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.

But wannaBe, adoption costs twice as much as surrogacy. Would you say that adopted children were also being turned into 'commodities'?

SugarMousePink it's interesting, isn't it? Someone way back on this thread said that they had no problem with lesbians as parents which has I must say, been my experience by and large. But this is predicated on a very restricted notion of parenting as a largely female domain - and much of the scaremongering around gay men as sole carers for a child relates to the fact that they are men. A lot of social conservatives would stress the father's role (in most jurisdictions this has until recently been based on issues of legitimacy and the transfer of property) although the law focuses (again, conservatively) on the proven relationship between mother and child - this often means that fathers are treated very unfairly. Again, it elevates the bodily above other aspects of parenting

I think that a lot of these issues at the social level are about power, and women are often reluctant to cede the one area in which they hold power. My DP and I did decide to take the risk of having an involved donor (like Lenin says, the fear is always about losing custody which is why people prefer to steer clear of involvement) because we didn't want her to build up a fantasy picture in her head (e.g. that she will know that her dad is slightly round, going to go bald, and sometimes short-tempered...) and because provided that we can maintain our good relationship with him, this can only benefit her. He's also (in a reversal of the EJ/DF situation) a lot younger than us, which means that DD will (I assume) have a surviving parent long after we are gone. This means a lot to me, in particular, as my father died when I was 8 (which perhaps also explains my reluctance to take the anonymous route)

I'm rambling, but I do think that historically speaking fathers have been fairly dispensible in terms of upbringing (with the wider social/kinship networks that Lenin was talking about being important). I think good, consistent parental relationships are key, and the way that they are constituted probably doesn't matter hugely. Roles are socially determined, in my view, once you get beyond the very early months.

I am happy for them. I dont see the big fuss tbh.

k12 if someone is profiting from the adoption then of course it is treating children as commodities. But often the fees paid are towards home studies etc.

there is in fact a huge black market in adoptions where children are often snatched to order by rich westerners or where poor parents are encouraged to relinquish their children in order that they "be given a better life."

As a matter of fact the US and UK have both recently ceased approving adoptions from Cambodia because of there being questions over whether the children being placed for adoption were legitimately available or whether their parents had been coersed into giving them up, often in exchange for money.

I have no issue with adoption, as on the whole adoption gives a better life to a child who otherwise would be stuck in the system. I am slightly less in favour of overseas adoption because so many 3rd world countries are rife with corruption and the possibility of families being coersed into giving up their babies on the promise of a better life for both the baby and their existing families is so huge in so many countries, which in turn leads to other families putting their babies in orphanages in the hopes of gaining money, when actually a huge amount of the money that the perspective parents pay go into the pockets of the agencies who stand to profit from their desparation for a child. And that's before we enter into the relms of removing children from their cultures and heritage.

But here in the UK overseas adoptions are far more strictly monitored and the UK does not deal with many of the countries where the circumstances are more questionable..

But I don't see adoption in the same light as surrogacy because the adopted children are already there - it's not the same as deliberately having a child for money.

There are lots of children growing up in single parent families, with elderly grandparents or in families with complicated arrangements re second marriages, step siblings etc. But these situations happen as a result of unfortunate circumstances eg breakdown of relationships, death or illness of a parent.

However, deliberately engineering situations where a baby will be brought into a family situation which is unusual and might cause them difficulty during their childhood or in later life or leave them wondering who their real mother is, is not okay. I recognise people's desire for a child and it is totally natural, but an 'entitlement' to a child is a different question and none of us has an automatic entitlement to have children.

lenin tut, tut to your (and my) parents...

I think a child is entitled, where possible, to be born to a mother who wants to keep it and to be born into a stable relationship between it's mother and father. I know that doesn't always happen but I think that's how conception should start out.

Your second comment is really stupid.

swanandduck I think the term 'entitled' is problematic: clearly children are entitled to all sorts of things that many of them do not get: adequate nutrition, the freedom to play, access to education, the loving support and nurture of one or more parental figures etc etc. I often feel that the focus of these debates is all wrong - everyone is of course permitted to have an ideal family in their heads, but it's so important to recognise that this is just that, an ideal, and that often even the ideal model conceals cruelty, neglect, even as in most instances it works well. A child is better off with a parent or parents who care for him or her properly (even if they fall short of the ideal, which I would question anyway) than with 2 heterosexual parents who neglect/abuse/mistreat the child. That's a no-brainer, surely?

The uncritical lauding of the ideal makes things doubly hard for children who have no access to it - it is not helpful to give a child a message that there is something wrong with the people who care for it, when their actions are as good as anyone else's.

The same thing can be said for all sorts of other models, and the research I've read seems to suggest fairly consistently that poverty and deprivation have a far greater impact on children than family models. There is clearly a correlation between the 2, but the model in question rarely involves a same-sex couple raising a child.

Good post drivingmissdaisy

I haven't read the whole thread yet but yes you are being vvvv unreasonable , would it be a problem if it were a traditional man and woman couple ? Also the birth mother is a surrogate not a parent leaving a baby to bond with her would be wrong on so many levels and make the transition to the childs real family much harder for everyone involved , this child will have two parents in a seemingly very happy marriage financial security and love which is more important than anything , yes they could have adopted but so could a lot of people it is their personal choice to have a child of their own and people should respect that. IMO it is worse when people like maddonna adopt a baby when the babies parent is still alive and well just does not have the financial stability to give the child a healthy home if helping means so much to her she could have sponsered. The child instead .

I would place equal value on the mother and father role. Therefore I think it's irresponsible to deliberately conceive a child into a situation where they will be deprived one of those roles.