It's been said a couple of times on this thread that why shouldn't gay men have children too, as they might have just as strong desire for a family as a hero couple or a lesbian couple, as defence for the sale of babies.
So tell me, why does no one say anything about the poor gay men and how they are deprived of what they want too? Why don't we just do surrogacy on the NHS? I mean there must be thousands of women, who say it's fine to sell babies, just queuing up to offer themselves up as 'gestators' or whatever other deliberately dehumanising language you might wish to use, to distance themselves from the use of women and babies as commodities.
We should be paying for gay men to have children out of the taxpayer's pocket. Shouldn't we?
As for the question of 'who is the mother', I'd argue that even if you sign away your legal rights or you abdicate all responsibility for that child, if that child wouldn't be here without your physical involvement you are still their mother. You cannot erase this reality, and a child may have the question of where their genes came from and why their surrogate, despite feeling them kicking inside still had no emotional connection to them. Even if they are very loved by the people who bought them.
Even the business of how much you cost to buy will be there in the heat of an argument. Cos our deepest and darkest don't go away. They follow us round.
I have to say that we seem to be living increasingly in a world where denial of reality is more and more acceptable. Saying that black is white and getting people to repeat this is a sign of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism goes hand in hand with blindness to ethics.
Anyone saying this is 'none of our business' is complicit with it and sees some humans as having a lesser value to society than others.
And the minute you start to do that, and start down the road of saying that humans have a value, and don't have an issue in the buying and selling of humans in any capacity it's not far to go to saying, that if a human has no value or they are costing society, we'd be better just 'improving our balance sheet' or 'writing off our unusable stock'.
If you this is hyperbolic, you need to wake up to the direction in which wheels are turning.
Historically science fiction has always carried elements which have been remarkably astute in predicting the future. We are going through an era of huge amounts of dystopian fiction rather than a more positive sci-fi based on building a uptopia society which had been more common. It's not simply a matter of trend or taste. Future fiction is a reflection of the time we live in and what we are capable of, and its power is in just how much be believe in that as reality. It's not just the obvious handmaid's tale either.
A celebrity buying a baby and normalising it, and having the defence to protect against criticism by going 'don't be homophobic' (where have we seen this dynamic before?) most definitely should be something we should be talking about and saying "Er no, that really bloody unethical and wrong", without question or cavet. Hiding behind being gay, as some kind of symbol of progressiveness is bollocks. It's just a smokescreen for quite the opposite.
The erosion of human rights.
Don't minimise or ignore this shit. Scream out what it is.