Famous men and surrogacy

It's really quite simple.

Do I think, given the mortality and morbidity risks associated with pregnancy, that commercial surrogacy is in any relevant way different from, say, selling a kidney? No.

Do I think it is ever acceptable to treat children as commercial products to be bought and sold? No.

Therefore commercial surrogacy (and I would say any contractual form of surrogacy where the surrogate waived her rights) is unacceptable.

Applies whether the clients are male, female or any combination thereof. No mansplaining (wah you're just anti men, wah, you're just anti gay men) necessary.

This is straightforwardly about the rights of children and pregnant women.

I’m a surrogate to a absolutely ADORABLE Irish couple. They are same sex & the boys deserve to be Daddies as much as all us women on here.

The baby will NOT be ripped from my breast - I’m not it’s mother. I am the oven that is cooking the baby. The baby will be going home with their Daddies, there is no Mummy. I’m just the cool aunty who has helped out her amazing friends build a family.

Educate yourselves ladies 🙄

I'm just sitting here breastfeeding.

Oh the irony NotTonight!

Let me spell this out in simple terms: No man (straight or gay) has ever died because they weren't able to have a surrogate child.

It's also interesting the way that Sirvixo is generalising the comments I've made, and I wonder how widely her assumption stetches? I'm also amazed by the assumptions around what I'm expecting people to do with my comments that follow those generalisations ... fascinating insights you're giving me!
I was surprised by the reaction to my suggestion that there was an anti-male tone to some of the comments .. Question: Do you think that the example comments I used from page 1 are void of anti-male sentiment??

BINGO!

I'm cackling at your very feminine snort Vix

I am having a good laugh at gardenman mansplaining away, so amusing that he thinks calling us “furious” and “angry” will have us all quivering with shame and getting our smiley Stepford faces in place.
Snort.

The place where "mansplainy males get their arses handed to them" and, ironically, respondents habitually and angrily scream 'misogyny', and becomes furious about the mention of anger! You're point NotTonight seems apt ... you really couldn't make this up!! ... Totally Hilarious ... I'm literally rolling around the floor laughing!! ... My mistake, I thought I'd come to discuss ...

Nope. You came here to tell women they were wrong and bigoted.

HTH.

I agree with your definition of exploitation, but argue that it doesn't apply to UK surrogacy, hence the questions I'm repeatedly asking around people's actual exposure to surrogate families.

We are talking about - in this thread
a) Celebrities who might be British but have circumnavigated the law in this country because they are rich.
b) How those celebrities going abroad are effectively 'normalising' that exploitation through their celebrity status and their relationship with the press that silences women.
c) This has nothing to do with anyone's direct experience of surrogancy in the Uk as the thread is about CELEBRITIES and their effect on the surrogancy debate.
d) Whether UK law even as it stands is ALSO exploitative as it involves the deliberate conception and planned removal of a child from its mother, and how this can put women at risk - eg whether they might feel coercised to do so by a family member and whether surrogancy really has the child's wellbeing and best interest at its centre from conception.
e) How changes to the law, which are being influenced by Celebrities who have used surrogancy abroad and their ability to lobby government via the media and through their personal relationship, which ordinary low class women (who are primarily surrogates) do not have equal ability to do so due to their status in society.
f) How surrogancy differs from adoption but still has commonality. We don't really fully appreciate the psychological effects as their are few adults who are the result of surrogancy who are able to explain how being a surrogant child affected their understanding of their identity. We do know that there are some problems with adoptive children even if they have been brought up in loving and wonderful families. Our desire to know where we came from, is something we do understand to be a natural human desire and part of identity formation.

RedtoothBrush .. it's ironic that you're doing the very thing you're spouting with your trojan horses and straw men .... Happen much?

You are failing to explain how I'm 'spouting trojan horses and straw men' by just accusing me of doing it. Your lack of substance to your argument and reversal accusation is laughable. Don't try it on, as I can see this crap a mile off. I, once again, refer to the title of the thread being specifically about famous men and therefore this thread centres on that and the effects of that, which very much relates to lobbying and PR over a systematic and thorough examination of the subject which acknowleges those who are most vulnerable at its very heart. Gay men (or Straight men) with lots of money (particularly those who are able to do this across international borders) absoluetely ARE NOT vulnerable even though they might have status as a minority due to their sexuality.

There is this idea that just because someone has a certain identity, that alone defines whether they are vulnerable or not. This is not true. Children ALWAYS come first in this test because they are unable to represent or advocate for themselves, and women (particularly if they are already economically disadvantaged) often have a greater vulnerability due to the physical nature of reproduction (which involves danger to life at its most extreme). Let me spell this out in simple terms: No gay man has ever died because they weren't able to have a surrogant child.

And you have the nerve to go on about how there is prejudice to gay men when we talk about surrogacy? No, if we fail to stress and centre the needs and risks to children and women we are not adequately understanding vulnerability and exploitation which can happen both abroad AND in this country - in the context of the past, present AND future.

You are speaking to me in a manner I consider to be downright superior and condesending and accuse women on this thread as bigoted merely for advocating for themselves and for children, rather than for bowing to the Rainbow PR machine.

No. Just no.

As you asked, I'm sat on the floor cross-legged with my computer in front of me, so I didn't have far to fall back and start rolling! Also tall and in a smallish space, but no injuries!

I wonder if anybody ever has "literally" rolled around on the floor laughing? My flat is quite small and I'm tall, so it would be problematic for me. I suppose I'd have to go and do it in the car park.

The place where "mansplainy males get their arses handed to them" and, ironically, respondents habitually and angrily scream 'misogyny', and becomes furious about the mention of anger! You're point NotTonight seems apt ... you really couldn't make this up!! ... Totally Hilarious ... I'm literally rolling around the floor laughing!! ... My mistake, I thought I'd come to discuss ...

all shamefaced over here, hysterically screaming is so very unseemly, whatever will the neighbours think?!

Oh and mothers of premature babies can express milk or columstrum and this is often encouraged for the health of the baby and to establish a milk supply if the mum wants to breastfeed in the future.

No one is judging a mother's choice here.

Rules of misogyny #2, #3, #5, #9, #13

Pretty good going GardenMan1, not long now and we can call bingo...

I did respond on your point about surrogacy families Garden - to your point I thought about being a surrogate myself once, I didn't go through with it though. During my research and since I've done research into facts and stats which gives me a general overwork of information rather than taking anecdotal evidence from a 'surrogate' or 'surrogate family'.

I suggest you do some research yourself and as Vitriol says, if you know anything about the changes in the law in India or the case of the UK mother who was taken advantage of by the intended parents (who won the parental right to raise her disabled child with her partner) or the boy who will never know his twin sister as their parents dashed back to Australia, leaving him alone or the little girl left behind in the Ukraine, do tell us.

We're not allowed to be angry now? Fuck that.

Minty there's a big difference with premature babies - their mothers aren't deliberately denying them the opportunity to breastfeed for financial gain. Nor do their mothers conceive them with the intention of them being born premature and poorly. Guilt is rarely susceptible to logic, I know, but the mothers of premature babies you mention are putting their child's interests first.