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

Also treatong infertility may not be the same thing as ivf.

I see it (in terms of funding) as similar to a disability. A human should be able to hear, so while being deaf is no risk to health, it does impact significantly on quality of life, so it should be treated if possible.

Se principle can be applied to fertility during child bearing years.

However it gets very complicated when it comes to how many attempts should be funded and where the cut off should be.

A medical reason but one that presents no risk to health. So IVF shouldn't be funded as having a child is not a right.

Surrogacy should be banned regardless of who is doing it. It is beyond cruel to deliberately inflict that on a child who cannot consent to it.

What exactly do you not agree with?

You were making out in your post upthread that we were hypocrites for suggesting there's a difference.

So which is it? They're the same, so same rules apply?

Or they're different and the moralities are not equivalent?

I said I didn't need it explaining, I'm not struggling with anything. I said I don't agree - that's not the same as lack of comprehension. HTH.

You could make that argument, yes.

But humans are built to procreate and if there are issues with that process at child bearing age, there is usually a medical reason.

Which is totally immaterial to the fact that if you can't conceive for whatever reason, that doesn't mean to you have a right to rent a woman's uterus to make it happen for you.

I agree and find these supposedly feel-good stories where surrogacy is being promoted very manipulative. They're definitely latching onto the gay rights cause just as heterosexual transvestites did.

So you don't understand the difference between surrogacy and adoption with regard to the circumstances the child is brought into the world?

I mean it's not exactly a difficult one. What are you struggling with?

And what are you finding so 'militant'?

So by this logic, IVF should never be available on the NHS or publicly funded?

Force teaming surrogacy with gay rights doesn't stop it being child trafficking and commodifying children and women's reproductive systems.

I have no time for it.

I don't care what the identity of the person trying to commission it. It's irrelevant.

It doesn't need explaining to me. I just don't agree with the militant, generalising viewpoints on here.

You’re making the arguments against surrogacy yourself.

I didn't say I was pro-surrogacy, so there's that.

What I am saying is that people on here seem to have decided that surrogacy is ALWAYS a result of exploited women and that no other narrative is possible.

They have also decided that the surrogate is always the 'biological' mother, and if the biological dad is the commissioning parent that is irrelevant.

'your body your choice' doesn't seem to feature too heavily here - 'your body, won't someone think of the child' seems more applicable. Now where have I heard that before... ?

And that 'adoption' is thrown around as a solution to infertility (howsoever caused) with no regard to the huge implications that that also brings. But, hey! At least it's not surrogacy so we're all good.

and you accept that surrogacy causes the same trauma, why is it ok to deliberately create such a situation where this trauma will occur

No. I haven't accepted that surrogacy causes the 'same' trauma - that's your biased interpretation. I didn't say that at all. The trauma of adoption is not only being removed from the birth mother but also substance abuse in utero and/or abuse or neglect in early life before they are removed from the home. That's the trauma I'm talking about.

People on this board get very mouth-frothy if someone has a different opinion - and flounce off saying 'well if you're not going to toe the line then there's no point arguing with you'. It's just an echo chamber.

Yes all surrogacy is wrong. But gay or single men can now have babies without as much as ever speaking to a woman, never mind touching her. It puts the contribution of a woman to the creation of the child down to a monetary transaction - two in fact, as they usually use a different woman for the egg.

Basically this is dystopian. Men used to have to have a relationship with a woman to have a child. Now they can use their superior spending power to fo nothing more than send in a sperm sample, browse egg donors from a catalogue- super model or ivy league graduate? - then turn up and pick up the baby. In some LA hospitals they now have two rooms available for surrogate births where the baby is born in one and then rushed into the other, where the purchasers are waiting.

Many women who use surrogacy use their own eggs. This is clearly not possible when it comes to men. So all these babies have two mothers who are completely erased from the child's life.

Surrogacy is being pitched as the way to bring equality in fertility treatments to gay and single men, without any consideration of the profound issues involved both for women generally and the child in particular.

Men used to have to at least tolerate the child's mother. Not any more. Women are potentially just parts of the process and more and more men, gay or single, will take advantage of this.

It shouldn't need to be explained that adopting a child already here is completely different to setting out to deliberately create a child to give it away.

This sums it up.
If the day ever comes when the bloody thing is banned then no doubt they'll be outside parliament screaming it's not fairrrrrrrr like modern day Verruca Salts.

In the UK, if you plan to give your baby up voluntarily (rare i know) I think there is a 'cooling off' period prior to the child being 'handed over' legally. With surrogates, it is the same if the mothers egg is used? If the man's sperm was used, he would have to accept 50 50 care if she changed her mind. No contact if not. He would have to sue for breach of contract, not sure how far this would go if there's no bio link.

I think the UK situation is much better than the US one. I guess in the US if the mother refuses to give up her child the authorities come in and remove the baby? I don’t know how that squares with the supposed traditional values of red states.

However I think it’s naive to think it’s as simple as that. In practice there’s often money pressure involved and also just the general pressure that would come from promising someone a child. The couple aren’t just going to accept your decision. You’ll need to deal with them contacting you. And then there could be complex issues. If one of the couple is the biological father.

Adoption.

or maybe, just maybe, they have to accept they can’t have a child.

It’s not a right to have a child.

Do you think adults have the right to have children?

@Vubui and others who are mulling this over. There is another recent thread on this board about surrogacy which is not about gay would-be parents but reveals some of the issues. The power is with the commissioning parents and the abuse of power and consequences for the surrogate can be extreme. That thread links to an article (the thread offers an archive link also)
https://www.wired.com/story/the-baby-died-whose-fault-is-it-surrogate-pregnancy

There were two surrogate mothers involved. Commissioned in the US and seems that both were motivated to help a couple have children when the mother could use her own eggs (stored in her youth) and later fertilised with her husbands sperm. Incredible abuse is reported of the mother who lost the baby (stillbirth at 30+ weeks) and aggressive bullying and doxxing her for fraud etc. leading to severe problems for that surrogate. The 'successful' surrogate had problems as a result of carrying the child which led directly to hysterectomy. The baby was born and handed over (showing the stark contrast in the definitions of success by surrogate and the commissioning parent). Its a real eye-opener. Especial problems where there is a biological link and the health of the parents may impact on how safe the pregnancy is for the surrogate and also may make the commissioning parent seek a very high degree of control if the pregnancy does not progress straightforwardly.

I am feeling that surrogacy is not a great idea in any circumstances. One important contrast to adoption is that the risk or pregnancy is already there and is no greater for the mother carrying the child. NOT the case for surrogate mothers.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5405534-venture-capitalist-harasses-surrogate

In the UK if the surrogate changes her mind and wants to keep the baby legally she can. In America she doesn't have those rights. I can name a few stars who have not carried their own children. I have done a quick Google search and found the gay couple to be British. It's not a simple process and at any point the surrogate could have decided to keep the baby.

I would agree with you if you hadn’t singled out gay men. Surrogacy is unacceptable whoever does it. Focusing on gay men is homophobic.

Thanks for the link. This story is absolutely insane. How on earth did Bi pass the psychological screening mentioned in the article??