Gay men and surrogacy - the new “be kind”?

[Tootingbec]

Just seen a LinkedIn post from a gay man who is writing a book about the surrogacy “journey” he and his husband went through. Cue gushing comments about how amazing this is…..

It has really upset me. The sheer fucking privilege of gay men to buy babies and then be lauded and praised for it like they were super heroes. And untouchable to criticism due to blinkered “be kind” beliefs about the poor gay men who just want a family like heterosexual men.

Where do people think these babies come from? Do you think people delude themselves that all these gay men just have kind, altruistic female friends who happily have a baby for them? As opposed to exploiting vulnerable and desperate women in India, Mexico and the like.

I feel so angry - women are just fucked over and abused time and time again by men and it is all dressed up as progressive when it is the exact opposite.

When I was a younger women I loved having gay men in my social circle. They seemed like “nicer” more lovely men than most straight men. Now I realise that underneath it all they just the same sexist, privileged tossers as many straight men are. They want a baby? No problem - buy one! They want to invade women’s spaces? No problem - just reinvent yourself as “the most vulnerable in society”!

It’s like the scales have fallen from my eyes.

So you support human trafficking? That’s a bit er…. Awful. Or are you saying it’s different if it’s a baby?

The Gov has been lobbied by interested parties - there is so much money to be made by agencies, lawyers, medics. And the people who want access to surrogacy tend to be powerful - see how many pro surrogacy articles The Times and the Guardian have run, either featuring their own journalists or friends. There are few anti surrogacy stories in the media because so many of their colleagues and friends are doing it!

It's a rare day in hell when I agree with any Tory MP. But even I thought she made a fair point when Miriam Cates pointed out that dogs have better rights than women when it comes to surrogacy...

"You can't take a puppy off its mother in this country before it's weaned. You're not allowed to."

Yawn. If that's what you want to try and assert to get a reaction then you go ahead. I won't match your level of hysteria.

Aren't the surrogacy agencies supposed to cover the 'what ifs" when they take someone onto their books? Aren't they have meant to have completed their own family before being accepted?
Plus wealthy women may well carry a baby for a sibling/close friend. A celebrity not so much, because being a celeb leads to public scrutiny which would mean outing the recipient and them not having a private life etc (I'm not a surrogacy supporter btw)

Adoption is complex, it depends very much on the circumstances. Sometimes adopted children particularly if they are older have a significant background of trauma, other times the adoption is done from birth and they don't. Sometimes children are told all the facts about their adoption from as soon as they can understand, other times it's concealed and they have to deal with the shock of this revelation later in life.

Then there's the issue of other people's attitudes to adoption and how that may affect the adoptee and the adoptive parents. And how obvious it is that a family is adoptive, for example if the parents and child are of a noticeably different ethnicities.

Adoptions from strangers versus adoptions within the family. Blended families who have adopted children and children biologically related to the parents. Unknown genetic background that may impact if the adoptee as an adult is considering having children. And so on.

I think that using adoption in surrogacy arguments, whether you're for or against, needs to be done very carefully, and with considerable empathy, because "adoption" covers such a disparate range of scenarios that may or may not be relevant.

‘Yes, I agree. It's why I'm campaigning for a law for where one parent in a straight relationship dies, the other parent is made to give them up for adoption so they can be in a happy loving home with a mother and a father.
Similarly where parents want to separate or divorce, I'm asking my MP to make it law that either they aren't allowed to do so, or that the parent who has custody of the child is required to immediately remarry so the child can live with two parents’

I think this may be the most idiotic post I have read on here, and there has been some competition in AIBU. Yes , I know it is supposed to be sarcastic (and ‘laid on with a trowel’), but the concept of trying to justify what is essentially slavery by reference to tragic realities is just….chilling.

Surrogacy agencies work for the purchasers, they need surrogates to exist in order to have a product to sell, they're not neutral. I highly doubt they're giving an unbiased spiel to prospective surrogates, that they could end up with a hysterectomy, or left holding the baby if it turns out to be disabled, or find they're carrying a baby for a paedophile, or any of the other horror stories which have occurred. You only have to look at ads for egg donors to see how it's sold to women.

And 'altruistic' surrogacy comes with layers of possible guilt and coercion and family expectation. Bryan Dowling's sister had 2 babies for him whilst childless and single herself, I find that horrifying. Not that I'd find it acceptable if she wasn't, but it seems particularly stark that she has provided him with children in those circumstances. I personally know of a woman who had a child for a friend - they no longer speak and she hasn't seen the child for years, though that wasn't the agreement they made at the time.

"Admit"? It's a statement of fact. Yes, step-parents and similar exist because of widowhood and remarriage; yes, missed paternity events happen; yes, single parenthood happens; and yes, sometimes kids are adopted or fostered by someone else. But most of the time, the biological parents raise the child.

None of this prevents same-sex couples from adopting children whose parents are no longer able to raise them.

@NotBadConsidering it’s interesting that we’ve both seen complete lack of regard for the surrogate, once the couple have the baby in their hands. With one couple, I asked them if they wanted me to arrange (and they pay) for a private car and driver to take the surrogate and her five year old daughter back to Ukraine. I was told, no need, there was a bus she could get to Kyiv and then she could get another bus to her home town. A car and driver would have been much more comfortable (the woman had had a C section), and would have taken several
hours less, as they could have driven directly to her home town. But having spent over £50K on getting the baby, they didn’t want to spend a few hundred Euros on a car and driver.

Just shaming their parents and the way they were conceived.🙄

That’s so horrible!! 😢
I remember the ride home after my c-section. Every bump was painful.

Can you imagine knowing your parents bought you and you have a birth mother and egg provider bio mother out there and you aren't allowed to express any sorrow about any of it or any identity issues - in fact you are supposed to be grateful!

People in their 70s are commissioning children. Of course we are allowed to criticise it.

It is not shaming people to point out the considerable moral problems with surrogacy.

Interesting article about the growth in single men using surrogacy, often gay men. Yet again it's all about the man, impact on the children is hardly mentioned https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2025/08/single-fathers-by-choice-america/683885/

No. I haven't accepted that surrogacy causes the 'same' trauma - that's your biased interpretation. I didn't say that at all.

You wrote, in the post I replied to:

If separating a mother and child why is adoption any better? Adoption from birth surely leads to the exact same trauma?

So you said that surrogacy and adoption “surely leads to the exact same trauma”. So it wasn’t my biased interpretation, you said they’re the same.

You earlier avoided answering the question of whether you would condemn parents who gained their children through forced adoption.

How about children conceived through rape? You'd not condemn the rapist father? Or children conceived through sexual exploitation or forced marriage or....?

No one is talking about condemning children in any of these cases as you well know.

Sorry have not read entire thread, but maybe someone has mentioned cases such as the married couple of men in USA, who bought a baby by surrogacy. Once the contract is signed, the mother, according to law in their State, cannot back out,. A contract is the same as any other sale of goods.

One of the two husbands is a rich and popular preacher, who is also a fashionable 'trans'

One of the couple had posted online in excitement, mentioning that he just can't wait to get the newborn home, so he can start to ....use the little body, for insertion... he mused that he might get some pals round to join the party.

A court refused to overturn the purchase contract. There was a bit of a fuss when the announced purpose of the surrogacy became public. But the online boaster has ostensibly gone to stay nearby at his mum's house, for a while, which makes everything alright, doesn't it?

The fantasy that men can never want access to naked women and children except for pure motives, is no more or less sensible than the fantasy men can never want control of an infant because they intend to abuse it.

I recall how a week or so after I’d given birth I found out an ex colleague had just announced the arrival of his baby (via surrogate) and I had this strong feeling of wanting to know how the mother was doing.

I felt able to casually ask my friend who’d told me the news, but it struck me that I probably wouldn’t have felt comfortable asking in a workplace environment, as if it’s rude or hurtful - or yes, unkind - to acknowledge the role of the woman who’s carried and birthed the commissioned baby.

My friend replied with a sort of ‘oh, don’t know, I just know the mother was a surrogate’ and there was no mention of the woman’s condition in his announcement.

Perhaps she was thrilled to be in her position and fine after the birth with support from family. We have no idea though. That’s before you even get to what’s best for the baby. It just struck me then as another way women can be erased and exploited.

Hard as it would be for many people I personally think that IVF should not be NHS funded. At least not until everything else is sorted, I just don’t think it should be a priority for public spending. Having children is not a right.

I agree there are considerable problems with surrogacy and discussion is needed.

Shame isn't.

Where's the shame?

This discussion is not about individuals.

All your examples in this thread are about force.

Rape.
Sexual exploitation aka rape on a huge scale.
Forced marriage.
Parents of children from forced adoption. I dont really understand why you're blaming adoptive parents here. Surely the blame belongs with state institutions and societal "shame".

These are all a far cry away from consensual acts that result in children.

The child doesn't consent. The child is the person most affected.

The child doesn't exist. No child consents to being born.