The Times article on surrogacy and concerns about single fathers

[Sixorhalfdozen]

Hi all, I haven’t seen a post yet about the article in today’s Times on surrogacy with the title, ‘What it is like to be a single dad (with a child via surrogacy)’. It is an entirely uncritical puff piece on single men who purchase babies and there is no attempt in the article to highlight the risks and harms caused by this barbaric practice. I have written to complain and encourage others to do the same.

You’re not. Predators with predator. The two men who adopted a baby boy and raped him to death is one example of many. This horrifying.

The popular preacher, gay- turned- even- more- trendy 'trans', in one USA State, who, with his gay partner, was allowed to take possession of the baby they bought, because that is contract law. He tokenistically changed his address to that of his mother, nearby.

That was enough to satisfy the court, despite the difficulty that the still-pregnant mother had asked the court to cancel the contract, in order to keep the baby. She no longer wanted to hand it over, after there was publicity about a tweet he had posted to the local gay group.

He had said how excited he was at the prospect of getting the newborn baby home and being the "very first person to enter that brand new little body". He mused he might invite a group of friends to "take part in the celebration" .

I assume it is a deliberate reporting choice: readers might unquestioningly accept two gay dads and a baby boy, but be more likely to start thinking suspicious thoughts if confronted with the image of two adult men and a defenceless baby girl.

Though the story referenced above (which I've not heard of before) of course underlines that child abusers may also have male targets. I imagine, though, that girls are more common victims (though I have no evidence and no wish to go searching for it either).

Of course the comments are turned off, no mention of the risks to the women especially when using 2 women, I like and subscribe to the Times and they have, on the whole, been good about GC issues but with surrogacy they are shocking but continue to endorse it strongly

A baby boy is as defenceless as a baby girl

You mostly can't adopt a child overseas and bring it here. The problem is that with surrogacy the father is the genetic father - that's why it is possible to bring the child in. I guess a lot of men based legitimately overseas would find their children wouldn't qualify to come to the UK if they tightened up on it. Here are the rules atm https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&source=android-browser&q=surrigate+baby+born+abroad+bringing+to+the+uk#lfId=ChxjMe

Such disgraceful and sickening articles. That anyone can buy another human being if they have enough money is a really retrograde step for humanity , for thousands of years humans have bought and sold other humans until eventually we were so repulsed that civilised nations halted the abhorrent practice.. Then along came in vitro fertilisation, and suddenly the revulsion largely disappeared in the face of selfish demands and willingness for wealthier people to exploit the bodies of poorer people.

And now it appears the practice is so morally lax that clinics and potential parents are prepared to implant FOUR embryos into a surrogate. FOUR. No apparent concern for the very likely permanent damage to the surrogates body, or for the health and well being for the developing babies, despite the very well established medical evidence of the issues facing multiple births from twin to twin syndrome to premature birth.

Surely the very fact that these complacent, greedy, self obsessed men are prepared to endanger children's emotional and physical health, to deny them emotional contact with their mothers, and to exploit womens bodies in pursuit of their selfish ends should be the very factors that make them unsuitable to be considered for inclusion in any form of parenting , whether it be adoption or surrogacy.

Money talks. Surrogacy stinks .

Yeah surrogacy ought to be banned.

I saw that on TV it knocked me sick.
The whole surrogacy thing with men needs looking at.
I saw a guy on insta who bought a baby boy via surrogacy. He is gay and wanted a baby.

There is this article

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/02/16/the-babies-kept-in-a-mysterious-los-angeles-mansion

https://archive.md/cJi3J

https://archive.ph/H82IK

To read the above without a paywall.

@Pacificsunshine I did post the archive link.

Ah, I missed that.

So there’s an aspect of surrogacy I had never even thought of - though yes I had heard of Musk and his oddly named children but assumed he was a one off - the super rich men with egos the size of the planet using surrogacy to build a private genetically related dynasty. I wonder how many of them there are, given the apparent lack of due diligence offered by Childrens Services in many parts of the world. More than anyone would suspect I fear..

This article is vile; thanks for highlighting it. I was going to subscribe to The Times, as have just cancelled another newspaper subscription, but won’t do so now.

This is avery interesting read about gay men and their desire for a family. It's a few years old now https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/oct/01/how-gay-parenthood-through-surrogacy-became-a-battleground

I’ve got friends - gay couple - who adopted a baby and are fantastic parents. I don’t have a problem with gay men adopting provided proper safeguarding/checks are done.

I do have a problem with people (whoever they are, gay/straight whatever) buying babies, which is what commercial surrogacy is.

Honestly in the past I wouldn’t have given it much thought, but the news of the past few years has given me a whole different view of males. I honestly think many of them are much more irrational and hormone-driven than we ever suspected.

Interesting.

When someone invents a term like “situational infertility” to explain why two men can’t make a baby together you realise that the rabbit hole has been extended and prettified and now has a lift and a coffee bar in the basement.

The dismissal of the egg donors role in a gestational pregnancy is also very telling, you really do get the feeling that there will be a collective sigh of relief in the surrogacy industry ( and let’s be clear, surrogacy is a very profitable industry, very few not for profit charity vibes coming out of the figures) when technology means you can also bypass the uterus altogether and just get to the main event which is a baby with 50% of the right dna, which you can repeat as required without having to wait while the surrogate recovers or frustratingly being expected to spend time with them post partum instead of rushing home to start the insta journey.

Something else gay couple purchasers also often do is to have two surrogates on the go at once, so each gets his own biological child. They might have children born a few months apart.

Libby Purves has a comment on surrogacy in the Times today:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/b0cb7f22-afd8-407b-a46d-c6a6824aa3ad?shareToken=0b182c801893eeac5863b15f559ab336&ver=article

interestingly comments are allowed-wonder how long for....

I'm glad I read that article but the information in it is going to haunt me for a while - it's sickening how human beings are being commissioned/bought/sold to satisfy the whims of wealthy people.

Why does the human race have to learn over and over that just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it.

Agree @UtopiaPlanitia

The one I saw on social media was a wealthy hairdresser gay, showing off the newborn baby boy we baby like it was a prize…grim!

I agree.