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.

Yes I would, Santa.

I only "agree" with IVF when no donor sperm or eggs are used.

isn't unnatural conception more "social engineering" than not having it would be?

1. They are a good couple by all

appearances that they are gay means nothing to me.

1. What a child needs is loving parents as long as they provide that then I see no problem.

1. If they are 'buying' a child then anyone using IVF is also 'buying' a child.

1. Maybe Elton John may be to old but his partner is not 48 is not a bizarre age.

1. As long as the woman invovled is not coerced (which does not seem to be what happened here she volunteered.) then it is her decision no one else's.

especially since the more money you have the more goes you get, as this example shows, they have enough money to keep going through all the processes till someone is willing to sell

same with the amt of IVF goes people have

Haven't got time to read the whole thread but if anyone wants to pm me with the names of those who agree with op I could at least update the Bigot column on my spreadsheet. Ta.

I dont see a problem with it, apart from Adoption how else are they going to havw a child ?

I agree with Lenin.... People who have to come to parenting 'outside the box' have puit a lot of thought and planning into it, its certainly not a done on a whim.

IVF, donor eggs / sperm, surrogacy
all of the above. none of it sits well with me. I would never partake in any of the above personally.

IMO not all genes (or combination of genes) are meant to be passed on.

"Diddl - out of interest, why do you have an issue with donor sperm/eggs?"

It just seems too unnatural to me-to be carrying a child that either isn´t yours or isn´t your husbands.

oneortwo

Basically saying some people should not breed right?

if social engineering is being used as an aguement AGAINST putting restrictions on IVF etc, then I am just saying that without restrictions its still not something that's at the disposal of lots of people because of location/finance so HAVING these things IS a form of social engineering already in favour of the rich in the west.

So IMO the social engineering arguement against restrictions does not really work

No problems with adoption.

There are some other medical interventions that I also think are going to far.

that's where my line is drawn. At least I don't have different lines for different groups of people (e.g. hetro couples vs gay couples etc)

SMP, not everyone has access to the NHS, not everyone lives in the uk or us