Oye. If you're not grown up enough to put your child's needs before your own, then don't have them.
All around selfishness here, IMO.
Here is a link that might be useful: custody of twins
Since they aren't full biological siblings, it may not be so bad. Still, it's terrible to disrupt sibling-like camaraderie to indulge the self-serving needs of parents.
The parents are looking out for themselves, not necessarily for their children, who have their own intimate relationship and relationship dynamics.
Plus, it kind of betrays a favoritism, where each parent shows preference to their own biological offspring. I don't know what kind of message that sends.
I can understand that adults might change and grow apart over time... but please, do the adult thing and think of offspring first! They are not pawns to be used for personal satisfaction, monetary gain, or revenge.
Nothing messes up a life more than when parents can't act like adults. Children learn through example.
Nice medical ethics, eh? Let's create a human life the same way we create new life in animal husbandry. It's a 'product' -- something we sell to anyone with the money to buy it.
I didn't understand from the story whether the 'surrogate' was the mother of these children or 'just carried' the 'product' of some 'anonymous' mother's ova combined with the sperm of these two *supremely unfit* fathers.
This is so bizarre.
I suppose it would be the same as a woman having two partners, except the mother is not going to be in the lives of these children, I assume.
Essentially it's as Chisue said. These children are products. But I don't know if that's worse than the person who accidentally gets pregnant with someone who already has children and with whom they will never have a lasting relationship.
Yes, it is worse. It's DELIBERATE. And it's FOR PROFIT. And they are calling it MEDICINE.
Nope don't like it one bit.
I think everyone needs to have a license in order to bring another life into this world.
A very sad story. Divorce is hard and adding this twist and the fact that the dads live across the country makes it harder.
But I don't understand chisue's point. Are you saying people that want children should not be allowed to use surrogates?
The twins were born in July, and are therefore only a few months old--probably any bonding thus far between them has been minimal.
Additionally, in general, children are from a statistical point of view sometimes safer with a biological parent. There tends to be somewhat less abuse, and I suspect some of that may be due to differences in biological natures and expectations; perhaps pheromes also differ; would be an interesting topic to do research on.
The "Ain't it Awful" crowd should think twice about this one.
What the hell are you talking about?
Animals are not human beings and the twain cannot be equated.
Oh come now, if people had to be licensed to have children we wouldn't have as many victims in the world and no one would be left to vote for Democrats.
I have no objection to a couple using in vitro, but "Make A Baby" is unethical and immoral. It fails to consider the best interests of a human child. (Even adoption of existing children is supposed to put the child's needs first.) Baby-hungry people are so focused on getting a baby that they do not consider the future human needs of that child, teen, adult, eventual parent to know who they are and how they are connected to their natural families -- as the rest of us do.
It is inhuman to deliberately participate in the creation of a child you have no intention of raising, whether you are paid or not.
There are no anonymous people. There are no anonymous sperm or ova. These are not interchangeable 'parts' like blood or organs or bone marrow. They are the ingredients for a new human being who is forever connected to the humans of whom he is made. These children cannot know their *parents*. They will be stonewalled from knowledge all the rest of us take for granted. They probably will not be allowed any questions. It's one of those destructive family SECRETS.
I fail to see how your nasty comment relates to the subject. You have become extremely nasty lately. All from the person who proclaims how nice she is. I suggest another retreat to the desert or somewhere and some more reflection. This one didn't work.
In case you hadn't noticed lots of people here on HT vote democrat and are not and don't claim to be victims. Try to pay attention.
Chisue - I disagree. I see nothing wrong with people that want a baby using surrogates in this way if it is what they choose (for medical reasons or otherwise). I agree there could be problems but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option in my opinion.
One of my nephews & his wife had twins by in vitro!
I think that it's a great procedure even with the unwanted embryo's that the rest of the family sort of ignored! There was a suggestion that the eggs weren't hers but in polite circles you just don't ask those things!
This judge looks like he was trying to play Solomon here.
I won't bore all of you folks with all the hideous statistics of child abuse in this country.
Jill -- Maybe you haven't met any people who cannot find out who their parents are due to sealed adoption records or because their mothers used 'anonymous' donor sperm to conceive. I have. It's not a good thing.
Baby-hungry people need to be restrained from their short-sighted focus on Getting A Baby. Usually, once people adopt a child they want to provide the information he will want to know. It's too late with 'anonymous' donors and closed adoptions.
Labrea -- Oh, wonderful. A Family Secret. Shhhhh! Nobody tell those twins this isn't their natural mother. (My DH was 40 before he learned he was adopted. You don't want to know how he feels about being the only one in the family who *didn't know*.)
I understand it's not a perfect system.
You can say the same things about adoption. Child may never know or find their biological mother/father if they don't want to be found. That doesn't mean adoption shouldn't exist as an option for people wanting a child.
I don't see a problem since the babies never bonded if they were just born a few months ago. Each has their own biological child and can have visitation with the other as arranged. This happens in hetero couples all the time. Is this an issue because they are gay?
This case is interesting in that the children each have different fathers even though they were carried in the same womb. They are not twins in the traditional sense.
Having given this some thought I really don't see it any different than a couple with two children, each from another relationship, taking custody of their own biological children.
Assuming the "parents" are reasonable the children will see each other and be in each others lives.
This one is a bit weird but does it make sense for one father or the other to take custody of the others ones biological child?
One thing is for sure....this entire issue is going to get more and more complicated.
chisue: "Baby-hungry people need to be restrained from their short-sighted focus on Getting A Baby."
Interesting opinion chisue. Please excuse me if I am mistaken, but aren't you all for illegitamate babies? You know, the women/girls who don't have two nickels to rub together but intentionally get pregnant? Do you think that is short-sighted and so the baby's well-being is inconsequential?
Anyway, licensure for parenting would be great, but won't ever happen. Do these invitro places screen the would-be parents? Relationship screening? Guess not if octomom could do it as a single woman on welfare with how many kids already?
Just like guns, I am beginning to believe there have to be some limits, some restrictions in place for this kind of thing. Someone has to think about the children!
Yea, how do you like that. They each "called" their biological baby. Like, I might "call" the front seat in the car.
Sheesh. I don't like any of this story.
What are you talking about? Each child is a biological child of one of the men.
I see it the same way as chase. No different than a couple divorcing where each brought their biological children to the family. It would be very unusual to have the non-biological parent get custody.
If it were me there is no way I would give up custody of my biological child. I would certainly assume custody of the other "twin" and treat as my own but I wouldn't expect the other party to allow that either. I hope they have an amicable relationship and the children grow up knowing each other.
It is just sad it has to happen and a little unusual they are divorcing before the babies were even born. But obviously I don't know what goes on in anyone's relationship and why they are divorcing.
The unfortunate thing is that the adults don't always act like adults, doing everything for the best interest of the child.
I have no issue with any option that gives the opportunity for people to have the family they want. I'm adopted, and I have no issue with this, or any other process. My adoptive parents were my only parents, and I have no desire to find any others. I know my history, and that's enough.
What's sad is that it takes so little to conceive, and so many people do not think of the possible consequences of their actions. So many people have children that they didn't plan and didn't especially want, while so many couples try so hard to have their own families, but can't.
Jill -- Yes, it IS as bad as sealed records adoption. Jodik is fine 'not knowing', but if an adoptee wants -- even medically NEEDS -- to know, that should be a human right. Those of you who are not in that position don't think twice about all the connections you have within your natural families -- connections that most adoptees and these 'anonymous babies' will not be able to make.
I've known hundreds of adoptees who wanted to know the same things the rest of us take for granted. They loved Mom and Dad, but they were not 'of' those families. It's not an either/or thing; it's both. You can survive without knowing, but why should you be prevented from knowing something vital about yourself -- something every other person knows?
There are no anonymous humans. We aren't animals. There are no *good* family secrets.
chisue - what do you propose? Not allowing adoption? Not allowing surrogates? I understand there can be issues/problems with some not knowing who their biological parents are, but does that mean these things should not be allowed?
Can anyone tell me what Ryan does for a living ?
"...but if an adoptee wants -- even medically NEEDS -- to know, that should be a human right."
I'm not sure I'm ready to call it "a right". I can understand why a biological parent, who may have done the best thing for their child at the time, would not want to leave themselves open to recriminations later in life by an unforgiving child or a remorseful adoptive parent.
If you could trust people to not abuse the information or start a crusade against a person who gave up a child 50 years ago, then I don't see a problem.
On the other hand, what about the reverse - a biological parent who wants to find their child(ren) and tries to force themselves into the situation? Should they be able to disrupt the lives of adoptive parents and children?
But I guess that's why they have restraining orders. :-)
Maybe if there's some sort of mutual agreement for contact ahead of time.
It's a tough question.
However, we have elevated adoption records to a ridiculous level here. In NYS you cannot get adoption records even if all the people involved are long dead. You might be able to get a court order to open adoption records from 150 years ago, IF you can prove to the court that you have a compelling reason.
Just speaking for genealogy purposes in this instance. They can't even tell you IF there was an adoption in, say, the mid 1800s, let alone the names of the people involved. It's batsh!t insane. All of these people are dead - the parents are dead, the children are dead, and the children's children are dead. I don't understand why it's a deep, dark freakin' secret, especially when everyone knows that an adoption took place. Sheesh! [/rant]
It will be difficult for the children living in two different households
especially since the parents have already jumped in to the court of public opinion by going on The View and calling TMZ.
If they had chosen 2 different eggs I guess things would be different.
They have the same mommy that is not raising them..
How many children have the same daddy and are not being raised by them ? Or together ?
When the children get older they can start sharing Bday parties.