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.

That's your POV, K12 and yes, U.S law agrees with you that the baby a woman has carried under her heart for nine months, is not hers, the baby she has fed from her own blood, is not hers, the baby she gives life to in pain, is not hers...
UK law disagrees, and I think they're right.

So, answer me this, Sakura... would you think it was acceptable for the surrogate to keep the baby, even though it is not biologically hers?

there is no perfect set up for having kids, that is what makes life interesting.

all you naysayers are homophobic dicks.

i think it is great for gay men to have this precedent in the public eye.

Sakura - you could cite bad examples to prove any point you like. The fact is that surrogacy (as well as egg and kidney donation) does an incredible amount of good for an enormous amount of people.

Sakura I also agree women shouldn't be coerced or made to do it with any thing more than the replacement of loss of wages and costs. I took issue of your use of rent a womb though

I disagree with it on many levels.

Them being two men is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. But there seems to be this trend of celebrities "needing" to have a child, and let's face it, they're not likely to be bringing it up are they? Is either one going to take time out from their job to spend the baby's first six months with it? will they be getting up in the night for feeds/changing nappies - I doubt that very much. I would imagine that the baby was, in fact, delivered from the hospital into the arms of the waiting nanny/s who will be responsible for its care while it status-hungry celebrity parents look on and play the doating parents.

I disagree entirely with surrogacy, more so with surrogacy where the woman gives up her biological child. As far as I'm concerned it is nothing more than buying and selling babies and is wrong. Babies are not commodities; no-one has the right to have one by whatever means they see fit, even if that includes exploiting another woman or the baby if the other woman is willing to sell you her uterus and baby.

And I also don't agree that you can only have issue with something if you've experienced it for yourself, just before anyone goes down the "you've never experienced infertility so you have no idea," route (I have experienced it, for the record).

Sakura, in this instance we're not talking about a woman coerced into anything so why are you banging on about it?

If a woman decides she wants to do it then she should be allowed to do it and I don't suspect for one minute that EJ or DF coerced her into anything so can't you just be happy for them.

lorelilee That depends on which side of the fence you're standing. IF you're a rich middle class couple, then yes, I suppose you could say that it's a GOod Thing. If you're a russian or Indian girl then I suppose some would say it's better than prostitution, or letting your children starve.

I put my hands up to being uncomfortable with this and also with being uncomfortable with being uncomfortable. It just feels wrong even though there is not one specific thing. ie No problem with gay parents, no problem with older parents, no problem with rich infertile couples using a surrogate. I think its the fact they are all 3 and that as a child, is a lot to cope with as well as being famous from the word go.

Tootles because if she received any cash at all, then she was coerced.
IF it's one of their sisters, I'll step off this thread and shut up

k12 yes, I think it would be acceptable for her to keep the baby.
Because I only agree with surrogacy in cases of altruism and if she changes her mind then it's no longer altrusim to be forced legally to hand the baby over.

That is a risk a surrogate couple must understand: that the woman who carries a baby for 9 months and gives birth might fall hopelessly in love with the baby

Sorry, SantaMousePink, I completely misquoted you there!

This thread has just hit a raw nerve for me, not only because I know gay parents, but also because I am one of those parents who apparently "exploited" another woman for my own selfish needs

I think it is fair enough to ask questions.

I do not think there is such a thing as a "right to a baby".

I think most people love their mum, and saying that a mother is not needed for a child....well, fair enough to have some doubts.

Should everyone really have the "right" to a baby?

What if 2 70-year old men want a baby?

Would it be fair on the child?

I know what my opinion on this SHOULD be, I know I should say that as long as a child is raised by a loving couple, they will be happy. I know that is what I "should" think.

But somehow, I wish a mother for every child.

Is that wrong? I know kids grow up fine without one, but to actively choose this...

well, deep down I don't think it is ideal.

Yabu, and homophobic to boot.

Sakura, surrogates (and egg donors for that matter) have to undergo stringent psychological testing (in teh US at least) to ensure that they understand that the baby is not theirs. If the psychologist has any doubt that she can cope with this, s/he will not clear her to be a surrogate.

You really don't rate women very highly do you Sakura. Some of us make real life decisions for ourselves. I really don't see the money = coercion logic.

Sakura - definitions of coerced

verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing.
1.
to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2.
to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3.
to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

Even if she did receive payment I seriously doubt it falls into anyone of the above categories, do you!?

John Humphries (R4 presenter) also fathered a child in his 60s, iirc. No big outcry about that.

Would it be ok if EJ+DF adoptd a desperately poor African baby instead? Babies are commodities, always have been.

Why were they not allowed to adopt? is it because they were too old?

Sakura What on earth is all this "carried below her heart" nonsense.

You do realise that you don't really love with your heart don't you? It's a muscle that pumps blood around the body and there are plenty of internal organs doing last less pleasant jobs in there surrounding the baby.