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.

on a slightly facetious note, I read this story this morning when DD woke me up at 5.30am (following on from her Boxing Day spectacular gamefest from 1-5.30 ) and thought to myself, lucky bastards will never know the joy of entertaining a toddler when there's still 3 hours to go until sunrise...

Why - because they will have nannies Driving?

well, that was what in my sleep deprived state I was assuming...I could be wrong, but I am sure they will have help of some kind

Where's the love?

If this isn't an example of an exploitative industry (yes industry, or at the very least 'business') I'll eat my hat.

'There is no insurance to cover the surrogate mother and it is recommended that the agreement has a clause built in for some compensation to the family of surrogate in the event that she has an obstetric accident and dies.'

[horror]

I agree with MumsMunchkin

Mathanxiety, pregnancy is always a risky business (not just in surrogacy cases) and obviously they have to consider all eventualities. As for compensation to the surrogate's family, that's a good thing, surely?

I don't think any of you anti-surrogists can appreciate the level of poverty that these women endure. Carrying a baby for someone can literally transform the life of the surrogate (and her children) in financial terms. What right of you - in your rich Western country - got to deny her that?

"diddl it's hard to know what is and isn't 'intervention' once you move away from penetrative sex for the purpose of procreation."

Yes, it is-and without saying that that is the only way a baby should be created, where do you draw the line?

Mathanxiety - thank you for posting as that link was truly horrific.

Horrific, how?

'There is no insurance to cover the surrogate mother and it is recommended that the agreement has a clause built in for some compensation to the family of surrogate in the event that she has an obstetric accident and dies.'

Horrific.

Yes, that's right, it is not covered by insurance. It is the same in the US. It is therefore a requirement of the intended parents that they take out a policy.

But they choose to carry these babies. It should be an act of altruism and nothing more; no money should change hands.

But we don't know that ej or df isn't the father. so there shouldn't be a problem bringing their child home.

They haven't blabbed on and on for the past nine months, courting the media, so why think they will now? They were a family before they had Zachary, why can't they be left alone to enjoy, get to know their baby? who cares if they have a nanny- keeps someone employed!!!!

I wonder how those who object feel about Cristiano Ronaldo?
He had a baby son appear from out of nowhere, the mother handed him over. The baby was then immediatley looked after by his Ronaldo's mother whle he went on holiday for weeks.
The term "surrogacy" was never mentioned, but it appears thats what happened, in all but name.

Extremelychocolatey, in regard to the child asking about their mother some day. I don't personally know Elton J or David F, but I thought about what we would say. I think we'd explain how we really wanted to be a parents, but was unable to do so ourselves and needed help. We had heard that there were kind women out who loved being pregnant would have the baby for us. As the child got older, and understood more about "test tube babies" we would fill in the information. They would never know who the egg donor was, just that out there was someone willing to allow us the gift of life.

Personally, if I were to actually use a surrogate, I would like to know who the egg donor was, and maybe EJ & DF do know, but are not telling the public. Sarah Jessica Parker's surrogate was criticized by a lot of people, and mobbed by the press, (and it wasn't even about donor eggs, no donor eggs were used. But she was harassed.
As are many surrogate mothers, so perhaps they are sheltering her. SJP's surrogate's name should never have been released to the public.

Now this is pure speculation, and a bit of an aside from the main discussion, but wouldn't you be tempted to use EJ's sperm, to try to pass on some of those musical genes?? Whatever you think of the issue (or indeed his music) the man has creative talent in bucketloads

LOL violethill, what if the baby had been a girl and she had ended up short and pudgy like EJ? DF is taller and much better looking...

wannaBe, why do you think surrogates should not be paid? It is a win-win situation: the prospective parents get a baby and the surrogate gets to earn some money that could change her life.

Where's the problem with that, other than you think it's wrong? Why should you dictate what is right/wrong for other parents?

I can't stand people like you!

diddl clearly for a lot of people the line is drawn more by money than by ethics, and finance is often the deciding factor. I'm not sure what you mean, really, though, because the range of options is currently fairly limited:
IUI with donor/partner's sperm
IVF with same
IVF with donor eggs
IVF with donor sperm and donor eggs
surrogacy
other 'interventions' are usually chemical and to do with improving/regulating a woman's cycle/egg quality or a man's sperm production/motility. So what are these terrible things that I don't know about?

But I don't have any problem with whatever degree of intervention is required as long as all parties are consenting - donor sperm and donor eggs, IVF all fine with me. I should say as the non-biological mother of a lovely little girl that many of you (in my view) overstate the importance of the biological connection, possibly because it's hard to imagine that this isn't somehow hard-wired (you only have to look at the huge numbers of abused and neglected children to know that it isn't - and unfortunately for these children - and for my relationship to DD - the law places biological relationship above the welfare of the child - but that's another thread)

I am probably less comfortable with surrogacy but if pushed couldn't really articulate why - although I think it has something to do with the relationship between reproduction and money (having said this, very few lesbian couples who have children have not handed over some money - in our case, covering our donor's expenses for travel, petrol etc). I have no difficulty at all with assisted reproduction for those who need it (and realise that 'need' is hard to define).

Boffin did you want to get back to me about the studies??

"However the issue for me throughout this whole thread is not that DF and EK used a surrgate, but that the only reason they did is because they were unable to adopt"

I would also agree with that.

But it is the age(s) that mean that they can´t adopt?

Itis a shame that they couldn´t have done it some years ago.

No it's great

"diddl clearly for a lot of people the line is drawn more by money than by ethics,"

Yes I think you are right there.

I think that there are also times when just because something can be done doesn´t mean it should.

I think it is perhaps surrogacy that I also find the hardest to feel comfortable with-but then if all parties are OK with it is that all that matters?

I said earlier that I disagreed /felt uncomfortable with donor sperm/eggs.

Might have to rethink that though as I can´t honestly say that I wouldn´t have considered that if necessary.

k12, as soon as someone starts earning money you turn surrogacy into a business and children into commodities. Child trafficking is illegal and immoral - that surely doesn't change just because the baby is as yet unborn (and again, I am talking about surrogates where the baby is biologically the surrogate's).

Answer this: if a woman falls pregnant and decides to give the baby up for adoption, would you think it appropriate that she be paid a handsome some of money for the baby? If not, then why do you think that it is appropriate for a woman to carry her biological child under the agreement that she will give it to a certain couple at the end and then profit from the exchange? That is no different than selling the baby at birth, surely?

The statement that a child doesn't need a mother baffles me tbh. And I wonder whether people really believe that or whether they consider it inappropriate to admit that they don't for fear of being branded prejudiced. If you read most threads on here where a father is fighting for custody of the children, the overwhelming response is that the children need their mother and that the courts should award residence to the mother because children need their mummy.

Of course if a child is adopted or if the mother dies then having a loving parent is the ideal over having nothing, but deliberately bringing a child into the world that will not have a mother does seem wrong somehow.