If you have embryos on ice there is always the chance of another baby. Nobody asked them for permission to use their embryo in the first place. This isn't a finders keepers situation. Do you have any kids of your own? Your detachment from genetic bonds is very odd.

This situation is a tragedy with no easy answers. Have you never given birth? Can you even imagine someone ripping away a child you always understood to be yours after carrying the child for nine months, having a traumatic delivery, and nursing the baby? The trauma of someone taking that child from me (exactly why I could NEVER be a surrogate).

Suggesting that the “obvious” or “easy” solution is that the birth parents should “give the baby back” is just absurd. Again, it’s a terrible situation with no easy answers.
Someone will be harmed no matter what decision is made.

DP but I think the answer is both obvious and incredibly difficult. The parents who are keeping this baby are doing the easy but unethical thing.

+1 These desperate childless parents wanted a baby by any means possible. They are putting their needs above the child's and that's what is absurd.

She carried a baby in her uterus that she genuinely believed was her own until she gave birth. I cannot believe people are blaming the birth mother for the situation.

I'm the one who said this is obvious but incredibly difficult. I don't blame her for the situation. I do think she's in a terrible situation not of her making, and I still think she's behaving unethically by keeping the child.

+1. I get her desperation, but it’s focused on just this time in the child’s life. The baby years are short. This child will be a teenager and an adult wondering about their genetic family and very likely have negative feelings about not being able to be raised by them.

As others have said, it’s a lose-lose situation, but I think the better choice would have been to give the child to their genetic family, assuming that’s what they wanted.

The genetic parents have visitation rights and will remain in the child’s life.

So you disagree with surrogacy?

No? I do disagree with non consensual, forced surrogacy.

Is forced embryo donation ok?