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.

+1. I am sure it would be incredibly painful, yet I would do the same if I were in this situation.

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:

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?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.

How kind to give her parents access. These people are horrendous and selfish. This isn't their baby.

This is her child.

No, it’s really not. Everyone knows this.

She carried and gave birth. She’s on the birth certificate. Her child.

Yeah sure. Would you tell your kid that and never be honest?

We adopted and my kid knows everything, good and bad. We are very honest, are you?

I have no reason to lie. Obfuscating facts and pointing to birth certificates is a lot of gaslighting.

Its not lying to have the parents name on a birth certificate.

Birth certificates can be changed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

Were you in a custody dispute with the bio parents?

That was never the question and has no bearing on the birth mother's physical connection to the child.

The parents themselves said they had an emotional connection not a physical one. This case has nothing to do with your personal situation.

So they wanted to exchange the babies but once they learned the South Asian couple didn’t have a baby (their baby) they wanted at least the keep the one they had?
What happened to their embryo though?
What a mess…

Stolen means taking without consent.

Tiffany Score has stolen another women's child. There is no other words to describe what happened.

If you purchase a car and fix it up investing time and money into the car and it is later found to be stolen you lose the car. It doesn't magically make it yours because it was in your possession.

A similar situation happened in 2019 in New York City. A California couple, the Manukyans, sought in-vitro fertilization (IVF) at CHA Fertility Center. The clinic wrongfully implanted not only the Manukyans' embryos into a New York woman but another embryo as well

The New York woman thought she was carrying her own embryos and gave birth to twins who were not genetically related to her or her husband. They realized it because the are Korean- American and neither twin looked Korean.

DNA tests eventually revealed that one of the twin boys belonged to the Manukyans, while the other belonged to a third couple. When it all got sorted out months later, the Korean-American women had to give up custody of each twin back to their biological parents.

It is only because this case happened in Florida that the biological parents can't get their child back.

In general more liberal states with women's rights favor intent and genetics and in those states the baby would have gone to the biological parents, while in conservative states the baby gets to stay with the gestational carrier.

These states all have adopted modern updates to the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) or rely on strong case law that determines parentage based on the intent to create a child. Because the birth parents never intended to have another couple's baby, and the biological parents did intend to create and raise their genetic child, the law favors the biological parents : New York, Colorado, Washington, New Jersey.

These states all have genetics first laws where biological parents would get their child back: CA, TX

The states that most closely mirror Florida—where a gestational carrier is almost certain to retain legal custody of the baby in a clinic mix-up if she wants to—are Arizona, Virginia, Nebraska, and Indiana.

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:

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?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.

How kind to give her parents access. These people are horrendous and selfish. This isn't their baby.

This is her child.

No, it’s really not. Everyone knows this.

She carried and gave birth. She’s on the birth certificate. Her child.

Yeah sure. Would you tell your kid that and never be honest?

We adopted and my kid knows everything, good and bad. We are very honest, are you?

I have no reason to lie. Obfuscating facts and pointing to birth certificates is a lot of gaslighting.

Its not lying to have the parents name on a birth certificate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

Were you in a custody dispute with the bio parents?

That was never the question and has no bearing on the birth mother's physical connection to the child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

I’m sure you very badly want to believe that, but it simply isn’t true in any appreciable way.

No. I really don't care. I had always wanted to adopt because I didn't care much about genetics and thought it was ethical/noble, but as I read more about the adoption industry, I realized I had a ton of ethical concerns and fears about buying a baby. My spouse didn't want to carry, so I did, and my insurance covered RIVF.

But in genuinely is beyond dispute that the womb environment permanently alters the child epigenetically. That doesn't mean that my child inherited my genes. But it does mean my child is physically changed because of my uterus.

https://www.jogcr.com/article_697385_49e2e3d851d61ded1c6f0286b9bcda40.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That makes sense. It just doesn't compute otherwise.

Computes if the other couple only wanted a baby who would have them both as bio parents. Not the other couple’s husband

This baby is not genetically related to the white couple at all.

Someone wrote they fertilized the wrong egg which made me to conclude the white guy is the bio father?

No he’s not.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That makes sense. It just doesn't compute otherwise.

Computes if the other couple only wanted a baby who would have them both as bio parents. Not the other couple’s husband

This baby is not genetically related to the white couple at all.

Someone wrote they fertilized the wrong egg which made me to conclude the white guy is the bio father?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bio mom whose egg was used is not a parent, never was
Neither is that child a sibling of some unknown person who they have never met.
It’s just genetics. Not ownership. People are not possessions

No, it isn't just that simple. There will always be a biological pull and you can't take away tens of thousands of years of evolution. You can't magically erase that. It becomes even more complicated when a child is of a different race than the adoptive parents. It can be hard for a child of color to grow up with white parents and it makes it harder knowing you have parents and a biological sibling who looks like you do.

The couple who got custody never should have publicly identified themselves and certainly shouldn't have agreed to post a picture of their family.

Surrogacy with donor embryos is 41 years old. I don’t think evolution has caught up such that a kid knows on some instinctual level that the woman who birthed her isn’t her biological mom.

I don’t dispute that transracial adoption is very challenging on adoptees. But let’s not throw in pseudoscience about a genetic pull toward biology in this type of situation, absent citation.

By the time that kid is three she is going to know she looks nothing like her parents. I would assume the biological parents have other children because if not they would have fought tooth and nail for this baby. So as the child grows up it isn't like in many adoptions the birth mother is unable to take care of the child or the birth family is unstable or the parents willingly gave up their child. The later article said the birth family is South Asian. The baby is losing her culture and will realize it.

Dp.
The baby does look S Asian to me but I thought she was black?
If the other couple is South Asian and the father is not one of the couple, then it all tracks. They want a South Asian baby

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

I’m sure you very badly want to believe that, but it simply isn’t true in any appreciable way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic parents realized the law was not on their side and it would likely be a costly and unsuccessful lawsuit to win custody so they agreed to this arrangement to be allowed to stay in the child’s life. It is very sad for the genetic parents.

The birth mother has said the genetic parents are staying a part of their shared child’s life.

I suppose we will ignore epigenetics, because in a very real sense, both mothers are genetic parents.

Epigenetics are a real thing, but the subject has been grossly distorted and misrepresented to make infertile women who purchase other women's eggs feel better about it.

I did RIVF, so I carried a baby not related to me but didn't "purchase" anyone's eggs. I feel a strong physical connection to my child despite the lack of genetic relationship.

Sure. I'm not saying otherwise. But as you acknowledged, the child has no genetic connection to you. I'm not diminishing your love for your kid, but the people who push the epigenetics myth assert that by carrying the child, you create a genetic relationship to the child.

We have a physical and genetic connection. I am also not a bio parent.

I have no idea what your specific circumstances are, but if your child was created from the egg of someone who is not you or is not genetically related to you, you have no genetic connection to your child. That doesn't diminish your love and emotional connection at all, but the fact remains.

I'm not infertile or delusional. We're not genetically related, and I am not the biological parent. But my carrying my child had a permanent physical impact on my child's genetic expression. That is beyond dispute.

Were you in a custody dispute with the bio parents?

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.

That makes sense. It just doesn't compute otherwise.

Computes if the other couple only wanted a baby who would have them both as bio parents. Not the other couple’s husband

This baby is not genetically related to the white couple at all.

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:

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?

No! Neither is okay! As explained repeatedly, both sets of parents are real and valid parents with real and valid ties to the child. To act like what’s in the best interest of the child is an easy or obvious decision here is ridiculous.

Doing the right thing is not always easy now they will have an awkward custody situation.

All options are bad. No options are perfect. Keeping both sets of parents in the child’s life in some way is obviously in the child’s best interest.

Yes she should have been with the bio parents with her real family, culture, and community. The gestational parent can have visitation. But the baby wouldn't remember her or care about her later. There will always be a connection with the bio parents and other family. To deny this is ridiculous. It's why adoptees seek out their bio parents.

Have you ever heard of The Primal Wound? Again, all bad options here.

Adoptees seek out bio parents of course. This child will have access to her bio parents per the agreement.

How kind to give her parents access. These people are horrendous and selfish. This isn't their baby.

This is her child.

No, it’s really not. Everyone knows this.

She carried and gave birth. She’s on the birth certificate. Her child.

Yeah sure. Would you tell your kid that and never be honest?

We adopted and my kid knows everything, good and bad. We are very honest, are you?

I have no reason to lie. Obfuscating facts and pointing to birth certificates is a lot of gaslighting.