Surrogate baby's for men

[Yougotbale]

Not sure what topic area to place this thread in. I suppose it brings up questions about the relationship between a single dad and a surrogate baby. I have a friend that is not currently in a relationship and not wanting one. He is really ready for children, both financially and mentally (age 35). He would be very happy to have children now before he gets too old(his personal opinion). If it was an option he would take a surrogate pregnancy.
Really, I was just wondering whether people thought surrogate babies should be legally available to singles? To men? Or to women? Or both?
Do you think it compared to woman having artificial insemination (not sure what the medical term is, sorry if that is straight off the farm) or whether surrogacy should be treated very differently?
In theory I don't see anything wrong with both single men and women having babies this way, although we only discussed it yesterday.
What do you think?

Artex - I was just asking if singles with surrogate babies should have the same rights as other parents in the Uk.

Artex - I'm not talking about buying a baby. It's voluntary surrogate mothers

I doubt many people provide surrogacy through pure altruism, it may be a part, but don't the 'expenses' that you can legally pay a surrogate in the UK kind of.. 'Add up'?
Anyway, I think its quite sad if a single man in op's friends position is not able to persue this and end up with the same parental rights as a couple using the same method of having a child. Although, I presume the mother/surrogate could sign over her parental rights to the father couldn't she? Isn't that what happens in a surrogacy to going to a couple as well? I'm confused!

Artex - from a brief reading on a lawyers website specialising in this area. They said that you are not given the same rights on making decisions regarding the child. Even if you are stated on the birth certificate. Areas it affects is schooling, medical, wills, etc.

Anyway, I was wondering if this difference in legal status reflected views on single people having children this way.

So who does have those rights thOse rights then??!

I'm not sure. I will have to read more. There is a link through surrogacyuk.

But from the info I have read there is a difference in rights.

From the replies on here, it's a mixed bag to whether it's a good idea for singles to have a baby this way. I suppose it brings up the generosity of a woman to go through the pregnancy without a child at the end. And whether it is selfish or not to have a child as a single person.

artex who said anything about buying babies?!

The OP is asking about views on a single father, desperate for a child, not in a relationship and considering legal, voluntary surrogacy. I think there was a crossed wire there!

OP, I think your friend will experience some tough times and tough views. My DH was a single parent for a long time and experienced a lot of prejudice - being told at the airport that he couldn't take her abroad without mothers permission (she is absent by choice).

Personally, I don't see it any differently than a woman choosing a sperm donor, no.

And as for 'how will he look after the child' - like any other parent?!

You do need to read more carefully, and follow onward links. It is not illegal. There are legal complexities, and there is indeed a campaign to simplify and streamline the laws for single parent surrogacy. But that does not mean it is either illegal or impossible at present.

Your "friend" should take legal advice on these complexities, and what can be done to under the law at present.

Med - I know I didn't right it properly. Of course he would. It was only a conversation yesterday.
What are your views on it?

The fact is, regardless of your gender, being unable to have children when you want them is unspeakably painful.

If the problem is carrying a child - either in terms of being male, or having a body unable to do so (disability for example) - surrogacy is a way around this.

"Renting" or "buying" a womb is very offensive, both to those who agree to be surrogates and to those for whom this is their only option to have a child.

I work in a caring role. I derive satisfaction from my work, but it is not my main reason for going to work - that is financial. It is all very well stating from (probably) the happy position of having children of your own that surrogates and surrogacy should be altruistic but the problem with that is that is has resulted in a huge shortage of surrogates.

We do things, often, because there is a reward in it for us. Helping out someone else is certainly a reward in itself but the reality of pregnancy is such that not many people are willing to undergo this for "just" the feel-good factor.

We pay people for services in most other aspects of life and I do not see surrogacy as being different in that respect.

The choice should never be as stark as "be a surrogate or starve" as an earlier poster pointed out. But surrogacy is an option for someone unable to have a baby and it is offensive in the extreme to sneer and dismiss it in the way that has been done so by some here.

I think having a family of your own is so utterly joyful that it should be experienced by everyone (if indeed that is what they want.) Life without children for me would have been a half-life with no real meaning. My children are my world and I would want anyone to experience how happy I now am.

Puppies and kittens are really cute.

Sparrowp - indeed. What Do you think surrogate babies for singles as a concept?

If you mean people should have a puppy or kitten instead of the family they want Sparrow then frankly shame on you. Perhaps you need to look at the infertility board on here? I certainly hope you wouldn't dream of posting such a crass message there.

Wanting children and being unable to have them, hurts. I have my own beloved DC now but your comment still feels like a kick to the stomach.

*about

Mychildhood - you had a limited fertile window & you wanted to make sure you got kids before it closed. But a 35 year old man doesn't have that pressure. It's not now or never.

Once he's got a kid, it's then harder to find a partner because he is preoccupied for caring for the child.

I totally understand why women & gay men choose to with donor/surrogacy choices.

But for a heterosexual male, finding a partner would be more straightforward in the long run.

preoccupied with ^^

I accept that Twinklestein. If it was a friend of mine I would be pointing that out - but all the same it doesn't take away the fact that some of the comments here are

What if you were disabled and couldn't carry a pregnancy to term? What if you were a homosexual man in a loving marriage or relationship? We don't mind (I don't think!) lesbian couples having children?

Honestly if I had had to use a surrogate (I know two couples who had to, both because of disability) I would have read this thread and cried my eyes out!

Sorry I thought kittens and puppies are surrogate babies ?

That's what most people do isn't it, if they can have one more?

And register as a foster/adoptive parent - this is very important for children who don't have parents, and society generally.

Sparrow I seriously doubt you would go on the infertility board here with a crass comment like that. As you know only too well, no they are NOT surrogate babies. Awful remark. I have cats and while they are much loved pets they do not remotely compare to my children.

It isn't as easy as that to register as a foster parent or adopt. Adoption agencies do not really like to accept single people - it isn't impossible to adopt but even as a single woman you are faced with much difficulty and tend to be matched with older, more difficult children. Fostering is not an option for those of us who work - which single people have to.

^ArtexMonkey "It's a child, not a puppy. What he is basically wanting to do is get a woman pregnant then buy the baby off her, buy her entire future right to that child, buy the child's right to know its mother. Why do you both think that this is 'better than just getting together to have children'?

Imo buying babies is as morally reprehensible as buying other people's organs. No wah wahing about it's not fair that women get to use sperm donors. Your friend has potentially the rest of his life to become a father, a woman of the same age doesn't have that option. That's biology for you: it tends to not be fair."^

But I think men should be allowed fertility treatment too.

This is possible, I saw Arnie Schwartneger do it on TV.

Never heard of him.

If he is thinking about this he should get specialist legal advice. It is very complex and there are quite a number of misleading posts above on the law. For example, although, Ian Mucklejohn is in the press as the first single father through surrogacy it seems that he is not their father in law even if he is in practice here

It's not illegal (in the sense of being criminal) for a man to have a surrogacy arrangement but the law does not help him. When the child is born the women giving birth to it is the legal mother. Usually a couple entering a surrogacy arrangement become legal parents through a parental order (legally essentially a faster form of adoption) but they are only available under strict conditions, one of which is that it is a couple that is seeking to the order. At the moment they simply can't be given to a single person.

Without an order then the mother will remain the legal mother unless the child is adopted. He might be the legal father, depending on the circumstances of the baby's conception and birth (e.g. conceived at a clinic or DIY?) but that's not what he wants, he wants to be the only legal parent. To do that he'd have to adopt the baby. The law does let single people adopt but the law will not enforce agreements that when a baby is born it will be handed over to person A. So he would have no security that the courts would actually make an adoption order in his favour once the child was born (but they might so he might get his wish that way).

If he goes abroad then he might be the legal father there but that doesn't mean that the law here would recognise him as the father here. Of course he could bring the child up and not care what the law says about him but that's quite shortsighted and could run into all sorts of problems e.g. if he died, had to make medical decisions etc.

Sorry that is wrong but I was worried by the way in which people were dismissing your very valid concerns about the law. He would need specialist legal advice to do this.