Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed it all the way, but I remember being shocked that they located the biological parents and they didn't choose to sue for custody. I get why it's not the birth couple's fault, but I couldn't be so generous.
I went through IVF and I can't imagine being either couple in this scenario.
I think it was a very loving choice by the genetic parents. They didn't want to take a baby from the only family it has known or put parents who had bonded with and carried a baby through the pain of loss.
Well sure, I called it generous. I just couldn't do it.
+1
Maybe the couple "lucked out" in the sense that the biological parents had already completed their family, and it was a surplus embryo. We're not given any details but it could be something along those lines.
Is that actually lucky? Can you imagine being the biological couple’s other children and knowing that your parents would just give your siblings away? It would make me feel very disposable.
Anonymous wrote:The article I read said that the clinic fertilized the wrong egg. So the bio dad is the husband of the wife who birthed the baby. Is that incorrect? But yes, it is unclear what role the biological mother will play and it’s really none of our business.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed it all the way, but I remember being shocked that they located the biological parents and they didn't choose to sue for custody. I get why it's not the birth couple's fault, but I couldn't be so generous.
I went through IVF and I can't imagine being either couple in this scenario.
I think it was a very loving choice by the genetic parents. They didn't want to take a baby from the only family it has known or put parents who had bonded with and carried a baby through the pain of loss.
Well sure, I called it generous. I just couldn't do it.
+1
Maybe the couple "lucked out" in the sense that the biological parents had already completed their family, and it was a surplus embryo. We're not given any details but it could be something along those lines.
Is that actually lucky? Can you imagine being the biological couple’s other children and knowing that your parents would just give your siblings away? It would make me feel very disposable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed it all the way, but I remember being shocked that they located the biological parents and they didn't choose to sue for custody. I get why it's not the birth couple's fault, but I couldn't be so generous.
I went through IVF and I can't imagine being either couple in this scenario.
I think it was a very loving choice by the genetic parents. They didn't want to take a baby from the only family it has known or put parents who had bonded with and carried a baby through the pain of loss.
Well sure, I called it generous. I just couldn't do it.
+1
Maybe the couple "lucked out" in the sense that the biological parents had already completed their family, and it was a surplus embryo. We're not given any details but it could be something along those lines.
Is that actually lucky? Can you imagine being the biological couple’s other children and knowing that your parents would just give your siblings away? It would make me feel very disposable.
Could you imagine being the baby and when you grow up realizing your bio parents said, no thanks.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I haven't followed it all the way, but I remember being shocked that they located the biological parents and they didn't choose to sue for custody. I get why it's not the birth couple's fault, but I couldn't be so generous.
I went through IVF and I can't imagine being either couple in this scenario.
I think it was a very loving choice by the genetic parents. They didn't want to take a baby from the only family it has known or put parents who had bonded with and carried a baby through the pain of loss.
Well sure, I called it generous. I just couldn't do it.
+1
Maybe the couple "lucked out" in the sense that the biological parents had already completed their family, and it was a surplus embryo. We're not given any details but it could be something along those lines.
Is that actually lucky? Can you imagine being the biological couple’s other children and knowing that your parents would just give your siblings away? It would make me feel very disposable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.
This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.
If that’s not surrogacy, what is?
If that was true we would consider women who use donor eggs surrogates, and we don’t. Surrogacy is when you intentionally create a pregnancy and carry it to term with the intention that it will be raised by someone else.
Surrogacy also involves a legal contract.
An embryo is not a new born infant. You cannot even compare the 2.
A woman is not a baby machine either. She carried the baby to term and is the natural and the legal mother.
I know this is hard if you’re the family that lost an embryo. There is a world of a difference in losing an embryo and losing your one and only child you just gave birth to.
That's not what the law says, though.
This is what the law says. Surrogacy disputes are all centered around the legal contract
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.
This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.
If that’s not surrogacy, what is?
If that was true we would consider women who use donor eggs surrogates, and we don’t. Surrogacy is when you intentionally create a pregnancy and carry it to term with the intention that it will be raised by someone else.
Surrogacy also involves a legal contract.
An embryo is not a new born infant. You cannot even compare the 2.
A woman is not a baby machine either. She carried the baby to term and is the natural and the legal mother.
I know this is hard if you’re the family that lost an embryo. There is a world of a difference in losing an embryo and losing your one and only child you just gave birth to.
That's not what the law says, though.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.
This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.
If that’s not surrogacy, what is?
If that was true we would consider women who use donor eggs surrogates, and we don’t. Surrogacy is when you intentionally create a pregnancy and carry it to term with the intention that it will be raised by someone else.
Surrogacy also involves a legal contract.
An embryo is not a new born infant. You cannot even compare the 2.
A woman is not a baby machine either. She carried the baby to term and is the natural and the legal mother.
I know this is hard if you’re the family that lost an embryo. There is a world of a difference in losing an embryo and losing your one and only child you just gave birth to.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.
This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.
If that’s not surrogacy, what is?
If that was true we would consider women who use donor eggs surrogates, and we don’t. Surrogacy is when you intentionally create a pregnancy and carry it to term with the intention that it will be raised by someone else.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.
This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.
If that’s not surrogacy, what is?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.
This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.
If that’s not surrogacy, what is?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Both are the biological parents as the woman who carried the baby is also connected, just as much if not more. Courts do crazy things. The child belongs to the woman who carried it. This wasn't a surrogacy.
This is literally the definition of surrogacy. A woman carried another couple’s embryo and gave birth to a healthy baby with no genetic connection to herself.
If that’s not surrogacy, what is?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Has anyone been following the story of the couple who mistakenly received an embryo that was not their own, then pursued custody after the infant (different race/ethnicity) was born? Amazingly they will have primary custody of the now six-month-old child. If I were the biological parents, I would not have been able to agree to that, but I guess I'm happy for the couple that it worked out the way they hoped.
https://people.com/couple-ivf-embryo-mixup-reach-custody-agreement-daughters-biological-parents-11998206
The biological parents did not want custody.
Where does it say that? They could be sharing custody.