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.

But they are not infertile.

They have functional sperm.

It would be so much simpler if surrogacy was just out-lawed.

I don't think you can differentiate between heterosexual and gay couples in that way, based on what women in general can do (i.e. conceive). Because policies like this exist for very specific purposes; to help people who do not conceive via PIV sex.

But isn't there a difference between heterosexual couples who don't conceive through PIV sex because of a medical issue and gay couples who don't conceive through PIV sex because neither of them actually has a vagina?

I don’t think it’s as clear cut as saying they are not infertile because they are two men @HermioneKipper (putting the ethics of surrogacy to one side for a minute).

Yes they are two men and therefore biologically incapable of having a child together, and yes they aren’t both medically infertile (unless one of them is) because they could hypothetically go off and have a child in a relationship with a woman. But they can’t do this because they are gay, and also because they’ve chosen to be together and not with anyone else.

In the majority of straight couples that have problems conceiving and get access to fertility treatment, only one of the two will have a fertility issue. (Yes there will be some couples where both do, but for the majority the medical problem will be with one person). The other person is technically not medically infertile because they could go off and have a child with another man / woman. But no doctor or health service nowadays would say to a woman, we’re not giving you and your husband IUI or IVF because you’re fertile, the problem is with your husbands low sperm motility, so what you need to do is just go off have a child with another man. The couple is considered to have fertility problems, regardless of the fact that one of them could probably have a child without assistance, with someone else.

I largely disagree with surrogacy in all but the most altruistic of cases, although I also do feel for people who long for a biological child and can’t have one. It’s a thorny and difficult issue.

But surrogacy aside, I don’t think it’s quite right to say. They aren’t infertile because they are two gay men and technically have no medical reason why they can’t have a child.

I haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if it's been covered. Surely it would only be discrimination if the insurance policy allowed straight / lesbian couples to use a surrogate, but not a gay male couple?

THIS

This is the crux of why it’s not unfair

Technically, biologically, yes.

I think the question here is whether that is relevant in the specific terms of an employment contract health insurance policy.

I don't have an answer to that, by the way. But I do think that might be one distinction that the case will be argued on.

Sorry just to elaborate on the above

The question will be around whether the policy is offered due to the specific medical circumstances of the status of infertility (in the case of the heterosexual couple) or the plain fact that Couple A can't start a family and neither can Couple B.

I think it'll get quite legally knotty, ultimately, and buried in policy wording semantics.

Not really because for most heterosexual couples who can’t conceive using PIV sex the “medical issue” will only be with one of them. The other one who has no medical issue could technically go and have a child with someone else, but nobody would ever suggest that they do so or deny them fertility treatment on the basis that they are choosing to remain with their partner who has a medical problem.

Yes most gay men probably “could” go off and have a child with a woman and are therefore not medically infertile. But similarly most women whose partner has a low sperm count or some other issue probably “could” go off and have a child with another man. She isn’t medically infertile, but nobody would deny her treatment because she refuses to leave her husband and go find a fertile man.

I don’t know if the Guardian journalist has children but I think she needs to come over to ‘re-educate’ herself on mumsnet. This quote is both offensive and unbelievably stupid:
Advances in reproductive technology mean that pretty much anyone can become a parent so long as they can get hold of the requisite gametes and access to fertility treatment, but people with male bodies face specific challenges: someone has to do the gestating.

I don't know what's worse! Remember that article where two men wanted to sue a clinic because they got a girl and not a boy and had already set up his website and chosen a name. Talk about making human babies commodities

But they are not infertile.

They have functional sperm.

Thats ... not sufficient to make a baby.

The easiest way to do away with all this is to make surrogacy illegal. Then they would have to hope they could find someone who would do it from the goodness of their heart.

YANBU. I’ve seen it tweeted about and won’t read it because it’ll make me so angry.

Some gay men are horrifically misogynistic. Surrogacy is human trafficking, and it should be illegal.

My sister – who is more than six years younger than me – just gave birth to her second baby,” Maggipinto says, twisting his wedding ring. “I was OK with not being a parent at 30, I felt that was very normal for our generation and the current work-life balance ethos. But seven years later, I’m really not happy.”

Perhaps he should ask his sister to be his surrogate. Perhaps he did and she told him to F off!

I'm not a lawyer, but surely this should be thrown out. Yes- you can have IVF. We will give you the hormones and try to extract an egg etc. do all that on their body (where is clearly won't work because they are men!). I agree give them the right to IVF, but if they are the owner of the health insurance policy - it has to be on their body surely

If they do it through an agency and via health insurance, the woman is (arguably) much more protected, both legally and medically, than in a casual 'do me a favour' arrangement.

Personally I don't think casual arrangements are a good idea with surrogacy at all; they put the woman carrying the baby at enormous risk in almost every direction; medically, financially, legally, professionally. If it's going to happen, there has to be some protective framework around it.

Sickening how they talk about sex work. They talk about financial compensation both for surrogacy and sex work. They are devoid of morals, as if human bodies are simply transactions and it's OK if someone wants to sell their body.

No because in this case, the insurance policy allows for surrogacy including 'gestational' surrogacy, where a third party carries the baby. But currently this policy is only enactable for heterosexual couples. That's the alleged discrimination.

The insurance policy covers “replacement/repair” of something that isn’t working correctly. So if you had a heart defect, you would qualify for the transplant list. Using this logic a woman is entitled to a replacement womb if hers is not working correctly and one is available. I personally feel this should be restricted to transplant only, but it isn’t currently. A man doesn’t have a womb to replace, therefore is not entitled to the provision of one.

I’m not surprised by this.
surrogacy is utterly exploitative anyway so just a question of time that this sort of behaviour manifested itself.

But this woman is actually infertile. There is no option open to her to be a parent other than this or adoption.

I assume these men are both fertile. This means they have the option to come to an agreement with a friend or family member to carry their own biological child. The colleague does not have this option. She will never be able to have her own biological child through any means. If both men in this example were infertile and were still refused, that would be discrimination.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe this woman should be able to pay someone to be her surrogate either, it’s still wrong whoever’s buying. But I don’t see how you can compare the two situations. These men are not infertile, they simply don’t want to pay.

In the UK there are vast discrepancies in the criteria and availability of fertility treatment between healthcare trusts. Nearly everyone has the option (perhaps not the means, but the option) to seek private treatment. This is also unfair, but it isn’t discrimination.

I agree with the PP the whole thing needs to be outlawed. The end of line to where they are pushing is forced birth isn’t it? It’s too complex and unethical. Ban it entirely. No one has “a right” to a child and buying humans is simply wrong.

The question will be around whether the policy is offered due to the specific medical circumstances of the status of infertility (in the case of the heterosexual couple) or the plain fact that Couple A can't start a family and neither can Couple B.

If it's got nothing to do with health why would health insurance be involved?

Well, that's the question, isn't it. Or one of them.

I suppose 'health insurance' is a catch-all term these days. My health insurance covers certain cosmetic procedures. And my home insurance covers wrongful dismissal, for some bizarre reason.