<p>Please note that this happened in the UK. From the details in the article and TV show info they have an interesting socialized medicine system there. Note the boyfriend… I also can understand wanting to carry only one’s own biological child- or adoption would be the easier answer. Of course the other couple would not mind a surrogate mother and would fight for their biological child. Life isn’t fair.</p>
<p>Pugmadkate brings up a good point about the woman wanting her own child. The pregnancy and post-partum period could seriously set back or even eliminate the woman’s chance for a pregnancy of her own. Such a hard thing. I wouldn’t have wanted to be in that mother’s position.</p>
<p>It also brings up the legal ramfications of what if? What if there is health issue, this is not a case where the woman’s embryo was implanted with her mates sperm, it was the other fathers sperm, which means truly 2 different parental couples. If the child had developed a horrific medical issue who would get the final decision, the birth mother, the biological mother or the biological father who is with the birth mother? What if she had a lfie threatening risk, where does that go? What if the labor delivery went wrong? There are many what ifs. Maybe the “birth” mother had contacted an attorney and addressed these issues and it was her decision to terminate it.</p>
<p>What a mess.</p>
<p>In the case here, both families knew that a mistake had been made, but neither knew for sure who the biological parents were until after the birth. The biological parents hired an investigator to check up on a couple of possibilities and then went to court. They agreed to certain things and then reneged as soon as they had custody. And badmouthed the birth mother everywhere.</p>
<p>zoosermom, I would have bad-mouthed Mrs. Fasano too. For those interested in reading about the case, search Donna Fasano in the New York Times. Quite a mess but a lot of pain could have been avoided by turning the baby over to the real parents in the beginning.</p>
<p>Custody wasn’t determined until some time after the births. Who would turn over a child to some random people? That’s just bizarre.</p>
<p>The visitation didn’t work out because Mrs. Fasano, the birth mother, insisted on referring to herself as “mommy” to the baby and in calling him by the name she picked out and not the one his parents wanted. I think it’s understandable that the parents didn’t want the baby spending one weekend a month in her care. </p>
<p>The Fasanos were informed during her pregnancy that one of her fetuses might not by hers and the clinic knew who the other parents were. Only after the genetic parents filed suit did the Fasanos agree to testing, by then the baby was 4 months old. The real parents were not random people.</p>
<p>
They were absolutely random people until DNA testing was done. Like I said, it was right that the biological parents got their child, but they were uglier than Mrs. Fasano.</p>
<p>I read an article on the issue and it said that the Fasano’s probably would have won if they fought from the beginning. It appears that the mother that carries the baby is considered the mother regardless of where the egg/sperm came from. Their mistake was in turning over custody and then complaining over visitation rights which they then lost.</p>
<p>BTW, why didn’t the Rogers have their own child from that fertility clinic?</p>
<p>It’s also a bit disgusting that the embryos were headed for the trash. If they could make this kind of error, what other kinds of errors could they make?</p>
<p>
Mrs. Rogers didn’t get pregnant.</p>
<p>
That’s why the clinic wasn’t believed when they said who the biological parents were before the DNA testing was done. Who’d believe them?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>If she did have a baby, would she have pursued the other baby?</p>
<p>It seems that the Fasano’s truly wanted the baby as their own. Is there anything that contradicts this?</p>
<p>Anyone notice anything funny here? </p>
<p>Gullible much?</p>
<p>Please note: the link posted by the OP linked to Free Republic, which calls itself openly</p>
<p>THE PREMIER CONSERVATIVE SITE ON THE NET!</p>
<p>Gosh, you can see JimRob’s Twitter updates from “The Tea Party Express” coming to a Town Hall near you! Fun stuff.</p>
<p>Please, bulletandpima, assisted by cheering squad (<em>cough zoosermom cough</em>), I get you, and forgive me for shining a bright light, but this is typical hate/fearmongering disguised as public concern over ONE SINGLE tragic case that happened in a, gasp, NHS-affiliated IVF facility! Not to mention, this was posted on timesonline in June, and here we are in Sept. Curious timing, don’t you think? Scare tactics during what should be a reasoned debate over public health care. This is the real gop deal – telling a horrifying story to try to make blanket statements about a real public policy issue, while pretending to be something else! It’s beautiful.</p>
<p>Oh, and then there’s this tasty morsel:
I think you were describing the presumably distressed feelings of the African American couple who were trying to get custody of a biological child? A slight whiff of something bad in the way you said it.</p>
<p>In an effort to put this in perspective, please note this:</p>
<p>
From here:
<a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6494055.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2[/url]”>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6494055.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2</a></p>
<p>Makes you wonder, can private IVF clinics in the U.S. boast numbers like that?</p>
<p>I was a happy user of NHS care in the U.K., and I can tell you that even if the Brits gripe and complain about the NHS, they don’t ever ever want it taken away.</p>
<p>Oh, and I got excellent care during a pregnancy in the “socialized” medical system in France too. They are excellent, and remember they export care in a wonderful organization, Doctors Without Borders, [Doctors</a> Without Borders | MSF USA](<a href=“http://doctorswithoutborders.org%5DDoctors”>http://doctorswithoutborders.org)</p>
<p>Perspective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is that disgusting? They must be paid to be kept frozen, donated to science, or “head for the trash.” Very rarely some embryos are “adopted” by another couple. I’m sure there are a few other options out there but these are the most common ones. I’m not seeing what is disgusting. </p>
<p>So long as humans are involved in the IVF process, mistakes will be made. The goal is to make it as rare as possible and it is very rare. </p>
<p>I remember reading this article when it first came out because, of course, it got circulated on infertility mailing lists. I didn’t think to question the timing because the idea that this incident might be used to criticize public health care as a whole simply did not cross my mind. </p>
<p>As a woman whose insurance covered virtually nothing related to infertility, I would have gladly taken my chances with the NHS. Very gladly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re a little confused here. Or VERY creative.
There it is folks. So tiresome. And you wonder why the cry of racism has lost its impact. What you said here is exactly why. Which makes real incidents of racism lost in the shuffle.
WHat you saw was a whiff of being appalled at the lack of gratitude for the woman who carried their child. You know, as opposed to aborting it, which several of us on both sides of this issue agree is a darn tough situation to be in.
You may not have noticed, but this isn’t the political side of the forum. Pima posted and I responded as human beings and mothers. You will note that the poster who I was most in agreement was Pugmadkate. Some of us don’t make everything about politics, particularly outside the politics forum.</p>
<p>^^
Either you are disingenuous, zoosermom, or you think we are.</p>
<p>For everyone who isn’t sure: it is easy to make up your mind about this by clicking on the link in the original post. At the top of that blog is the name of the blog “Free Republic”. Click that and see where it takes you. (hold your nose and be ready with the air freshener)</p>
<p>It is also instructive to click on people’s post history to see if they generally carry around some kind of agenda, so when they open their big eyes innocently, and blink back tears, whimpering “how could you THINK such a thing”, you know exactly what is going on.</p>
<p>Shame on people who wave around genuine tragedies to further their political agendas. Especially when it concerns something as deeply personal as childbirth and infertility. It is just not nice.</p>
<p>Ad hominem abusive</p>
<p>Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.</p>
<p>This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent’s.</p>
<p>– Wikipedia</p>
<p>^ ^
I expected this.</p>
<p>My only point is this: for anyone questioning whether a thread, such as this one, has a certain bias, click the original link. See where it takes you. If you are unsure about a poster’s point of view, click on the post history. </p>
<p>That’s it. Thanks.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes, if they say that 2+2=4, then you can be sure that they are wrong because of their bias. Don’t they teach this in middle-school?</p>
<p>I think that under every law of the 50 states, that a women who gives birth to a child is the mother of that child for custody purposes even if the embryo is incorrectly planted in her. The act of birth establishes the parent relationship. </p>
<p>however, if an embryo is implanted incorrectly in a woman, can a woman abort that embryo in the first three months? The embryo is not part of the woman’s body since it was implanted. Since the embryo does not have the status of a child, is it merely the property of the donors and, thus, cannot be aborted by the woman without the donor’s permission?</p>