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.

No one's saying that people should 'just forego' the opportunity to have children, just that the ways and means to do this need debate with, of course, the welfare of the child at the centre of that debate, not simply the desire of the parent.

Re the remark about mixed race children, that has absolutely nothing to do with the debate in hand. There is no ethical issue at stake there, and it was unfair to throw that in.

swanandduck the point about mixed race children was a personal experience of the poster that she argued was relevant to the debate - she is perfectly entitled to make this point. In any case, I think you have missed her point - which was, as I understand it, that times and expectations change - just as mixed race children were once seen as lacking a secure 'place' , so too mores and values about lesbian and gay people as parents change. Thankfully, so far, I have largely been the beneficiary of these changes, and more importantly, so has my DD. If children are at the centre of this debate, then the approach should surely be to welcome them and support them irrespective of the situation in which they are being parented - this applies across the board for me. I think you are forgetting that at the time, miscegenation (to use the unpleasant term) WAS seen as an ethical issue by many - and still is in other parts of the world. What this shows to me is that ethics are historically determined and that our view of them - thank goodness - changes with time.

I perfectly understood what she was saying thanks, but my point, which I am also entitled to make, was that it was an unfair comparison as my posts were strictly about removing or circumventing nature's barriers.

Lenin

When I talked about debate needed I meant that an overall debate on these kind of issues, taking into account the long term effects on society or the way things could be abused to the detriment of some children is needed. I don't really think it's something that can be debated in a case by case way as it's too large an issue.

I haven't a clue how you had your children and don't understand why you keep bringing the debate down to you, you, you. I am talking about the bigger issue of 'anything goes' or a danger of that arising, if we don't have adequate and 'bigger picture' debate about issues such as surrogacy, not about your particular circumstances and whether it suits you, and you alone.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that debate is needed because otherwise the whole issue could get out of hand, and with something as important as having children, there needs to be controls and barriers. Coming back constantly and saying 'well this suits me' and 'I'm happy with my arrangement' is only a tiny part of an effective debate.

It's not about where I see the boundaries remaining, it's about where a rounded debate would see them remaining.

could get out of hand? hat /you mea is those gays having kids tut tut.

and you did clearly miss the point , big style

"Controls and barriers" placed by whom ? If an emotionally mature, committed and financially stable couple aren't allowed to have a child together then who should be ffs?

Buzzlight

I think you're the one missing the point big sytle, if you don't understand what I mean by 'could get out of hand'. Very childish comment.

lala, I have not been talking about 'placing' barriers, I have said that 'removing' barriers should not always be seen as a good thing and the consequences for society must always be considered.

My own personal view and instinct is that deliberately engineering situations where a child will have a very high chance of being orphaned within a few years because his parents are in their sixties or seventies, or deliberately bringing a child into the world who will never know a mother is wrong. I realise these things may happen sometimes because of unfortunate circumstances (early death or a parent, breakdown of a relationship) but they are 'unfortunate' circumstances that no one deliberately planned.

And by the way, at one stage I was desperate for a baby but hadn't met dh and biological clock was ticking quite fast, and a friend asked why I didn't just have a baby on my own but I wouldn't even consider it because I didn't feel that would be right for the child. So I have 'walked the walk'.

Why has this been made in to such a big thing? Yes the age could be an issue but what about the couple in the paper yesterday the dad is in his 90's and the mum in her 50's. You hear about older parents all the time. They wanted to adopt and were unable so they felt this was another option. I wish them all the best. Being a parent is the best thing in the world. Some say they could afford it but they will not be the first to choose a surrogate nor will they be the last. This has only been made in to a big thing because they are famous.
We should be pleased for them and how much the surrogate is involved is up to all concerned and none of our business really. sorry if this offends anyone, its not meant to

one of them is 48. why exactly will he die in a few years? maybe he'll die of gay (ask a moir)

God this type of thread hacks me off.It's along the lines of the kids out of marriage threads,IVF etc etc.

Thankfully we live in a modern society now with new science and thankfully values.We don't all have to live by individual values or life choices.

Millions of children are born into obese,smoking,poorly,older,poverty stricken parents daily. Plenty of children live without a mother figure or a father figure.

Very,very few parental situation is perfect.We all have flaws and circumstances that impact on out kids lives.Nobody thinks we don't deserve to be parents.

Forces dads spend a lot of time away from their kids should they not be fathers? Mothers die, should their kids go into the care of both a mum and dad? No of course not.

Our children are born live into a rich,modern society and learn very quickly that one size does not fit all. We're all living longer,we now have the science to give gay couples children-get over it.

Elton John has money,friends and a long term stable relationship.This obviously much longed for child is a very lucky chap.

Buzzlight

Read my post again. Where did I say DF was going to die in a few years???

but I think there are limits: it's not as if fertility is an unregulated industry, clinics are very risk averse and highly conscious of the potential for legal action. As I said in a previous post, the options are still pretty limited, but swanandduck (if I got it right - seemingly everyone on this thread is misinterpreting her) is not really talking about reproductive technologies, but about the importance of the traditionally defined family - which is fine as far as it goes, but doesn't really take account of the messy reality and the fact that definitions of the family change and are changing. Our very child-centred view of parenting is also quite recent and probably largely the consequence of being able to plan families: we'd all probably view our children differently if we were on our 7 or 8th pregnancy in a context where we (a) had no choice and (b) knew we were going to struggle to provide for them.

yawn keep digging swanandduckie

Just because definitions of the family are changing does not mean that some of those changes may not be in the best interests of the child. As another poster has said it's not always about 'my' right to have a child, but what works best for children. I do think that some people selfishly and deliberately have children when they are not best placed to bring up that child or just refuse to accept that their lifestyle/circumstances are not conducive to having and raising children. You may not like people saying that a child should have a mother and a father in it's life, but I and a lot of other people believe that.