Gay men and surrogacy - the new “be kind”?

So why are they any more evil than the man in a heterosexual couple using surrogacy.

it is completely homophobic.

Altruistic surrogacy and egg donor arrangements are legal in Greece. It is highly regulated, including court approval where the intended parents and surrogate must citizens or legal residents of Greece.

I am wholly against surrogacy in all forms, but needed to respond because your post implies Greece has become some sort of surrogacy hotspot.

I dislike surrogacy, but I don't think the assumption of a right to have children is limited to gay couples- there is the same 'be kind' attitude applies to straight couples who can't conceive or single women who wish to use a surrogate.

I don't have any statistics, but my recollection is that when people using surrogates were panicking about the situation in Ukraine, it was mostly straight couples. So I'd be surprised if the majority of surrogacy takes place to benefit gay men.

I believe that commercial surrogacy is now banned in India.

There are countries which are trying to become surrogacy destinations as they see it as a lucrative business. Ukraine used to be a leader. Now Cypress, Georgia and Greece are popular. And women often go back to their country of heritage eg Uganda, Iran.

Perhaps because, as the OP has repeatedly said in this thread, gay men are used to make surrogacy look sympathetic. To make it look brave, and like an 'inclusive' and good thing to do. I doubt hetero couples or single people would make it appear so attractive.

Babies are not commodities like kettles. There are many children already here desperate for a loving and supportive home. Gay couples can adopt - which many gay men do. Surrogacy is treating women and children as commodities, as conveniences for what men want rather than as people in their own right. Outlaw it.

Same as infertile heterosexual couples then?

I don’t agree with surrogacy but i don’t understand your diatribe against gay men

@Throneofgame I don’t believe anybody should be using surrogacy to have a family - gay or straight. What you seem to be saying is that co-parenting with a female friend (ok - it’s not for everyone and prob not very common) is a more outrageous/offensive idea than literally buying a baby from an woman with very few economic choices in a fucked up country that allows this to happen?

Unfortunately if you are a gay man (single or in a couple) there are only limited ways of having a family. No one’s fault, not homophobic, just biology sadly.

I'm not convinced the majority of people are "applauding" gay couples for having a baby through surrogacy. Maybe on LinkedIn, because no one wants to show an ounce of prejudice on a site where their boss and future employers can openly see it.

I think people are possibly less critical of gay couples for it because, lets be honest, their options for having a family are more limited.

I don't think surrogacy is inherently abhorrent - if I didn't have children of my own (as pregnancy and birth obviously comes with risk) I'd consider doing it for someone. I appreciate that it can be exploitative when it's women desperate for money pushed to doing it as a last resort, but imo that should be down to lawmakers to prevent, not desperate would be parents.

So why are they any more evil than the man in a heterosexual couple using surrogacy.

it is completely homophobic.

So why are they any more evil than the man in a heterosexual couple using surrogacy.

it is completely homophobic.

It is not homophobic to query men buying babies. I am 100% supportive of gay men adopting but surrogacy involving gay men (or single men) is deeply problematic. All surrogacy is an ethical nightmare but there are extra issues on top when men can obtain babies without as much as having to speak to a woman. Rich men are bypassing relationships with a woman completely to buy a baby then bring it up by paid nannies. Rich women are doing this too, but we are setting ourselves up for a dystopian future where men can turn women into nothing more than paid help.

Surely this applies equally to any surrogacy arrangement not just gay men?

I agree with @Throneofgame that your post is deeply homophobic. Some people who started out seeming feminist and gender critical are actually now nasty right wingers who are adding others to their hate list.

I agree with @Throneofgame that your post is deeply homophobic. Some people who started out seeming feminist and gender critical are actually now nasty right wingers who are adding others to their hate list.

You are basically defending surrogacy on this thread and have been from the start. It is not me that needs to sit down.

What nonsense. And what's worse, there is a definite undercurrent of homophobia running through your comments. Not sure why you're being so hostile to gay people.

Do you think that infertile straight couples should have to share their child with a fertile woman? Why should any couple, gay or straight, be forced into co-parenting just to have a child?

Adoption can be very difficult and isn't suitable for many people.

Thank goodness people like you don't get let anywhere near actual decision making.

I didn't say any of that. The remarks I made were only about adoption being thrown in as the default alternative, nothing about surrogacy being a good idea.

Sit down before you hurt yourself.

Once again, saying a couple can just buy a baby is tone deaf and offensive. Why do people leap to surrogacy as a cosy alternative for anyone who wants a family but can't conceive?

Adoption requires dedication, sacrifice and most importantly intent.

So you're admitting that surrogacy doesn't require dedication, sacrifce and intent.

Offering surrogacy up as a convenient and easy alternative to people who want a baby is grossly ignorant.

Children deserve to be welcomed by families who want them - and are prepared to support them - as a whole package, not as a last resort as something cheap to buy.

No. It isn't the 'alternative', and it absolutely is meant as 'just adopt - thousands of poor poor children need homes, just like puppies from the pound'. If you are looking to simply parent - for all the traditional reasons - then adoption isn't the way. Adults looking to adopt need to get the idea that they'll be singing kumbya by Christmas out of their heads.

It isn't the right fit for many, many couples and proposing it as such is irresponsible. The children involved deserve better.

Once again, this is tone deaf and offensive. Why do people leap to adoption as a cosy alternative for anyone who wants a family but can't conceive? Whatever your views on surrogacy keep the highly specialised and important role of adoption out of it. Adoption requires dedication, sacrifice and most importantly intent. Offering it up as a convenient and easy alternative to people who want a baby is grossly ignorant.

Children deserve to be welcomed by families who want them - and are prepared to support them - as a whole package, not as a last resort.

PARENTING requires dedication, sacrifice and most importantly intent.

But, anyone with enough money can buy a baby via surrogacy, how do you know these babies are genuinely going to be ‘welcomed by families who want them - and are prepared to support them - as a whole package, not as a last resort.’??

I know adoption is complex and requires prospective parents to pass various ‘tests’ to be deemed fit/worthy, but shouldn’t surrogate parents be screened carefully too??