Gay dads demand surrogate terminate unborn baby at 24 weeks

I don't think it was it's a bit of a semantics thing.

 

It's the woman's body and they had no right to either the life of the child or the womans body

 

When I discussed surrogacy with my wife, I could not wrap my head around trusting a complete stranger with my child.

In any case, you have to expect that anything can go wrong, adoption, surrogacy, or normal birth even.
If a person thinks it's like buying a new car and they should get it in perfect condition or not at all, that person has no business being a parent. Children should be loved and cared for regardless of the condition they are born in.
Gay or straight, I don't care, this couple should be barred from being able to adoption and surrogacy.

 

I dont know about these Daily Mail stories. Can they treat cancer on a pregnant woman (radiation, chemo, etc). I wonder what the doctors recommendation would be in a case like that.

 

In such cases they'll usually try to minimize or delay the cancer treatment and make the baby come out early so the woman can begin the full chemo regimen earlier rather than later.
In some cases, such as this one, there can be a little bit of a trade-off (health of mother vs. health of baby).

The issue in this story (to state what should be obvious) is that the woman was going to proceed with a more aggressive chemo regimen because doctors discovered her cancer started spreading at a faster rate. That would create a big risk to health to the baby, possibly even lead to chance of disability. The gay dads didn't want to deal with that.

 

Pro_Line_FL said: ↑
Can they treat cancer on a pregnant woman (radiation, chemo, etc). I wonder what the doctors recommendation would be in a case like that.

He asked what recommendations the DOCTORS ( the ones who KNOW about such things) would make , not what YOU think.

GOOD.....and they didn't want the baby to suffer either.....obviously you don't mind.

What laws were broken?

Was anyone FORCED to do what they didn't want to do?

Was anyone FORCED to gestate like Anti-Choicers want to FORCE women to gestate even if it affects their health or the health of the fetus?

 

Easy, they were gay.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuh.

Adopted children have parents who are not "really" their parents. Is that hard for you to grasp too or are you just being intentionally homophobic for the sake of it?

 

You seem privy to information not in the article. You know that the child was not related to either "dad?" And that it was in fact adopted? Why the surrogate then? They could have just picked one off the shelf.

 

The bottom line is that it is HER BODY and HER HEALTHCARE.

The prospective adoptive parents have no right to address how this woman cares for her body.

Anyone entering a surrogacy contract has to know that. I don't care what's in the contract. It is STILL her body and her healthcare.

On a purely personal note, it seems insane to me to enter a full bore assault on cancer, involving chemo while also demanding that your body maintain a pregnancy that is quite likely to be seriously damaged.

But, if that's what SHE chooses, I support that - because SHE chose that.

 

Its her uterus. Their demands are irrelevant.