Surrogacy article in the guardian

[HermioneKipper]

amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/oct/01/how-gay-parenthood-through-surrogacy-became-a-battleground

this has made me furious! The entitlement of these men is just unbelievable. How dare they demand the use of a woman’s body.

There’s a thread somewhere else. One of the FWR boards, presumably.

YANBU, though.

Ah I had a look and must’ve missed it.

Well the more people to see it the better. I’ve had enough of these bloody entitled men and the handmaidens agreeing with them.

Hope their case is laughed out of court and bankrupts them

Is their issue that they have to pay because they aren't infertile?

The quickest way to ensure gay men can’t have children is to be against surrogacy or some similar quote. My goodness me.

Yes. And that it’s “direct discrimination” to gay men.

Ah yes biology. Nature’s discriminator

‘We are expected to be OK with not having children’:

Shock news: so are a lot of straight people.

It's not though. It seems all fertile people have to pay?

Yes but they’re saying that they’re “not fertile” because two men can’t have a baby together

I don't think anyone who wants kids but can't is expected to be ok with it? But it is what it is.

I see!

Well the more people to see it the better.

True.

The remarks about adoption were particularly delightful, I thought.

Yes that’s what I meant.

They can’t have children because two men cannot create a child. That’s not discrimination, that’s biology.

I can’t have children but I don’t demand the right to have another woman gestate them for me

they’re entitled twats

I read that article. It really did not show them in a good light. All the semantics over it not being about using a woman's body but a woman choosing to make a gift of using her own body; incredibly disingenuous.

Horrific article. It made me so angry!

I do agree with this comment though

”Nobody asks the person who’s having children naturally why they did it instead of adopting.”

Ffs I’d be happy to give them the equality of THEM being able to have IVF… if they can provide the womb. Anybody should be able to access IVF for THEIR body, but certainly not have the right over someone else’s. Pretty ticking simple

It was me that started the other thread. I thought the adoption = volunteering quote was pretty offensive. I hadn’t heard the firefighter analogy (we let people consent to risk physical harm as firefighters) before and thought about it, but we have to have firefighters and no one has to have a biological child. For me it’s more like, I obviously have very sympathy for people with kidney failure, but it doesn’t mean it’s ok to buy a kidney.

Saying it's discrimination because as 2 gay men they can't conceive a baby, therefore women's uteruses must be supplied, for free.

Who are they going to sue? God?

Christ the entitlement. Surrogacy should be banned.

NYC, apparently.

I was thinking about this yesterday and I think there’s actually a long (minority) tradition in male gay culture of using women to provide biological offspring. It used to be that (a proportion of) gay men would marry a straight woman and con her out of ten or twenty years or more of her life, so that they could be family men. Now this.

So there’s a cultural antecedent in terms of this special kind of entitlement. Gay men who wanted biological babies have always been able to get them if they were prepared to shelve their scruples. Now it’s trickier. I think that’s where the rage and entitlement spring from.

2 men can’t have a baby can they? That’s a fact.

This is like toddlers stamping their feet. I want, I want. Get it for me know.

Not everybody gets everything they want.

Maybe they might ask if they were both MEN and totally unable to have a child naturally unless they could co-opt a woman’s body!