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

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??

It absolutely is an option. Many adopters come to adoption from not being able to conceive, always have done, always will. I accept absolutely that adopting is nothing like having birth children, but once people let the dust settle and look at what they want to do next, adoption absolutely is a way forward.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are suggesting, that surrogacy is the preferred path for people not up to adopting? That it will be easier? Surely if you aren't fit to adopt, you shouldn't be chasing a baby either? There have been people in their 70s commissioning babies for example. Paedophile. Narcissists. They wouldn't get through the adoption process.

Plenty of people who can't have children look into adoption, are cleared of any misconceptions about what is involved and go on to adopt children.

That's what I did. Was it plan A? No. But it happened and I think we have done a pretty good job.

Adoption rates are dropping as potential parents is surrogacy instead. I agree that many people say "they should adopt" without any understanding of the issues, but it has some truth to it - instead of chasing the perfect new born baby, why not look into adoption and see if it's something you could do.

It's quite ridiculous to pretend that when someone opposes surrogacy and doesn't make an exception when it is gay men who wish to rent wombs and purchase babies, they are being homophobic.

I think you're very right op, and there are some responses in this thread that (quite unintentionally) prove your point.

I think some people genuinely don’t realise that no one is entitled to have a child just because they want one, even though it’s really sad and unfair. A child is not a possession to be owned.

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.

No one is 'forced into co parenting'.

Put the baby's needs and best interests first fgs, it's not difficult!

If you don't have a willing/ able partner and just don't fancy co parenting or adoption - tough shit!

The entitlement is breathtaking.

Those two are awful. One of them started a relationship with his daughters boyfriend and she (the only girl of their 4 surrogate- produced children) offered them her eggs to have a baby together. What ideas have those children absorbed about parenting and relationships?

But adoption is the alternative. Or co parent with a willing woman. Those are the options that exist. As an adopter I don't read it as 'well just adopt' like it's easy, or that adoption is being offered as a consolation prize, adoption is the option that exists if you are a male couple who want to parent.

Have not read the full thread, but caught the end of the tv programme Stacey sleeps over, where Stacey Dooley was staying with the original “Gay Dads”, very rich, pretty obnoxious. Apparently they chose the mother of their last child because they spotted her on a cat walk, thought she was beautiful and then claimed to have paid her £50000 to take the egg producing drugs and donate them. The way they spoke about her was dismissive and appalling. I am gearing myself up to watch the whole programme, but am not sure my blood pressure will stand it.

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.

Make gay couples? Adoption. There are thousands of children in care etc that need homes. To buy a newborn is abhorrent.

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.

I'd suggest this film from 2009 as an eye opener is quite how commodified it can be.
Egg from white American woman, embryo carried to India and born there by section when convenient.
I was actually slightly surprised they don't deliver the baby to the commissioning couple, but that's probably difficult legally.

Google Baby https://share.google/Ib2v4AISST00fVBMI

Partly it is because one of the parents will normally be the bio parent. This is why the courts nearly always agree to the parental order.

There are no checks to be a bio parent.

The checks in adoption are because the State has responsibility for what happens to the child.

So it's complicated.

But on the other hand it means that the system will attract unsavoury characters who wouldn't be approved to adopt and who aren't having kids naturally with a partner.

Evidence of surrogacy going back thousands of years?????? Hmmm, I’d like to see some of that. I suspect you are stretching the definition somewhat and mistakenly applying a modern framing to a tiny number of cases of babies being brought up by another family member.

Childbirth is harmful to women???
What, always without exception? Bollocks.
Childbirth can be many things, but it always utterly profound, sometimes exhilarating, exhausting, and sometimes dangerous. Harmful is simplistic and ignorant. I suspect you know nothing about it.

And how could childbirth be a new idea??????

I took it that she’s asserting a belief that many, many men are sexist privileged tossers and admitting to a former naivety that led her to think gay men were different because of their sexual orientation.

Gay men being bigger consumers of babies has now led her to view them as no better than straight men, as in men are men.

OP’s insults are male-centric and relate to men using women to acquire babies, so difficult to apply like for like insults to lesbians, if they were suddenly to become prolific in using surrogates. “Hysterical” and “stupid” don’t really link to buying/commissioning babies. The original insults could better apply, as the women would arguably be sexist and privileged to be using other women in this way: “Now I realise they are just sexist privileged tossers.”

@PlanetJanette has no experience of the bond between a woman and the baby she has grown inside her and given birth to.

It’s misogynistic as I said.

But I really despise the measly whiney word “problematic”.

Yes. I think a lot of people assume that people wanting to employ a surrogate to produce a baby go through any kind of level of checking similar to that of adopters but they don’t.

We need to ask some serious questions as to why all these checks are needed for prospective adoptive parents but not for children produced by surrogate. Even when children are adopted by a relative there are thorough checks

Well, it might be misogynistic, but it wouldn’t be homophobic.

I would think that the poster doesn't like women much, or at least thinks a lot of women are awful.

It's not derogatory toward lesbians in particular.

Quite a lot of women on MN thing that a large proportion of men are scum-bags. I don't particularly agree but they certainly exist.

Her point, quite clearly, was that she thought gay men were differernt, and now thinks they aren't.

The only ethical way is to adopt.

As an adoptee I cant abide surrogacy. Reliquishment trauma will never, ever leave me and I dont believe I will ever get over it.

So how would you comprehend a post that said:

"When I was younger I loved having gay women in my social circle - they seemed like “nicer” more lovely women than most straight women. Now I realise that underneath it all they just the same stupid, hysterical bitches (insert your choice of derogatory female stereotype here) as many straight women are."

Not a problem, no? No sweeping negative generalisations about any groups there?