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

Adoption.

Many countries have banned surrogacy outright. There are many people who agree with the op. Has she identified a particular reaction to surrogacy based on the fact it is two gay men? I don't know. However I have noticed there are increasing numbers of puff pieces about surrogacy in the press - probably driven by commercial surrogacy companies looking to relax the surrogacy laws in the UK. The whole industry - because that's what it is - is horrific.

Really not really the same thing, dogs are an entirety different species who need to learn basic skills and socialisation from their mothers so they essentially "know how to be a dog".

Meanwhile, nothing fundamentally detrimental is happening to a newborn human child if someone other than the birth mother is feeding, changing and caring for them. If that were the case, the millions of preterm babies who spend time in NICU, or babies cared for by father's or grandparents where mothers are absent in their early lives as a result of illness or death, would all be in serious trouble.

"Why should any couple, gay or straight, be forced into co-parenting just to have a child?"

Why shouldn't they? It seems like they are willing to pay the financial costs, but not the other, less tangible costs.

A child is not a commodity to be bought and sold, to be hoarded or shared. If fate or fortune has made someone infertile, then that is their problem to deal with, not the child's. The child's interests should be the priority here. Every child has a right to its mother, where that is humanly possible. I can see it's not necessarily in the commissioning parent or parents' interests to co-parent with the mother, but it's nearly always in the interests of the child.

I know, it’s just their human right to be given a child on demand apparently.

Agreed. The rights of the child should always take priority. Nobody should bring a child into the world with the deliberate intention of immediately separating it from its mother. Sometimes, of course, that simply can't be avoided, but it shouldn't be deliberately inflicted, and certainly not in return for payment.

Yeah what about the men and what they want!

Yep, or coparenting. They have 2, good ethical options.

Being gay does not give someone the right to purchase another human being - that is human trafficking and it’s abhorrent. No one should be doing it and the OP is correct that gay couples seem to praised for doing so.

It’s vile to deliberately separate a newborn from its mother (we don’t do these with animals). I’d be interested to know why you think it’s ok to remove a child at birth but not say, a week, a couple of months, a year old…

A gay couple are biologically unable to become pregnant so their option is adoption - not buying someone.

I agree with your first statement. The rest - no! So what if the woman wants to do it for 'altruistic' or financial reasons?! The baby doesn't matter? No baby would choose to be born just to be given away! Surrogacy is wrong on every level.

Or coparent.

Exactly, and gay men CAN still have a bio kid if they make the effort to forge a coparenting relationship, which is obvs hard work but worth it for the child to know their bio parents.

No man, whatever sexuality, is owed a woman's body for sex or children, and those intimate things should not be commodified. That's why sex work and surrogacy are fundamentally wrong. And the sooner men stop behaving like they're OK, the happier the world will be

'Excess' eggs from the IVF process are sometimes donated. In some Western countries where IVF is run privately for profit, there might be financial incentives to do so e.g. a discount, or disincentives not to e.g. high storage costs. The provider can then sell the eggs.

Or, eggs can be bought cheaply from white women in disadvantaged countries e.g. Ukraine.

In my view the sexuality or gender of an infertile couple is irrelevant. A gay male couple's needs aren't any different or more or less important. But the only other methods open to them are foster or adopt.

A friend made the argument that gay men 'have no choice' but to do surrogacy if they want a biological child, that straight men can just have a baby of their own if they want one. Her argument assumes that straight men have some inalienable right to make women pregnant.

They don't even consider that straight men still have have to convince a woman to mate with them...and we all know men have impregnated women w/out their consent since time immemorial, they have controlled our reproduction, our kinships, our money, our children and our access to our children.

Like an earlier poster said, gay men are no different in believing that all men should get what they want.

Obvs ONSs can't be prevented. But I really doubt many lesbians do that.

I have a lot of lesbian friends and use some mainly lesbian forums (I'm bi) and they all feel absolute repulsion at the idea of sex w a man. Many do IVF bc they don't want to inject the sperm directly into their body.

I'm sure a few women did that back when IVF was not an option , sperm banks were less common & gay men were often more likely to be painting the town red rather than settling down to family life. But times are different now thankfully, and there are other options.

I don't think that's good though. Fathers are important too, w unique contributions to make, and it can be really upsetting to for children to grow up and find out their bio dad just 'spunked and went". I also think it's bad for men to get in a mindset where they just donate sperm & completely disregard their offspring afterwards.

There are many accounts of the sadness of sperm donor-conceived children. The Reddit forum DonorConceived, for one, or the website We are donor conceived.

Most sperm donors don't want a long term- ofc at the banks they don't. That's why lesbians who want a gay man to be the bio dad usually use friends (or try & find via coparenting websites). It is possible.

I agree OP.
Gay men. Not the allies women seem to think

Sorry, I misread contact as contract!

I'm all for equality - I want surrogacy outlawed for everyone equally.

Me too

Have people seen this article. The horrors within are on another level.

archive.ph/Wh7Rv

Granted, this commissioning parent is downright evil, which the vast majority of people will not be. But it just shows you what happens when you make human life a commodity that can be bought and sold.

No ons has a right to a child

I don't mind sperm donors @AliasGrace47 it's long been around for heterosexual couples, not that uncommon but people don't talk about it.
Most sperm donors aren't looking for a long term relationship.

Without wanting to be crude, men can regardless just spunk and go. There's not the same biological connection and women do bring up babies in groups in some societies, from my little understanding.

There would be also no easy way to prevent it, how would you tell if a woman had had sex with a man to conceive a child with a lesbian partner? Some do just use men they know!

No, no you misunderstand. I don't agree w surrogacy at all. I meant to write 'contact' not 'contract'

What I meant was, I don't agree w sperm donation unless the lesbian couple coparents w the man so the child will know their bio dad. For this reason I think lesbigay coparenting is the way to go. I don't think it's right for a man or woman to donate sperm or an egg and then have no contact.

Surrogacy is gross exploitation no matter who is doing the exploiting, but yes, the gay situation is particularly reprehensible when critics (sometimes gay themselves) are accused of "homophobia".

I'm all for equality - I want surrogacy outlawed for everyone equally.

Nobody should use surrogates or sperm or egg donors w no contact

The problem with contracts for surrogacy is two fold.

One, they can’t possibly account for all eventualities that might arise from a pregnancy, meaning it’s inevitable that events will occur that fall outside of the contract and require a court to decide.

Two, it isn’t possible for a contract to protect all three parties’ rights equally. Something has to give, someone has to be given lesser rights in order for it to work. I don’t see how it is ethically and morally acceptable to allow parties to enter into a compromising contract where the transaction of a human to be deliberately separated from its mother is the outcome.