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

We could make it illegal, but it's not. Come back to me when that changes and you have a point.

Why do you insist the power dynamic is always unequal? You're putting a slant on it that simply isn't there.

I've never seen or heard of a surrogacy case where a wealthy celebrity or even just well off woman is offering herself up as a surrogate for a not so wealthy stranger. Money gives power in this situation (like so many others) and makes it unequal in my view.

I think that's the point: you don't know. You have zero idea what conversations are or aren't had. You have no idea why a woman might put themselves forward to be a surrogate. You're assuming difficult conversations don't happen or can never be thorough enough because it supports your narrative but you simply don't know.

I'm not denying that there will be situations that are unequal, by the way. And you're probably right that many will go ahead without discussing everything single angle and every single outcome and the exact consequences of each - that probably is true. But assigning all of them unequal and ill-thought through is not reasonable.

And I don't know how anyone can be happy with another person taking these risks for them. Even if the risk is smalll, the outcomes could be catastrophic.

Well in that case no man should feel happy impregnating a woman ever. Even their wife. After all, the risks could be catastrophic.

I believe my position is far more grounded in reality than a facile 'isn't it a lovely thing to do'.

I don't think it's a 'lovely thing to do'. I haven't said that at all. I'm just countering the lazy narrative that it's always oppressive, that it's always about men taking ownership of women's bodies and it's always a power issue between the rich west and poor developing countries.

Well you were the one that said it's different if people choose to rent themselves out. I'm saying no, it's not, as we can make it illegal. We stop all sorts of things that people would like to do. Like selling organs. Speeding. Not wearing a seat belt. Why not renting out your womb? Or at least not telling the child who you are.

Autonomy is not the same as agency.

And why is everything couched in Rte language of 'demonisation'? Pointing out the significant costs, moral importations and risks is not demonising. It is bringing important context to the table which some would like to airbrush out.

Because I believe that in many cases it will be unequal. In other cases, full comprehension of what is being agreed to will be difficult to maintain.

I wonder how many 'altruistic' surrogacies do the parties involve sit down and say 'what happens if you die or are disabled by carrying/birthing this child?' - how is this compensated for?

What about your own children?'

Or 'What happens if you have to have a hysterectomy and cannot have further children/children of your own'? Or 'what happens if your mental health is much more significantly affected than you believe it will be now'?

I would be surprised if these conversations are tabled with the depth and attention that is needed. Or any measures put in place.

And I don't know how anyone can be happy with another person taking these risks for them. Even if the risk is smalll, the outcomes could be catastrophic.

I believe my position is far more grounded in reality than a facile 'isn't it a lovely thing to do'. It's certainly not a lovely thing to facilitate someone doing for you.

Why do you insist the power dynamic is always unequal? You're putting a slant on it that simply isn't there. People by and large don't assume they 'have a right' to any persons body they point their finger at.

Yes, some people are exploited. Over lots of different things for lots of different reasons. But arguing that that is ALWAYS the case when some people make valid autonomous decisions is ludicrous and just simply not true.

You want to speak for other people and demonise every situation because you know better than them what they do with their own bodies? Go ahead. Just know it's not grounded in reality.

Funny how Tom suddenly gets a blinding light of clarity over what a woman is when he decides he wants to use one to get himself a baby.

Society can say no to anything it likes. It can say no to renting a beach house or a car too if it wants to. What's your point?

We as a society can say "no" to that. It's illegal in plenty of countries like Italy and Germany.

Or if the long term implications are not easy to fully grasp if you haven't been through it before?

Well is it? If the power dynamic is clearly not equal?

No one has a 'right' to rent anything from another person so save the hyperbole. If a person offers it to be rented that's different.

It's a good question.

Maybe she did pass the tests but what happened drove her over the edge.

However I do think her profile (ferociously high achieving woman used to spending big to get what she wants) should have rung some alarm bells.

Ultimately, I think it shows you can't legislate/screen your way out of the issues here. Human babies, human bodies, life and death are all far, far too complex.

It's particularly shocking that two surrogates have suffered so much. The first is grieving the child she carried while Bi tries to bankrupt her/get her jailed for murder. The second had placenta issues and had to have a hysterectomy. And Bi is looking for a third!

I think some of the posters here are approaching it from the angle "what is the best way to ensure every family can have a child - is it IVF, surrogacy or adoption?"

The posters against surrogacy (myself included) simply don't think every family CAN have a child and we shouldn't design policy to ensure that, if the cost to our society (including the children in it) would be too high. We think in particular the cost to babies deliberately separated from their mothers at birth is too high.

IVF is a different issue. Individuals may agree/disagree about whether the financial costs of 1, 2, or more rounds of NHS-funded IVF are also worth it, or the emotional costs on donor-conceived children; the underlying logic of "don't impose 'rights' without considering the costs" is the same, but it's a different set of numbers in each calculation.

That's not to say it's not heartbreaking to not be able to have a baby. I'm sure we all acknowledge that.

Yes, look at Tom Daley, cosy cardigan wearing poster boy for surrogate use. Using his profile to promote it for all and ‘remove the shame’.

It’s a pity that ‘removing the shame’ will just create more motherless children. Not good for them.

Sadly, I think when an organisation has a financial interest in someone passing psychological screening, the person is unlikely to fail.

In Ireland surrogacy is quite a big social/political issue - there have been court cases around the nationality of children born to surrogate mothers outside the state, and the parental rights of the 'new' parents.

While I can think of one high-profile gay male couple here who have children, [the surrogate mother in that case was the sister of one of the men] the issue is always, in my experience, set in the context of heterosexual couples who are unable to have children, and who believe that their wish to have children, via surrogacy if necessary, is paramount, and should be facilitated by legislation.

The usual argument is that the desire to have a child is so fundamental and biological and visceral and undeniable that anybody who hasn't experienced infertility cannot understand it - and by implication should not interfere with their right to have a child via surrogacy.

That 'mom and apple pie' defence of surrogacy is very powerful, and I've heard some very emotional interviews with heterosexual couples who are very distressed by their inability to have children, and equally distressed at anyone who suggests there is anything wrong with surrogacy, especially anyone who has not experienced infertility themselves.

Mentioning 'the welfare of the child' or 'the freedom of choice of the mother' or 'ethics' doesn't seem to carry much weight against the emotional 'you can't understand the desire to have a child, to be a proper family' argument.

It's all from the same idea that having a child by any means is an inalienable right, whatever your biology, whether you are a man, gay or straight, and therefore not able to become pregnant and give birth, or a woman with medical issues that make her unable to have a child.

If separating a mother and child why is adoption any better? Adoption from birth surely leads to the exact same trauma?

I don’t think anyone has said adoption is better for the child. Adoption comes about when a mother is unable or unwilling to care for their child and it is removed. Very similar issues to surrogacy except that nowadays, extra care is taken to maintain contact between mother and child and also VERY careful vetting of adoptive parents.

Therefore adoption is safer for the child than surrogacy.

The issue is that a child being put up for adoption is a last resort when all else fails. Surrogacy deliberately creates children who are likely to suffer the same separation issues as adopted kids but with almost no vetting or reasonable expectations of the parents in age for example to protect them.

Sorry- least worst option sounds awful. I mean adoption is almost always the very best option for a child who has been removed from (or given up by) their parents.

If separating a mother and child why is adoption any better? Adoption from birth surely leads to the exact same trauma?

As has been pointed out again and again and again on these threads- what’s the alternative? Leave the child with birth parents who are likely to abuse or neglect them; possibly even kill them? Or leave the child in a care home and then release them into the world aged 18 with no grounding, no parenting, no roots?

Placing a child with adoptive parents is done when it is the least worst option. Most adoptive parents make an absolutely excellent job of raising the child(ren) they have adopted. The child gets much better opportunities and life chances than they would otherwise have had. The child gets to experience being loved by a family. And even when it goes really well and the child grows up happy, settled and with good mental health, still damage very often remains from those very early experiences. I know a number of adults who were adopted- all are thankfully doing well in life, now have their own families, enjoy successful careers…. But still there remains a wound from not knowing the woman who grew and birthed them.

Gay men often post about it on social media. Straight couples and single parents not so much. Further down the line they can pretend surrogacy wasn't involved in a way the guy men can't. And in their community it is seen as non controversial. Gay men want equal access to fertility treatments and here are men doing it. So they are lauded in a way that doesn't happen for the others, who are more likely to be told to adopt.

It does but when Gay men do it there seems to be a particular celebration over it and criticism of people who object as homophobic.
ALL surrogacy is awful

True. And you cannot ignore the absolute class disparities in surrogacy.

How often is it a working class woman being paid by some middle class + arseholes.

We're nowt more than commodities to them. Be that for sex, incubation or labour.

Our bodies are not our own.