My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

News

Michael Jackson to father more kids - quads by a surrogate.....

23 replies

NomDePlume · 20/07/2004 19:13

Oh man, is this really a good idea ?!

OP posts:
Report
fairyfly · 20/07/2004 19:16

Not the best, just shows you what money can buy, no way would you be able to adopt if you were on trial for sexual assault

Report
bundle · 20/07/2004 19:16

yuk

Report
MeanBean · 20/07/2004 19:55

Repulsive, repulsive, repulsive.

Report
Lisa78 · 20/07/2004 19:57

gross

Report
wobblyknicks · 20/07/2004 19:58

disgusting - poor kids

Report
Furball · 20/07/2004 20:00

Outrageous, I don't understand why/how any woman would want to go ahead with that, no matter how much money was invovled. The thought of subjecting your babies to that is frightening. On a different note why would anyone want to enlarge the photo in that article???

Report
NomDePlume · 20/07/2004 20:06

I think the quads are from his sperm, so don;t think he'd have to adopt them as such. Although you'd think that the US equivalent of SS would have an opinion...

OP posts:
Report
sanssouci · 20/07/2004 20:09

This is outrageous. Get Michael Moore to do a documentary on him.

Report
MeanBean · 20/07/2004 20:16

I don't think they have SS for rich people in the USA.

Report
poppyseed · 20/07/2004 20:23

How very, very sad for the children...

Report
Beetroot · 20/07/2004 20:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

NomDePlume · 20/07/2004 20:30

So if you have money then you can do whatever the hell you like ? The state has no laws on protecting children of the very rich ?

OP posts:
Report
SofiaAmes · 20/07/2004 21:40

Of course there is SS for the rich. However, social services doesn't have the blind unfettered power that they have in this country (ie taking people's kids away because they've decided they have msbp). The laws on surrogacy in the usa are very different than in the uk. The biological parents are automatically the parents and don't have to "adopt" their own child the way they do in the uk. I would guess that this probably means that SS can prevent someone like michael jackson (who hasn't yet been proven guilty by the way) from being a parent. However, I suppose that if he is eventually proven guilty of child abuse, they may have grounds to take his children away from him and give them either to the mother or put into care.
It may sound odd to you, but it does mean that someone who is only accused of child abuse, but not yet proven to be an abuser still has full rights. I think there has been more than one mumsnetter who has been falsely accused by spouses or schools etc. of child abuse. It would be a pity if their rights were curtailed while those charges were being investigated.

Report
MeanBean · 21/07/2004 00:14

SofiaAmes, it was a flippant comment, not a literal description of the American welfare system. (Maybe we need a flippant smiley!)

I don't think people are expressing disgust only because he might be a child abuser. I don't care if he's found not guilty, for me, the issue is how he approaches fatherhood - buying babies from women you can't even bear to have sex with, and then parting those babies from their mothers, is not a healthy approach to child-rearing, and I can't see how anyone can argue that that is in the best interests of a child to be bought and sold like a chattel. I find the whole idea of it truly repulsive.

Sorry for being dense, but what do you mean about parents having to adopt their own child in the UK? Aren't biological parents here automatically considered automatically the parents?

Report
Chandra · 21/07/2004 00:23

Good point Mean Bean

Report
donnie · 21/07/2004 13:23

agreed. The 'man'( and I use the word reluctantly) is not fit to be a parent.How long before he starts dragging them into his bed for 'cuddles'? I personally think he probably is an abuser but mean beans point about his fitness as a parent says it all.

Report
Fio2 · 21/07/2004 13:26

does he produce sperm?

how disgusting!!!

Report
ggglimpopo · 21/07/2004 13:30

Message withdrawn

Report
suzywong · 21/07/2004 13:51

Will no one who works around that man put their foot down and stop his madness.
He must be surrounded by sychophants and moneygrabbers of the worst kind.

Freak.

Report
suedonim · 21/07/2004 15:43

According to the BBC this story isn't true.

Report
SofiaAmes · 21/07/2004 23:46

Sorry meanbean, didn't get the flippancy...I'm just a little over sensitive with all the "lets hate the americans" sentiment that's going around.

And yes, as far as I understand, if you have a child with a surrogate, even if it's your egg and sperm, you have to adopt the child in order to make it yours. Which is why people go to the usa for surrogacy. (My cousins in the usa went through this and it was an expensive and emotionally harrowing experience that would only have been made more difficult if they had also to consider the question of whether the surrogate mother could lay claim to a child that was biologically entirely theirs).

Report
MeanBean · 22/07/2004 00:11

Well tbh, I think that's right. If you carry a child in your womb for nine months and then go through labour and give birth to it, it is your child, whether the egg is yours or not. Anyone else using your body to incubate that child should have to adopt it. I have to say, I think that the UK way is better in this respect. Women's wombs are not convenient resting places for other people's eggs and sperms, and the notion that they could carry and bear a child and it not be automatically theirs is abhorrent. It smacks of slavery. And I don't think it should be allowed if money changes hands.

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

nightowl · 22/07/2004 01:36

personally, i dont think the children he has already got are his anyway....its all just too strange to me or have i missed something? i only heard he had got children in the last couple of years and the eldest is a lot older than that. its not about the abuse allegations but how he treats "his own". if an average person was to take their kids out in masks all the time for example im sure social services would be involved then? what kind of life is it for those poor kids? and being famous is no excuse....children should be allowed to be children. other celebs dont hide their kids away like that.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.