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.

My reaction

So what, who cares. Gay men having baby, big deal.

I would ask my own parents complimentary, but I don't have any. I can assure you I would have been happy enough with 2 very rich, very doting, loving fathers who longed for me and jumped through massive hoops to get me.

Is anyone seriously thinking poor kid about this boy? Bonkers.

I had an unfortunate typo,

YABU

The OP is being unreasonable and backward and silly.

The kid is going to have nannies galore and a great time, I hope for the child's sake that elton john lives long enough to see him grow up being so old and all.

What an interesting thread. Lots of different issues here: gay parenting, surrogacy, late parenthood, celebrity parenthood...

Everything's been said, except perhaps two points.

First, just a little niggle: that little line about 'babies being treated as the latest accessory'. This nearly always gets applied to gay people, doesn't it? Do heterosexual people think our motivations for wanting to bear and raise children are any different to theirs?

The other point, and mainly in response to swananduck: back when my grandmother was having her brood of mixed race children, she was constantly criticised for deliberately creating children who 'won't belong anywhere'. Actually, I remember this being said quite often in my childhood - the idea that is was cruel and irresponsible to create children who weren't black or white, and therefore would face a life of prejudice. I live in London, and I don't hear it now...

Nobody wants their children to face bullying and prejudice, and gay parents think about this A Lot. For many of us, it is our biggest fear and one of the reasons why we postpone parenthood. And I do accept your point that sometimes social barriers and prejudices have a function, and should be heeded. But we need to be very careful indeed that we have got the balance right when we suggest that whole social groups of people should not become parents because other people have an attitude about it.

Impeccable, I think you are right wrt EJ's history of wanting a child. Reprehensible of him to marry if that was the reason for it. But as far as a 'designer baby' -- I think they are happy to welcome whatever they get.

Great Post Hester!

Another thing I thought of, subsequent to my last post, concerns the latest accessory/following fashion/keeping up with the trends jibes.

I have a friend who despite loving children, and being a fabulous godmother and auntie to many, does not want children of her own. It used to grate on her, at family weddings, parties etc when she was questioned why she didn't have any children, and then had to justify why - often to people she hardly knew.
She turns it round on the questioner now. She answers, quite truthfully that her husband have decided that they prefer to be free of any ties, and that they enjoy each other, and the travel they they can indulge in, without the cost of a family to consider.
Without pausing for breath, but not in a defensive manner,if the timing is right, she then replies. Why did you want Children? The usual response is either err.... (5 minute pause whilst they have a think) or because it's 'the thing to do' or 'all my friends were, so it seemed like the right time'
Perhaps this is a subject for another thread, but what would your answer be?

i always feel a bit sceptical about any celebrity babies, particularly adoptions. but thats got nowt to do with them being gay.

Speaking as someone who loves her own mother very much (as I am sure lots of you do!), I just feel a little bit sad for this boy who has been denied the opportunity to have that most basic human relationship.

I'm sure he will get lots of love and all the material things a boy could want, but there is that one thing he won't ever be able to buy - and I don't think a whole payroll full of nannies will compensate.

Good luck to them both, as long as a child has a loving enviroment where they are nurtured I see no problem with the fact they are both male. To be quie honest, so what if I do!

Thank you Hester -said what i wanted to say much more eloquently!

A question for mycounty - you say all children must have a mother and a father. What about an older child who cannot cope with that? My oldest DD was originally placed for adoption in a mother/father home and it failed miserably, one of the major reasons being that she couldn't cope with having a father or father figure at all. She couldn't relate to men at all back then, so when she was placed for adoption the second time it was to be a single woman or lesbian couple ONLY. No men. AND it worked. i know my girl, she didn't cope with men for years, first man she finally related to properly is now her husband, but she sometimes still has issues. Would you have denied her a home because she couldn't be with men/ couldn't have a father?

And all this children will be bullied nonsense - bullies pick on anything - they pick their victim before they decide exactly what to taunt them with! And generally, I find children much more tolerating and accepting than adults are!

havent had time to read the whole thread but im not sure on this tbh.

i agree it is good that they can provide the child with love security and wealth etc but why did they go down the surrogacy route??? there are so many children that are in need yet they chose to bring a new life into the world.

i guess to me it seems a bit selfish tbh. they obviously wanted a newborn, not an older child, and this makes me feel uneasy. why a newborn and not a 5 year old???

Well, it is not that adopting is an easy way to have children, far from it. Any one who had adopted can tell you about being put through a lot in order to get a child.

Yes they could have done it, but I don't find it surprising they wanted to have one of their very own. IYWIM

"there are so many children that are in need yet they chose to bring a new life into the world." Out of interest Armani - how many older children have you adopted? Do you have birth children as well as adopted - I'd be interested in which you felt was the more selfish way to create a family and your motivation behind each?

armani, had you been able to read the whole thread, you'd have seen that EJ was judged too old to adopt. (He's now 63, DF 48)

It's not that they haven't investigated that route; they tried to adopt an HIV+ boy from Ukraine, but Ukraine doesn't recognise ss marriages. EJ and DF are still helping that child, and his family, financially.

Sorry, EJ is 62. Added a year there!

armani from the reports it appears that they didn't 'obviously want a newborn' as they tried to adopt an HIV positive little boy a couple of years back. They were refused adoption because of EJs age.

It is my understanding that all surrogate babies tend to be newborn so they had no option but to take a newborn as surrogacy was the only option available to them to become parents as they could not adopt.

I can't quite believe that so many people on this forum - aimed at parents - would begrudge someone desperate to be a parent becoming one.

I see evidence of so many kids born to people who really don't give a sh*t and have nothing to offer but were too stoopid to use contraception and some people on here are slamming a couple who are in a long term relationship, are financially stable and want a child for going to great lengths to have one.

Some people are ridiculously backward. But i guess the world would be very boring if we all thought the same.

I skipped to the end because I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I'm wondering what exactly sakura thinks non-wealthy women should do for money. I'd be picky about who I carried for, but I'd consider surrogating, and I'd happily accept money if they wanted to offer it and could afford it. It feels a lot less corrupt than doing minimum wage labour to prop up the income of the rich shareholders of large corporations. (Which I already do, yes, out of desperation. I'd also be interested in your suggestions of alternatives to that, sakura.)

I think they will probably be very good parents. And the child will want for nothing.

Less sure about surrogacy - the idea that human life is a commodity than can be bought and sold leaves me vaguely queazy.

What wonderful news. I am sure they wlil be very good and involved parents.
I am a supporter of (a) surrogacy (b) older parents (c) gay rights and (d) knowing that children do very well in all sorts of situations.

The thread shows what very different views there are on these topics.

This child has been brought into this world through and with love

Indeed. That's what counts and I hate the homophobia, the sexism (that mothers are somehow better than fathers) the ageim, the prejudice - all those awful attitudes come to the fore. Thank goodnees the law allows gay couples to have children whatever mumsnetters may think. They will just have to accept it. Mother is not God. Men are great parents.

Very good post from Hester.

I am highly entertained by the number of posters who make the highly illogical leap that celebrity = bad parent. I would be interested to hear anything to back up the 'they will be foisted off an nannies and boarding schools' posts. Because at the moment it seems that some people think that as soon as a person becomes famous, they have every natural instinct removed.