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 what if you just can't stop thinking about how good it is to have had a mum? I'm not homophobic in any other way, and on balance I say good luck to Elton and David, perhaps they should have done it ten years ago, but hey ho. I just can't imagine not having a mum I guess.

Riven it just didn't work on my mac...

Surrogacy is an altruistic act that I could never perform. My genes would most probably (unless another egg was used) be in the child and I would be bonded from the word go! It takes someone so special to do that. Elton and Furnish are lucky to have found someone to do this for them. They are a couple who've been together 17yrs, I think they've thought this through. The child will have love and everything materially possible....so many babies are born to much worse situations.

I think the idea that it should be an altruistic act is completely confined to surrogacy. No other part of the fertility industry is available on an altruism-only basis. You could spend as much on several rounds of IVF as you could paying an egg donor and surrogate in the States but few would say that having the IVF amounted to "buying a baby" or that the clinics should act altruistically. I think if people are prepared to carry a stranger's child, they should be paid to do it - this "expenses only" rule is pure hokum and open to massive interpretation.

some posters here make me sick. and they were rejected for adoption in ukraine due to beg gay, not for age.

I only skim-read the article but I don't regard paying women to carry a baby as a problem especially if the payment is going to be a life-changing sum to them. I do object to the amount of money some agencies and middle-men skim off but paying someone to do this..? Unfortunately, very few people are that altruistic.

Now I grew up without my mum. She died when I was small. I don't remember her AT ALL, but not a year has gone by where I don't miss her presence. I was brought up by my loving GPs (who were much younger than these too as a matter of fact). It is NOT the same.

I said right at the beginning of the rhread that I found this icky but found it hard to explain why. I read all the arguments and agree with them on a rational basis.

And the end of the day I still think it is wrong. They have BOUGHT themselves a baby. They have deliberately put this child into a motherless situation - as opposed to it being of necessity.

Loving parental figures is NOT the same as having your MUM. It just isn't. I can't explain why. I hated it at primary school because I didn't want to be different to the other children. I wanted my MUM - this mythical being - to be there. No matter how much love, money and attention I received, there is nothing to replace that. Nothing.

SugarMouse I read that article and thought it was very interesting, although my goodness it raises so many difficult issues. I wonder whether all of those seeking surrogacy there have such compelling medical reasons as the two women quoted? I'm curious to know what others think - this reminded me of numerous other forms of inequality - e.g. Phillipino women who come here (I live in Ireland) to nurse, look after other people's children while not seeing their own for 18 months at a time (also true of other groups too), but improving their prospects. If we condemn these women (the surrogates) are we not simply imposing our own standards on them, in circumstances where they cannot possibly meet them? Again, earning money from surrogacy seems to be a viable option in a context where gender inequality is (at least from the examples quoted) so ingrained.

Thank you for posting the link - it was really very interesting to read.

The more I think of it, the crosser I am. They can literally pluck a newborn from the hired womb and send it to live in one of their luxury pads, with childcare laid on. And because they are gay clebs, everyone has to say how FANTASTIC and WONDERFUL that is.

I am really sorry, but I don't share that opinion. I feel for that little boy - born out of the purchasing power and selfishness of 2 middle age (plus) men.

SugarMouse, not really. That baby had a mummy, at least to the degree that she carried him in her body and gave birth to him. Now MY Mummy WANTED me. She did't do it for money. I have that at least.

I am not anti surrogacy, anti gay parents, anti gay adoption at all.

I do feel uneasy about this though. Not because they are gay or how the baby was born.
Just because I get the feeling they live in LaLa land where everything they want available becaue they have tons of money.

Ooooo a pink fur covered piano, a gold bath with diamond taps, a pony but it has to be orange, oooooo a lickle baby NOW!

I could be being very unfair because I know nothing about this couple. All I know is what is portrayed in the media and to be fair, Mr John has a LOT of control. I assume he wanted to be portrayed as a demanding diva with a Napoleon complex or that documentary would never of seen the light of day.

I hope I am wrong. I hope they dont get bored of this little boy and I hope they are all really happy.