To think it is wrong for a surrogate to have a child for two men?

[Extremelychocolatey]

The men in question are Elton John and David Furnish.

link

It feels wrong on so many levels.

Why do people assume that celebrities only want to have a baby as an 'accessory'? Surely they want children for the same reasons as the rest of us?

I have no issue with two people in a loving relationship having children by whatever means found necessary. I do question EJ's motives, purely because I have heard/seen evidence of a (shall we say) less than grounded personality. I'm assuming that DF will bring stability to the little boy's life.

I haven't backpedalled at all. I opened the discussion with an AIBU and gave a link to a current news story as it was the announcement about Zachary that prompted me to start the thread.

I did indeed say that I thought it was wrong for a surrogate to have a child for two men and said it felt wrong on many levels. However, I couldn't quite articulate why I felt this way because I didn't really know why. This initiated a discussion and after reading many posts I realised that it is the idea of surrogacy that I have a problem with whether it is for gay or heterosexual couples because I think it is wrong for a woman to deliberately conceive and give birth to a child she has no intention of raising.

See? I am able to listen to various viewpoints and change my mind/form an opinion - surely that's what you want your students to be able to do.

You on the other hand insult me, call me homophobic, lazy and a bad teacher - you haven't come out of this thread very well yourself, violet.

so why are people not happy for the likes of madonna, for instance?

And actually I would have issue with anyone going abroad to pay someone to have their baby for them regardless of whether they were celebrities.

Quote from WannaBe:

"And actually I would have issue with anyone going abroad to pay someone to have their baby for them regardless of whether they were celebrities".

May I ask why you hold that view?

You see, OP, there's a difference between raising an issue for discussion, and consequently considering other viewpoints, refining one's position, and developing a new perspective, and just spouting a badly worded OP.

And btw, you were the one who called the rest of us 'lazy'

I think its lovely of them to want a child however elton is on the old side- he isnt clean cut and infact has family members who he no longer acknowledges since he became famous all those years ago- I think being an egg donor or surrogate is a very selfless thing to do as is adopting and as a parent of two beautiful children i know it is the best feeling in the world to have my own and if these two people love each other dearly then why not -as long as they are the ones looking after him daily and he is not passed from nanny to nanny then i wish them all the luck in the world.

I agree Lenin - its a very difficult issue to hold a fixed view on, because in some circumstances it can work out very positively for all concerned, and in others it doesn't.

because, as I said further up this thread, I think surrogacy is wrong.

I have less of an issue with it where a woman is merely a host and carries a couple's biological child for them, but in the instances where surrogates use their own eggs and then essentially carry their biological child for someone and then hand it over after the birth in exchange for money. For me that's nothing short of child-trafficking. The child has no choice about whose family they grow up in; often these surrogates have children of their own, you can't tell me that it's not potentially damaging to both the surrogate child and the other siblings who see their parent go through pregnancy and then give away their sibling - I know people who have had siblings (younger siblings) given up for adoption, and the damage to them psychologically has been immense.

It seems to me to be all about the adults here with no actual consideration for the welfare of the children, both existing and expected.

It is very unusual for a gestational carrier (surrogate) to use her own eggs, not least because of the possible legal implications. So, given that most surrogates are carrying a child that they are not biologically related to you, what are people's views on that?

And with regards to people's concerns about exploitation, may I add that surrogates can be paid as much as 30k. That could make an enormous difference to the quality of life of the 'existing' children.

in all the programmes I've ever watched about surrogates, they've all used their own eggs. And they've all had children of their own already.

and 30k hardly lends credence to the "surrogates can only be paid their expenses" crap that is spouted does it?

k12- i see it as the women is purely an incubator
I think to give the gift of a child to a couple who cant have their own is the most amazing gift in the world. I for one would love to help another couple become parents and experience the love and joy a child can bring.

There is absolutely no opinion on earth that is "too archaic" to merit debate.

I think using a sperm-donor is wrong it's just seeing man as yoghurt dispensers.

well quite, riven. The same applies re donor eggs.

Fertility treatment is big business in a lot of countries, and with the abollission of the HFEA I wonder how long it will be before egg and woomb sales become more common place over here too. You can already have cut-price ivf treatment if you're prepared to give half your eggs to an infertile couple - so only a matter of time me thinks.

Sorry WannaBe, I'm talking about the US where surrogates can be paid as much as the parents wish to pay.