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.

I work in academia and basically the official line is that surrogacy is good and nobody would entertain or fund any research that was seeking to argue otherwise. Concern about surrogacy is equated to being a bigot or a homophobe. My discipline is law and I appreciate that maybe it is different in other disciplines such as psychology.

There is some ongoing research in the UK. I will dig out the link later

I found this handy resource - links to various research studies. They are all really small. https://brilliantbeginnings.co.uk/research-about-surrogacy/

Sounds familiar for academia…basically the official line is that TWAW is good and nobody would entertain or fund any research that was seeking to argue otherwise. Concern about Transgenderism is equated to being a bigot or a homophobe. Remember James Caspian in 2017?

Yeah, sorry about that. It’s horror on a number of different fronts.

Compunction. That’s what is missing from the world today. Compunction.

I know a lesbian couple who got annoyed when an aunt wondered aloud if their son got X characteristic from his father. One of them pulled the aunt aside and snapped at her that they've told their son he doesn't have a father, he has a donor. It's so damaging. When that poor boy learns where babies come from, he'll realise that everyone has a father and that he's been lied to.

I really hate how socially acceptable it's become to insist people use double-speak so that others can remain in denial about biological reality. "He's not the father, he's the donor." "She's not a woman, she's a uterus-haver." "She's not the birth mother, she's the gestational carrier."

See above for “situational infertility” which is the phrase used to describe the totally unforseeable biological reason why two men can’t make a baby together, but which apparently needs to be regarded as sympathetically as any medical reason for infertility.

Yes, "situational infertility" is an astonishing phrase. It reminds me of TIMs who describe themselves as infertile because they can't pregnant, some of whom have already fathered children. By that definition, isn't everyone on Earth infertile? No one is able to both get pregnant and impregnate someone else.

I have heard the phrase "fertility equality" start to be used. No doubt it will help with the constant need for young women to donate their eggs.

That's utterly chilling. That poor child.

What person would want to come into the world with this set up? It's just horrible. Also having your one parent at 50 is troubling too.

The ages as well is troubling. I'm not against people having children later in life but with surrogacy you get cases of 65 year old men having a baby. Even if they turn out to be brilliant parents they're going to die when the child is around 20 or earlier most likely!

Yes and no: Social services apparently do their best to avoid best outcome for anyone: It seems they make couples jump through hoops to be approved as adopters, but then, even if a new baby is available, force the baby to go to a temporary foster carer for a couple of years, during which time the future adopters are kept in ignorance that the baby exists. Hats off to the temporary foster carers. But why on earth can't the babies go straight to their permanent parents?

I agree with you, placement with permanent parents from birth is the best way to limit trauma to the baby.
Though I think it's right there are many 'hoops to jump through', as these babies deserve the best possible parents.

But the jumping of hoops has been made so exhausting and taken years: Then, AFTER the prospective adopters pass every test, a baby is due to be taken into care at birth. So, is it put straight into the arms of the approved couple? No. It goes to a foster family for two years, while, nearby, the adopters wait another two years.