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.

Partly it is because one of the parents will normally be the bio parent. This is why the courts nearly always agree to the parental order.

There are no checks to be a bio parent.

The checks in adoption are because the State has responsibility for what happens to the child.

So it's complicated.

But on the other hand it means that the system will attract unsavoury characters who wouldn't be approved to adopt and who aren't having kids naturally with a partner.

I'd suggest this film from 2009 as an eye opener is quite how commodified it can be.
Egg from white American woman, embryo carried to India and born there by section when convenient.
I was actually slightly surprised they don't deliver the baby to the commissioning couple, but that's probably difficult legally.

Google Baby https://share.google/Ib2v4AISST00fVBMI

I believe that commercial surrogacy is now banned in India.

There are countries which are trying to become surrogacy destinations as they see it as a lucrative business. Ukraine used to be a leader. Now Cypress, Georgia and Greece are popular. And women often go back to their country of heritage eg Uganda, Iran.

Make gay couples? Adoption. There are thousands of children in care etc that need homes. To buy a newborn is abhorrent.

Once again, this is tone deaf and offensive. Why do people leap to adoption as a cosy alternative for anyone who wants a family but can't conceive? Whatever your views on surrogacy keep the highly specialised and important role of adoption out of it. Adoption requires dedication, sacrifice and most importantly intent. Offering it up as a convenient and easy alternative to people who want a baby is grossly ignorant.

Children deserve to be welcomed by families who want them - and are prepared to support them - as a whole package, not as a last resort.

Have not read the full thread, but caught the end of the tv programme Stacey sleeps over, where Stacey Dooley was staying with the original “Gay Dads”, very rich, pretty obnoxious. Apparently they chose the mother of their last child because they spotted her on a cat walk, thought she was beautiful and then claimed to have paid her £50000 to take the egg producing drugs and donate them. The way they spoke about her was dismissive and appalling. I am gearing myself up to watch the whole programme, but am not sure my blood pressure will stand it.

But adoption is the alternative. Or co parent with a willing woman. Those are the options that exist. As an adopter I don't read it as 'well just adopt' like it's easy, or that adoption is being offered as a consolation prize, adoption is the option that exists if you are a male couple who want to parent.

Those two are awful. One of them started a relationship with his daughters boyfriend and she (the only girl of their 4 surrogate- produced children) offered them her eggs to have a baby together. What ideas have those children absorbed about parenting and relationships?

No one is 'forced into co parenting'.

Put the baby's needs and best interests first fgs, it's not difficult!

If you don't have a willing/ able partner and just don't fancy co parenting or adoption - tough shit!

The entitlement is breathtaking.

No. It isn't the 'alternative', and it absolutely is meant as 'just adopt - thousands of poor poor children need homes, just like puppies from the pound'. If you are looking to simply parent - for all the traditional reasons - then adoption isn't the way. Adults looking to adopt need to get the idea that they'll be singing kumbya by Christmas out of their heads.

It isn't the right fit for many, many couples and proposing it as such is irresponsible. The children involved deserve better.

I think some people genuinely don’t realise that no one is entitled to have a child just because they want one, even though it’s really sad and unfair. A child is not a possession to be owned.

It's quite ridiculous to pretend that when someone opposes surrogacy and doesn't make an exception when it is gay men who wish to rent wombs and purchase babies, they are being homophobic.

I think you're very right op, and there are some responses in this thread that (quite unintentionally) prove your point.

It absolutely is an option. Many adopters come to adoption from not being able to conceive, always have done, always will. I accept absolutely that adopting is nothing like having birth children, but once people let the dust settle and look at what they want to do next, adoption absolutely is a way forward.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are suggesting, that surrogacy is the preferred path for people not up to adopting? That it will be easier? Surely if you aren't fit to adopt, you shouldn't be chasing a baby either? There have been people in their 70s commissioning babies for example. Paedophile. Narcissists. They wouldn't get through the adoption process.

Plenty of people who can't have children look into adoption, are cleared of any misconceptions about what is involved and go on to adopt children.

That's what I did. Was it plan A? No. But it happened and I think we have done a pretty good job.

Adoption rates are dropping as potential parents is surrogacy instead. I agree that many people say "they should adopt" without any understanding of the issues, but it has some truth to it - instead of chasing the perfect new born baby, why not look into adoption and see if it's something you could do.

PARENTING requires dedication, sacrifice and most importantly intent.

But, anyone with enough money can buy a baby via surrogacy, how do you know these babies are genuinely going to be ‘welcomed by families who want them - and are prepared to support them - as a whole package, not as a last resort.’??

I know adoption is complex and requires prospective parents to pass various ‘tests’ to be deemed fit/worthy, but shouldn’t surrogate parents be screened carefully too??

PARENTING requires dedication, sacrifice and most importantly intent.

Not the same, and that's the point. That's a 'not all men' vibe.

I wasn't making any comment on whether surrogate parents should be screened or not. I thought the only allowed idea was that surrogate parents shouldn't exist at all so screening is irrelevant, surely? (Did you not get the memo?)

Once again, saying a couple can just buy a baby is tone deaf and offensive. Why do people leap to surrogacy as a cosy alternative for anyone who wants a family but can't conceive?

Adoption requires dedication, sacrifice and most importantly intent.

So you're admitting that surrogacy doesn't require dedication, sacrifce and intent.

Offering surrogacy up as a convenient and easy alternative to people who want a baby is grossly ignorant.

Children deserve to be welcomed by families who want them - and are prepared to support them - as a whole package, not as a last resort as something cheap to buy.

Proposing buying designer babies with the actual entire intent and purpose to remove them from their mother at birth is not an 'alternative' either. It's very irresponsible to promote it. The innocent baby deserves better.

I didn't say any of that. The remarks I made were only about adoption being thrown in as the default alternative, nothing about surrogacy being a good idea.

Sit down before you hurt yourself.

You are basically defending surrogacy on this thread and have been from the start. It is not me that needs to sit down.

Up to what age do you think it's acceptable to sell a human then? Only newborn, or would 6 months be OK? Maybe some men would rather purchase an older child, should it be OK to sell a 10 year old too?

I agree with @Throneofgame that your post is deeply homophobic. Some people who started out seeming feminist and gender critical are actually now nasty right wingers who are adding others to their hate list.

Not at all. That's the narrative you want.

The only acceptable alternatives to baby trafficking, or surrogacy as it’s sanitised to, is either adoption or acceptance that you can’t have children. There is nothing homophobic about pointing out that gay man aren’t immune from the same standards.

How is Tootingbec's post homophobic? If it was about single men using surrogacy (which also happens but is rarely publicised), would you consider it phobic towards that subset of males?

It is not homophobic to query men buying babies. I am 100% supportive of gay men adopting but surrogacy involving gay men (or single men) is deeply problematic. All surrogacy is an ethical nightmare but there are extra issues on top when men can obtain babies without as much as having to speak to a woman. Rich men are bypassing relationships with a woman completely to buy a baby then bring it up by paid nannies. Rich women are doing this too, but we are setting ourselves up for a dystopian future where men can turn women into nothing more than paid help.