I'm over wealthy gay men choosing surrogacy over adoption

I'm with you, OP. I also think it's the height of arrogance and selfishness in its own way.

I see your point, but really, with adoption, you don't know what you're getting. Sure, they're little and cute when they're three months old, but then they start showing the traits of their meth head parents. And its not like you can return them for credit. If I were going to have a kid, I think I'd probably stick to my own gene pool

Adopted kids are always nuts.

More trouble than they’re worth.

Wow. Blanket statement much?

Just because a child is up for adoption, doesn't mean their parents were meth heads or that they are automatically "damaged goods". That's what everyone's afraid of, and why they stick to their own gene pool, if you're being realistic, I'm sure there's a bunch of genetic defects and crazy people in your family tree too.

Even if a child has some underlying mental health issues that will emerge later in life, if they're raised in a good, supportive home they'll be much better equipped to handle those issues and get help.

Even Will on WILL & GRACE pulled an Andy Cohen this season, as a single male over 50 who hired a surrogate for his baby. Uggh.

There isn't a surplus of healthy babies needing adoption. There are older kids, many of them needing specialized care--something not everyone can handle.

A particularly egregious example is Andrew Solomon, who is mentioned in the article at the link. He's written extensively about his own psychological issues, including crippling depression and his family.... but then goes on to father a surrogate child and dismisses any criticism thereof.

Of course, Solomon, like Cooper and Cohen, is enormously wealthy.

Most kids put up for adoption are from troubled homes. It's not the 1950's anymore when any unwed mother was forced to put their child up for adoption.

Everyone is keeping their kids these days, for good or bad. There really isn't a large pool of adoptable kids, let alone babies.

Besides, many gays HAVE adopted these children with issues and physical disabilities because those were the only ones they would give to us. Why is it up to gays to rescue the children of screwed up straight people?

Plenty of straight people use IVF and surrogates and they're not considered selfish. Total double standard for the gays - we can't even adopt in many states and if so, we're at the back of the fucking line unless you take a child in a wheelchair - and many gays do!

R2 makes a fair point, though it's difficult to say exactly where genetics end and parenting begins. I tend to think it's probably 50/50, but sometimes (perhaps often), genetics win in the end. One of my best friends is in a domestic partnership with another woman, and they are raising a son that her girlfriend adopted prior to their meeting. He is a great kid, but he has a lot of psychological issues that he has inherited from his biological mother and her family (in addition to the fact that his mother did drugs when he was in the womb) that cannot simply be overridden by good parenting. It's a very complicated issue. Obviously giving the child a loving home is the bottom line, but with adopted children, there are more unknowns than there would be with a biological child.

I do think there is still a primal urge (even for gay men) to carry on their lineage. It's natural to want to parent a child that shares your genetics. That being said, it'd be nice to see people—particularly ones who are well-off and can actually afford it—at least adopt a child in addition to the one they have via surrogacy. I would considering doing this if I were to have kids, honestly.

The other thing, as others have already pointed out, is that there isn't exactly a proliferation of infants needing adopted. It's mainly older kids, which makes the situation even more complex. Depending on what age they are, I think it can be hard to form a strong parental bond (especially if they're nearing adolescence and beyond), as you haven't been with them since their formative years. This ends up being something closer to a longer-term fostering situation until they are of legal age.

And many faith-based adoption agencies (particularly Catholic agencies) are (or until recently, were) allowed to refuse G&L adoptive parents.

It just is not as easy to adopt as people think. There isn't a lot of 'inventory' and gay men, particularly single gay men, are at the back of the line.

In 2012, almost half of all adoptions by gay couples were kids with special needs. These are life-long issues that these parents knowingly sign-up for.

There is absolutely no shame to be put on any gay or lesbian person who chooses to have a biological child. And there is no argument to be made about the brave and compassionate adoptions gay and lesbians made of kids with special needs.

I’m with you, OP. It’s pretty horrid: selfish, narcissistic, wasteful. I think Gen Z gay guys won’t be doing it as much - they’ll adopt at much higher rates.

It’s not any more selfish than when anyone else does it. Producing new children when there are plenty of kids here who need a home is a selfish act in general. But it’s also a very human impulse, and understandable. Why should Anderson and Andy (for example) be expected to be “less selfish” than the rest of the world’s parents who did not adopt?

Pay attention R11—they can't adopt because there is no inventory. Babies are like toilet paper these days.

If I'm going to invest in a child, it's gonna have some of my DNA. I have nothing against fostering or adoption, but it is not for everyone. There is nothing wrong with surrogacy and wanting a child that is biologically yours.

Don't worry. They'll regret it in ten years or so. Babies are cute. Surly teenagers, not so much.

I would never adopt, damaged goods. You don't know WTF you're going to get. I would want my own genetics.

[quote] If I were going to have a kid, I think I'd probably stick to my own gene pool

It's never going to be 100% your kid anyway and if you go with an anonymous donor, you also don't know what you're getting.

How about you mind your own business?

I ain't adopting no fucking crack baby from the ghetto!

(quote] Why is it up to gays to rescue the children of screwed up straight people?

Honestly, if your mentality is this childish, don't have any kid. Biological or not.

OP, babies mostly stay with their mothers nowadays, and the children available for adoption are older children that have been taken away from their families with all the psychological problems that entails, and which few are equipped to deal with.

[quote]Because why adopt a child in actual need of a home when you can spend six figures plus to have a handmaid grow one for you?

You realize this could apply to straight couples too who plan to have a child rather than adopt one?

Right?

Attacking their age is one thing. Attacking their busy workaholic lifestyles is another. But saying that gay men shouldn't think about having kids with their own DNA without also applying that logic to straight people is bullshit.

It's probably better that Cooper, Cohen, etc., have biological children. Less opportunity for abandonment. Sherri Shepherd hired a surrogate (Shepherd not the egg donor) and then Shepherd changed her mind when her marriage fell apart. I believe the ex-husband was the sperm donor. SS was court-ordered to pay child support.

In one of the Mia Farrow threads, somebody posted that she "returned" one of her adopted children.

We all know what happened with Joan Crawford.

You are financially responsible for your bio children til age 18. Not so with adopted children - you can "return" them. I don't think it's reasonable to tell people what they can do with their money. There are too many cars on the road; do we tell people they are selfish to buy a new car? We don't tell straight couples to adopt rather than have children, even when they already have more children than they can support.

And speaking as someone who has studied this extensively, genetics often win out over environment, with children raised by their bio parents as well. Many traits have a strong heritable component.

[quote] You realize this could apply to straight couples too who plan to have a child rather than adopt one?

Some guy buying an egg from one woman and mixing it in a petri dish with his sperm only to put into another woman is just like a guy knocking his wife up. You're absolutely right.

I would never adopt. You never know if the adopted kid is really a 32 year-old Ukranian dwarf with homicidal tendencies.

I was adopted at birth, and am very pro-adoption. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the path chosen by Anderson, Andy and others.

Parenthood is not about supply & demand, for most people. It’s about wanting to reproduce one’s self.

You don’t have to share genetics to be a family. But why shame someone for wanting to have a child that does share their DNA? It’s human nature 101, not some new form of shallow self-involvement.

I’ve just learned in the last year how powerful a DNA connection can be.

Some things I've been told by a friend who opted for surrogacy..

In New Zealand, an adoptive parent or couple is forced to remain in contact with the bio family of the adopted child. Invariably the bio family is dregs of society, the last people you would want in your life. NZ has an extensive welfare system, which rewards people for having multiple children. A child is only ever made available for adoption if the parents are found to be criminally unsuitable. You are also required to facilitate the child's identity in their own culture, if it is different from your own (which is apparently highly likely).

In the Philippines, you are required to be Catholic if you want to adopt.

I can't even relate to the concept of wanting kids. So neither option would be a good choice for me. I have a cat.

The whole thing mystifies me. Kids are great, but they are also people. I never hear anyone say "I want to have a person."

[quote] It’s about wanting to reproduce one’s self.

Yeah, there's nothing narcissistic about that.

[quote]Some guy buying an egg from one woman and mixing it in a petri dish with his sperm only to put into another woman is just like a guy knocking his wife up. You're absolutely right.

Look, lady.

I know this is hard for you to understand because you have a vagina that you probably don't even use but you have the option.

Gay men don't have that option. Stop being an obtuse homophobe.

I would never adopt unless I knew both parents personally and knew them to be good people. Otherwise, you're just as likely to adopt some kind of psychopath as not. No, if I were going to have a kid I'd have my own.

[quote]Pay attention [R11]—they can't adopt because there is no white inventory. White Babies are like toilet paper these days.

Fixed that for you.

52 is a young age to become a dad. Sure, he'll never know his grandparents, but most strangers will assume that you're his granddad. So, it's kind of like he does have a granddad after all.

That sounds like something a poor person would say, but okay...

R34, let's be honest here, though. For SJWs and people who want to criticise white parents, there will always be some reason to find fault with their choices.

If they choose to have their own biological kids, it will be: "Don't you know how many children there are out there in need of a good home? It's SO irresponsible to bring even more children into an already overpopulated world!"

If they then look at adoption options and want to adopt a white child they get beaten with the "Oh you just want a designer family with perfect white kids to complete the set. Do you know how difficult it is for black and brown kids to find a good home? White kids are always in demand and get adopted easily."

And if the couple does adopt a child of a different race the criticism still doesn't stop. Now it turns into "Do you have ANY idea what it's like for a child to be uprooted from his cultural background and end up with parents who will NEVER understand or know what it's like to be black? They don't need white saviors."

I've seen this happen enough times to couples I know that it made me realize their choices are their own and nobody else's fucking business.

None of this is any of our fucking business.

If you want to raise children in a loving home, whether through surrogacy or adoption, great! Go to it!

This is not "adopt, don't shop." People are not puppies. There are not zillions of babies in shelters nationwide just waiting to be adopted.

I'm not interested in doing this, but I wonder how much it costs. You have to pay the egg donor $$$. And you have to pay for her to get hormones to supercharge the eggs beforehand, plus you pay for the procedure to get the eggs out. Then you provide the DNA specimen, and the technicians have to process that and fertilize the egg. Then you pay for the procedure to implant the fertilized egg. Then you pay for the surrogate's medical care and the hospital fee for the delivery. Then, of course, you have to pay a fee to the surrogate.

Or if you know someone of the opposite sex who also wants a child, you can use the turkey baster method.

My country doesn't even allow people to use surrogacy. It has nothing to do with being gay, it's banned for everyone. My country thinks it's unethical, on par with "renting a womb". Having a child is not a human right. I will probably never have kids, but I'm fine with that. PS: my country does allow gay couples to adopt or foster, but the adoption process is very difficult since most foreign countries ban adoption to gay parents and there aren't enough kids in Norway to adopt. Most gay men here either work something out with a lesbian couple or they foster.

[quote] None of this is any of our fucking business.... People are not puppies.

Stop this discussion right now. R38 has spoken.

R40 Oh, and btw, the only way I would EVER support surrogacy is if it's the Canadian style of altruistic surrogacy, where no money change hands. I think that might be ok, but I'm totally against the American version of selling your womb to the highest bidder. Totally unethical and gross.

I’m split on this trend for both straight and gay people. I can’t help but to wonder if they’re more interested in parenting or more interested in passing on their DNA because I would think if it was about parenting, they wouldn’t mind adopting.

R40, is there anything to stop a Norwegian couple from doing an overseas surrogacy?

R40: HeirBnB

R44 Yes, it's banned. Well, it's more accurate to say we don't have any laws that protect the parents or the kids, so it's a challenge. You can end up spending millions and not even get the kid, it might be denied entry into the country. It's more or less impossible for gay couples to use foreign surrogacy.

I’m over wealthy people.

R38 is right, the number of kids (not babies) available for adoption in not big, you should have this discussion about puppies and kittens, not humans. Since contraception and abortion is legal, people don't go through unwanted pregnancy. The adoption process is very long and tedious, even for straight couple.

As an adopted person myself, I would only consider adoption if wanted to be a parent. Of course, this is a decision each person has the right to make themself, but when you consider all the babies, young children and adolescents in the world without parents to bring them up, it's hard for ME to understand spending 10s of thousands of $$ to create yet another one! It's true, though, when I was adopted, women didn't have access to safe and legal abortion, so many gave their babies up for reasons that today no one would even consider, like being "unwed". Today there are less babies to adopt becasue times have changed and women have choice, but MUST it be a baby or people aren't interest? Btw, I love when some people say, "you never know what you'll get with an adopted child". You never know what you're going to get with any child! That's a part of being a parent! Honorable mention to Madonna. She's a total narcissist, but did not go the route of IVF, etc., and adopted FOUR of her six kids.

I'm over wealthy straight people choosing surrogacy over adoption.

Yes, pregnancy is inconvenient and isn't great for your figure and sometimes it doesn't happen exactly when you want it to, but that doesn't mean that offloading all the risks and inconveniences onto the poor is right. Breed it yourself or adopt a kid who needs a home! The world doesn't need your DNA and it definitely does need kids who already exist to be brought up right, it also needs rich people to get used to the idea that there are things you can't buy.

Adoption has become a horrendous process. I have a friend who has had three adoptions fall through and it has been absolutely heartbreaking. None of the reasons being the fault of his own or his partner’s. It did not used to be like this. The laws have become very sticky and they have made it almost impossible. Also with the prevalence of cheap and safe abortions many unwed mothers are terminating and there just is not the amount of babies available that there once was. It’s a very difficult situation. So for this reason I support those who use a surrogate and ivf if that is their wish.

OP needs to mind his own fucking business.

Sadly, R49, you often do know what you're going to get with an adopted child, ie, if the mother was drinking or using drugs when she was pregnant or if there is a family history of criminality, serious mental or physical disorders.

R50, who are you to tell rich people there are things they cannot buy, if there are people willing to sell them those things? I imagine there are women for whom a substantial payment for surrogacy made a crucial difference in their lives, as well as making others happy.

[quote] My country thinks it's unethical, on par with "renting a womb". Having a child is not a human right.

It’s not the government’s fucking business. What idiocy. They’re still controlling a woman’s body.

"[R50], who are you to tell rich people there are things they cannot buy, if there are people willing to sell them those things? "

I'm sure there are people who'd be willing to sell the rich human kidneys of the desired tissue type, or long pig for a new culinary adventure. That doesn't mean that rich people should be able to buy them.

And BTW, when it comes to debates about the ethics of surrogacy, we really must avoid letting anyone frame this as a gay issue. Yes, gay men are part of the market for surrogates, but only a part, straight people do this to and that should always be part of the discussion. I mean, it's all complex enough, without adding in homophobia.

[quote] I know this is hard for you to understand

It's not hard to understand narcissists. They only care about themselves.

Get a puppy, most likely you will outlive it, haha dog! Plus even though dogs are NEEDY they are never as needy as a child and puppies are far cuter than human babies.

Even better get a cat, they can't talk but they know the universal feline language for "fuck you and while you're at it fuck off too".

Demand for healthy white infants or young children has far outstripped supply for decades. It was one reason why people turned to various black market operators like Georgia Tann (who supplied Joan Crawford with children), or other illicit if not illegal methods.

Supply of healthy white infants dried up further when access to safe and reliable birth control became common, and abortion legalized. All those secular and religious homes for unwed mothers or similar places that basically forced girls to give up their babies became redundant.

Surrogacy now has become a major industry for California and several other states. It is legal in all but a few (New York recently joined, leaving only two remaining where it is still illegal), and indeed United States as whole is an international destination for singles and couples both gay and straight seeking surrogacy services. This has increased over years as places like Kiev/Ukraine, Mexico (IIRC), and some Asian nations tightened down on surrogacy including excluding gays period.

Surrogacy in particular for the USA is a popular option because it is governed by contract law. Basically human beings are creating another human being to order on demand. Once child is born surrogate mother usually has no claims to the "merchandise" and either must turn the infant over or face legal action.

Adoption OTOH is an intrusive and long process, that isn't totally final until courts make it so. Infants or children can and have been taken back from families for various reasons including merely fact the mother changed her mind.

Compared to adoption surrogacy (at least in USA) is far less of an intrusive process, more so if done privately instead of using an agency. There certainly isn't any sort of state or local follow-up on the infant. Gays and straights pack up and leave state where their infant was born via surrogate within days or weeks (in case of international clients where delay is largely about obtaining necessary travel documents for the infant or infants), after birth. No one checks in on the children and far as laws are concerned the child belongs to whoever signed contracts and paid.

As noted many times elsewhere on DL there are white gays who are no different than their straight siblings or peers. They don't want some random AA, Latino-Hispanic or other minority child (well maybe Asian) or infant.

Remember SATC when Trey and Charlotte McDougal where having problems conceiving (well mostly Charlotte as she was keen on having a child, Trey couldn't care less), and Charlotte brow beats her husband into looking at adopting an Asian child. Mrs. McDougal senior sits Charlotte down and says "The McDougal name will be carried on by sons of your own. Not daughters of the South Pacific.".

Nearly 60 posts and the real issue here: there is no way in hell that photo is a gay couple.

Unlike a human child, a cat will never disappoint you. Until the end of course, when your heart will break.

R58

Make that "MacDougal"...

Carry on...

I'm over all rich old guys having babies, whether they're gay men or married or single or whatever. Anderson isn't 80 like James Doohan was but 52 is still too old to have your first kid on your own, even if you will have a ton of nannies actually raising the child.

It's not about unavailability. The system is filled with parentless kids. It's about narcissism. Idiots who think a kid will be your replica if it came from your loins. Shock on you when it comes out looking like the lezzie you secretly hate but manipulated for an egg.

[quote]52 is a young age to become a dad. Sure, he'll never know his grandparents, but most strangers will assume that you're his granddad. So, it's kind of like he does have a granddad after all.

You're joking but that happened to me when my dad had me at 45. Closeted but from an era where you still married women, he hadn't had any kids yet and wanted one, so here I am. And it was hell in a lot of ways, my grandparents and all sorts of relatives dying from old age before I was even 10, my dad getting sick from age-related disease when I was still in high school, my 20s spent taking care of both parents as they got sick and died. My mom's kids from her first marriage were having kids at the same time she had me; my eldest niece is less than a year younger than I am. I'm 48 now and my peers in school are only just now starting to lose their parents, but I lost mine decades ago. It sucks.

Being rich I assume will take some of the sting out of it, but it's going to suck for those kids in some ways. It just is.

But dad being closeted had nothing to do with how much it sucked. R22 is right, being a gay father isn't the issue here.

[quote] with adoption, you don't know what you're getting.

You think you do know what you're getting when you make a baby with your own sperm? The prisons & mental institutions are loaded to the gills with people who were raised by their natural parents.

What's THAT supposed to mean?!

R64, how did you find out that your dad was gay and closeted? Did he come out to you?

Not intentionally, r67.

There really is an extra layer of thoughtlessness to going out of your way to bring a child into the world at that age.

We need to listen to nature.

And by 'we' I mean dried-up straight women who are getting IVF because they want a baby.

Adopt, bitches.

F&F OP.

The use of the term 'handmaid' indicates OP is a homophobic radical feminist.

Bringing more kids into this terrible world is the height of selfishness.

Even though I blocked OP long ago, the damn threads still show up in the list on the right. So, all I see is the title and replies.

Yes, R73, tell straights to stop it.

R9 It's not a primal urge, at least to me, we are not like other animals, we don't have instincts. Contrary to animals, we have to learn how to have sex, how to nurse a baby... Lots of women (and man) are choosing to not reproduce, if it was a strong instinct everyone would have it.

[quote]—One of the straight women

Please leave this board. It is not for you.

[quote] What's THAT supposed to mean?!

Hon, if you can't figure it out, you don't need to know.

As a gay man I don't understand the desire to reproduce but then I am also not a person who sees a cute animal and wants to own one. I am guessing if you are gay, rich and famous surrogacy is much easier than adoption. I just hope Anderson and Andy spend more time with their kids than the nannies do, I am afraid the reverse will be true.

There is something grossly capalitistic about paying someone to rent their uterus, but money makes the world go around.

The fact is surrogacy is just for the wealthy, "normal" gays don't have that option.

R76, not a strong instinct? The very large majority of people in this world will become parents. Stop living in your own bubble.

R80, I suspect that half the people against surrogacy on this thread are just not able to afford it. And that's really what bothers them: It's a rich person's privilege. But yeah, let's talk about narcissism.

R80 - you think adoption is cheap? Avg adoption is $20k-$50K - the bulk of which is the adoption agency fee. That's selling your kids. Surrogacy is about twice that - so, while expensive, it's also a lot more reliable. Adoptions fall apart ALL THE TIME.

What about sperm banks? That's the male equivalent and they get paid substantially less (understandably so). Do you know how selective people are about sperm? Talk about 'designer' kids!

In the US, most surrogates go through psychological evaluations. They do this for altruistic purposes and most are married and have kids of their own.

People are not 'renting' wombs from the poorest women available - at least not in the US. (Although this practice did happen in India, and it was extremely exploitative and abusive.)

There is no winning when you have kids - invariably there will be some (like on this thread) who will say it is selfish no matter what and we don't need more people in the world. Well, we need to have another generation. Look what's happening in S. Korea and Japan - they're going to be screwed with a declining population.

You don't want to have kids? Fine. But don't tell other people (straight or gay) what they can or cannot do - particularly if they can afford it and are mentally stable.

R82 More than half are feminist infiltrators from twitter/reddit/tumblr that count surrogacy as abominable as a transgression as transgenderism. Don't believe the hype. This thread has bored UK hausfrau/raging radfem all over it.

Paul McCartney had a kid at 62 years old. That BUTTLESS LIVER LIPPED LIZARD Mick Jagger had a kid at 72 years old!

Where is the DL OUTRAGE over them?

Surrogacy is a lot less exploitative than prostitution. Both involve commoditising and monetarising one's body.

I'm over having to pay higher insurance rates because poor, middle class and wealthy straight couples do 50 rounds of IVF. Why don't they just go adopt some kid that needs a home? In fact, I'm over straight people having kids period. Until every last child on earth is adopted, nobody should create more.

It's no ones business. End of story.

these marys are chosing which hipster bar to have brunch at, not which designer baby theycan get

It doesn't do women any favors to throw money at a uterus and refer to her as the surrogate.

R87, you're not paying one done for any surrogacy. But you could use some mental therapy.

R86 Many women have and would do it for free. Prostitution not so much. Also different class backgrounds here in the west. Compensating donors.. and that's what they are.. generously isn't an attempt to commodify a woman's body but as a token of appreciation for the gift they're giving to the couple-- the majority of whom are straight couples. That part keeps being conveniently left out of the discussion in order to vilify gay men who are banned from using surrogates in most countries where the real exploitation takes place.

One dime

one wants the white baby, one wants the black baby

"honey, we only have enough money to adopt one child, not the twins, please!"

The argument just doesn't wash, R87. Why should people have to raise other people's children if they don't want to? Should they be forced to wear second-hand clothes and drive used cars and only buy old houses?

I'm OVER the rent being too damned high. Who cares if bougie men and women buy babies?

R80

That just isn't true.

Many parents of gay singles or couples are chipping in for surrogacy because just like anyone else they want to be grandparents.

Know of at least one case where both parents and in-laws ponied up funds to help with surrogacy. Basically they advanced what each guy would have inherited but never the less entire family wanted to see the couple start a family.

Surrogacy isn't hugely expensive as many would believe. Well suppose $100k starting point (for USA) may seem so, but there are ways to save and plan.

They are finding health problems with donor eggs used inside a woman that isn't the biological mother. Just something to be aware of. I'm against the selling and buying human beings, whether rich, poor, straight, or gay.

Women's wombs have been for rent or a means to an end going back to the first woman. So those of you on your high horses about the ethics of surrogacy, need to go somewhere and sit down.

Adoption isn't for everyone. I personally do not want someone else's castoff, which is why I don't shop at consignment shops. If adoption is your thing, then have at it. But it is perfectly normal, natural and within bounds to want your own biological child.

How about this? Do you think it's right that adoption agencies (faith-based or not) target impressionable pregnant women and coerce them into having the baby, while taking a huge placement fee?

The pregnant woman gets close to nothing, while the agency makes tens of thousands of dollars. At least surrogates make the choice and are paid.

The pregnant adoption agency women then have the rest of their lives to live with some regret and remorse for giving up their children. Many of these women would have aborted, if it weren't for the pleas and 'don't kill your baby' ideas planted into their heads.

"we JUST can't see eye to eye about this thing, maybe we need to get a dog like Pete and Chasten did"

NEXT time i'm getting a surrogate

R102 It is much better than the regret of aborting a baby, some women never get over this at all. At lease with adoption there is always a chance of meeting their children in the future.

There are tons of foster kids out there that desperately need a home that you could adopt for virtually nothing r83.

Thats exactly what OP is defending against, why don't more gays adopt foster kids who need a home.

[quote]My country doesn't even allow people to use surrogacy. It has nothing to do with being gay, it's banned for everyone. My country thinks it's unethical, on par with "renting a womb". Having a child is not a human right. I will probably never have kids, but I'm fine with that. PS: my country does allow gay couples to adopt or foster, but the adoption process is very difficult since most foreign countries ban adoption to gay parents and there aren't enough kids in Norway to adopt. Most gay men here either work something out with a lesbian couple or they foster.

I have a friend who has similar views regarding surrogacy. My friend had breast cancer at 32 and she had eggs frozen before chemo because at the time she was engaged to be married. Chemo and other treatments did mess up her reproductive system. She eventually got married and they considered surrogacy. But, when my friend and her husband thought deeply about it they got turned off by the idea of "renting a womb" and the possibilities of surrogate's life being put in danger in case of pregnancy complications turned them off.

They considered adoption, but my friend's health history was an issue with some adoption agencies. Private adoption was also considered, however my friend believes that her cancer history would be a turn off for birth parents. They just decided not to pursue parenthood through any means. My friend has said friends and relatives have pushed them to look back into surrogacy, but she basically tells them that they don't believe in risking in someone's life for a baby.

[quote]There are tons of foster kids out there that desperately need a home that you could adopt for virtually nothing [R83].

Untrue.

[quote]Thats exactly what OP is defending against, why don't more gays adopt foster kids who need a home.

Many US states have only anti-gay Christian-run adoption.

Rad fems don't care about changing that.

[quote]why don't more gays adopt foster kids who need a home.

As a gay man, I wouldn't want that responsibility. You take some troubled kid into your home and they turn on you - or worse, make accusations against you the first time you have to discipline them? Fuck that. Gays who foster are begging for trouble.

R106 - if you think adopting foster kids is just a snap of the fingers, you're deluded.

My friend (straight black woman with a white husband) had problems getting foster kids because her husband was white. They had 3 sets of foster kids eventually and wanted to adopt twice, but it was yanked away as the mother (still in jail) backed out of it.

Plus, even fostering children for gays isn't as straight forward as you think. There is still prejudice against putting foster kids into a gay household. Let alone a single gay person.

Some of you are in a fantasy land about adoptions for gay people. You go with your heart without knowing the facts. How do you know people haven't already looked into these options?

We fostered and then adopted two older kids. They are the best thing that ever happened to us. There are so many kids out there who need families, surrogacy is really selfish in my opinion. It says "I am so important my genes must carry on!" It has its place for straight couples who cannot get pregnant but for a gay man there are so many options outside of doing that.

I would have loved to be the trust fund baby of Anderson Cooper and be kissed and held by him and all his boyfriends.

I’m over wealthy straight couples choosing not to adopt

r7: I feel sorry for Solomons kid - one, he'll get Solomon's fucked up family genes, two, he'll have the insufferable Solomon as a parent.

On the other hand, he won't have to work a day in his life....

oh and r2 fuck you. How do you know what you are getting via a surrogate? You act like older kids in the foster system are fucked up? They are kids. Mine are awesome. All they needed was a chance and loving parents.

R89 those guys don't look parental and their abode appears completely not kid-proofed. What are they trying to sell us with that pic choice . Stupid. They look to be discussing their Burning Man and Coachella plans. You don't cultivate that hipster, lumbersexual look just to turn around and raise babies.

R111 - to be honest, you got a trial run with the kids before you adopted them. You could assess any needs or issues that could be problematic. Did you have other foster children that you decided you did not want to adopt?

Your singular experience is not the same as everyone else's. I'm happy for you that you got lucky and everything turned out. But you have no right to call anyone else 'selfish' for not making the same decisions you made. That's some asshole behavior right there.

I don't know why the fuck gay men would want to raise any child. It's always at least a little bit suspect and weird anyway.

[quote]It has its place for straight couples who cannot get pregnant but for a gay man there are so many options outside of doing that.

I suspect you are not a gay man.

F&F R118 for homophobia.

[quote]It has its place for straight couples who cannot get pregnant but for a gay man there are so many options outside of doing that.

So surrogacy has its place for straights, but not gay man.

And... the mask is off.

Rad fems need knives stuck in their cunts.

R121=Jessica yaniv

Why don’t straight couples adopt?

How many of you who are whining and fainting because people use a surrogate rather than adopting, go to kennels and buy idiotically expensive, over-bred dogs whose eyes are popping out of their sockets, instead of adopting from a local shelter? Same difference, but a lot more prevalent...

R105 women who give their baby away should never entertain the idea of meeting their kids later, or they shouldn't give them away in the first place. You think women who have abortion have regrets and not women who give away their baby? There are so many horror stories of adopted kids going from family to family, with very little supervision from social services, it's close to human trafficking.

R125 is right. Next to none of parenting is gestation and labor period. It's the making lunches, it's the cleaning up, etc. That's parenting.

r121 most assuredly a gay man. I just think it selfish of gay men to have a baby via surrogate, I think it is selfish for most straight couples as well

Well, if Anderson was just some slob off the street, I’d agree. But he’s a Vanderbilt. Very good bloodline that has to be maintained.

R5

Will Truman only was "single" because the reboot decided for whatever reasons to act as if the last season of series never happened. We know however it did and Will Truman married the hot Italian NY LE and had kids. Will and Grace after not speaking for decades meet up again on moving in day when their kids are off to college. Implication being perhaps things start all over again as it was at college where Karen and Will first met.

It has been said previously and is worth repeating; Will Truman was a sad piss poor excuse for a well off white gay living in Manhattan, NYC. He was only "single" due to spending all his time in an ersatz marriage with Grace. That or his mooching best friend (how did that happen?), Jack was always around.

When Will found out Grace was pregnant but her husband was out of the picture he dumps the hot Italian cop to play house and father with Grace. Again pure idiocy....

Gay couples should be given every opportunity to be as rotten parents as straight couples.

R91

Not exactly true. US military females have very good maternity benefits that many use when providing surrogacy services. So on that score at least yes, American taxpayers are footing some of the bill.

On another note many states do require insurance companies to cover some family planning such as IVF and other services. So again people are paying regardless.

Phew! A lot of crazy moral judgements on this thread, mostly (I think) by women pretending to be men, and who have difficulty writing English. While many gay men are (rightly) happy never to have had children, it is women, and usually women who have never had children, who are driven into this kind of froth by the prospect of (in this case a gay man) having a child through surrogacy. As with Evangelicals and Trump supporters, it is impossible to have any rational conversation with them.

We have had two children via two surrogates and both of the surrogates would have smacked many of the posters above. They did it because they were altruistic, because they enjoyed the experience of pregnancy, and because they were extremely well compensated for their remarkable gift to us. One of our surrogates bought a small house with the money she earned. In short, they wanted to do it. But of course, so many women would like to control what other women do with their bodies.

And best wished to Anderson! As an intelligent poster observed, having children in ones fifties is not selfish. Rather it is a new model. He now has the job security and the time to devote to his son. It is the first two decades that are formative of the child, and one hopes he will remain active and loving into his eighties.

ABC news covered US military wives/women being surrogates.

Why does it matter how someone becomes a parent!?

As long as the baby is there to love the parent unconditionally, filling the emptiness inside, is what really matters.

There is probably some natural impulse to want to have a child who is poorly made from you. No one thinks that is weird for straight people

I’m glad I had an abortion!

After several recent threads on DL about older gay men dying alone and or last in their family you'd think there would be a bit more joy around here for gay men starting a family.

We all sat through those threads about 1940's and 1950's pictures of gay friends and couples wondering about their lives and such. We soon found out most died alone and were buried along with their names. They rest in forlorn graves that no one apparently visits to put down flowers or any sort of remembrance.

Like Shelby says in Steel Magnolias: " I look at having a baby as the opportunity of a lifetime. Sure there may be risk involved, but that's true for anybody. But you get through it and life goes on. And when it's all said and done there will be a little piece of immortality with Jackson's good looks and my sense of style, I hope. .... I would rather have thirty minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special."

Shelby had her priorities straight.

I wonder what questions the children have about their mothers and how those questions are answered. It’s a little different than adoption, but adopted children often have questions about their genetic parents too.

Where did Shelby end up R137? Dead on the floor with wearing an ugly dress and an awful haircut.

Proves only gay men can style hair.

Because the only white babies available to adopt have something wrong with them.

At least Madonna isn't racist.

Interracial adoption is usually discouraged.

And Lipstick Alley has joined Mumsnet at R141.

R138

Some parents have open relationships with their children's surrogate mother. Otherwise various states have laws regarding whose names are on birth certificate thus enabling a child to later find out who is his/her mother .

Things get even more complicated if egg donors are used because birth mother may simply have been the breeder; true source of DNA is another story.

Read about a gay man from Germany who already having two children by a surrogate in PA was heading back to have another. He wanted all his children to be related and has kept an excellent relationship with their "mother". So indeed all three of his children look like brothers and sisters should; same father and mother....

Think many parents realize in this day and age the old school way of sealed and secretive adoption just wont work any longer. Andersen Cooper's kid can easily one day just "Google" (or whatever they have in 2035) his name and found out he was born from a surrogate. So it isn't like some huge state secret. Who exactly the woman in question was again may simply be listed on the kid's bc.

Interesting thing would be if this birth mother has children of their own who someday find out their half-brother (if AC didn't use an egg donor) is a member of the fabulous wealthy Vanderbilt family.

Yes it seems wealthy gays reproduce via surrogate, but at the same time, the wealthy lesbians adopt all the babies. It balances out.

Nobody gives a shit what OP is "over."

[quote] Yes it seems wealthy gays reproduce via surrogate, but at the same time, the wealthy lesbians adopt all the babies. It balances out.

Got any stats for that or just homophobia pulled out of your cunt?

People (men and women) always want a biological child first. It’s only when that doesn’t happen do they resort to surrogacy, adoption etc. if Anderson wants a biological child and can, he should be allowed that choice. Frankly, you can say any couple with able funds that doesn’t adopt is being selfish. Doesn’t have to be gay or otherwise.

So much misinformation about adoption here. There are far more babies in this country who need a home. I know at least four gay couples, male and female, who have adopted from birth, and they didn’t have much difficulty doing so. I don’t judge anyone who chooses surrogacy, but there are Already many unwanted and abandoned children out there who need parents.

[quote]So much misinformation about adoption here. There are far more babies in this country who need a home. I know at least four gay couples, male and female, who have adopted from birth, and they didn’t have much difficulty doing so. I don’t judge anyone who chooses surrogacy, but there are Already many unwanted and abandoned children out there who need parents.

What comments, specifically, are misinformation?

It all sounds true to me. Adoption isn't easy, and a gay man adopting is harder again.

[quote]I don’t judge anyone who chooses surrogacy, but there are Already many unwanted and abandoned children out there who need parents.

And those kids could be majorly fucked up and the adoptive parents would have a nightmare on their hands for the rest of their lives. Many people just don't want to take that kind of risk.

I completely agree!!!!!!!!! I am adopted, and maybe that is why I don’t see the absolute obsession with “genes” being passed on. Just adopt! I feel like I can’t say that though because my infertile friends who try to do fertility treatments would be offended. I get annoyed with them as well. Like was your test tube baby really that necessary ?

Yeah, let the gays adopt all the kids with bad genes, and when the kids grow up to be screw-ups (because of their genes, not their environment), conservatives will cry, “See? Gay parents screw up children they raise!”

No thanks, and please stop singling out gay people for choosing surrogacy over adoption when most straight couples have their own kids and don’t adopt.

Nobody who wants to be a parent has a duty to adopt.

I hope the posters commenting on what straight couples should or shouldn't do aren't gay men or lesbians. We get offended when straight people judge our lives or offer their opinions on whether we should be getting married or raising kids. So why the fuck should we do the same and judge their personal choices?

Because gay men make up less than one percent of the world population. We do not set societies norms.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

these two used a surrogate

Don’t you fa... eh, boys know that it’s your job to adopt our leftovers.

Leave the reproducing to us.

Besides you probably just want to be free to molest. He-he.

There is a great deal of information and research about the trauma experienced by adoption and its affect on adoptees. It was not really addressed until the 70s and 80s, after the “baby scoop” era when white single mothers were encouraged to adopt and women of color were encourage to get welfare and sterilization.

Many of the effects of adoption are a result of separation from a biological mother. Babies know their mothers and don’t see themselves as separate for up to two years.

Everything isn’t a commentary. Gay men are still men. Men have a biological need to pass on their genes to their offspring. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to love and care for a child in any situation. I just think IVF is a reality for some people so they choose to take that.

Six-figures is a lot of money to most of us, but there’s plenty of time and money and red tape that goes into adoption as well. One could even argue that’s why fewer and fewer people are doing it. It’s not like it was in the 1940s where you could just go to an orphanage in the middle of nowhere, pick out the kid that could pass as your own, sign a few papers, pay a few dollars, and leave.

Legalized abortion put a premium on white babies.

Same about straight people, OP, that's not specific to gay men.

[quote] I would never adopt, damaged goods. You don't know WTF you're going to get. I would want my own genetics.

Funny considering your own genetics might be just as flawed. You have a better chance of knowing what you're getting into by adopting an older kid than by ordering a baby. At least you know a bit about their personality and health issues.

Perfectly normal parents can end up with psychopathic kids. With an older kid you can avoid getting the one who already has a thing for killing small animals.

No, as has been explained only society’s dregs actually gives birth today.

r162 older kids are usually already fucked up.

Why should gay men have to raise the rejects of the world’s trash?

Why do people always think that how they feel other people should live their lives is of any importance? It always baffles me. Stay in your own fucking lane OP.

If you have the money, use it as you please. It’s amazing that there are women who will carry babies for others.

R167 Most of those women are doing for money. I know that sounds mean, but it's the truth. If they're willing to take the risks and have permanent damage to their bodies then let them.

Of course they're doing it for money. $100,000 or more. That's enough money to buy a house in some areas. Or a college education.

She'll have to give up alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs for 9 months. Imagine all the invasive medical procedures, and having to make cheerful smalltalk with the daddy as he watches. Imagine all the comments and questions the woman gets from her relatives, neighbors, friends, and strangers when she's visibly pregnant. It's going to lead to some awkward conversations. "This is not my baby." "What!" "I'm not related to the child." "What!?" She'll have to avoid posting pics on social media. Even though she's not related to the child, she will probably feel some attachment, since it's in her body for several months. Then there's postpartum depression. Having to exercise to regain her figure. Not to mention stretch marks, potential C-section incision scar, looseness "down there" caused by the birth.

[Quote] I'm over wealthy gay men choosing surrogacy over adoption

Would you be okay if poor gay men had children via surrogacy? But who would pay for it??

Such conundrum.

Remember this movie from 1981?

Except he was straight. And without modern technology, they had to make a baby the old-fashioned way.

In the movie, Burt was to pay the surrogate $50,000. So, in that case, the woman would get $50,000 to carry and birth a baby...and have sex with Mr. Burt Reynolds.

DLers can reference anything from the 70s or 80s, no matter what the topic. WTF does a totally forgotten Burt Reynolds film have to do with anything?

R173, the movie was about surrogacy. Way back then, the price was $50,000.

I never really wanted kids. Good thing - genetic mess that I am I'd not want to pass on this shit to a kid.

So all good stuff, R169.

The Wrigleyville Cumdump has birthing hips.

R132 - great post. I could have written it myself! Very similar situation. We had two kids via surrogacy. One is biologically mint; the other is biologically my partner's. Same egg donor, different surrogates. I love our kids - but, jeez, it is a SHITLOAD of work. Ours are 10 and 7 - and we were older when they were born, as well.

Yes, please always remember to maintain the heroic narrative for parents. Straight people love it, why not extend this to gays? Adopters in particular get extremely threatened when their motives are seen as anything but the ultimate sacrifice to save a helpless child.

[quote]I'm over wealthy gay men choosing surrogacy over adoption

Well then, I suggest you neither use surrogacy nor adopt.

Obviously, you're not wealthy, so you've already got that covered.

Why should it be a big deal for the carrier to never see the child again? If genes don’t matter why don’t they just adopt?

Rad fem logic is based on nothing but misandry and homophobia.

Most mothers (r181 calls them “carriers”) feel a connection to a life they created and lived with for 9 months. I have met many women who have surrendered their children - almost none of them ever get over it. It’s not “rad fem logic” by any measure.

Surrogacy is not just a thing for gay men, so stop using this topic to justify your homophobia and only criticize gay men for using surrogates to have children. Many straight wealthy celebrity couples are doing it too. Kim Kardashian is still in her 30s and used a surrogate. Garbrielle Union used one. It has taken off in popularity among people with money.

[quote] Most mothers ([R181] calls them “carriers”) feel a connection to a life they created and lived with for 9 months.

Cool. So you accept that biological desires and connection to your genetic kin is real?

Or only when women feel those feelings, not gay men?

[quote]Surrogacy is not just a thing for gay men, so stop using this topic to justify your homophobia and only criticize gay men for using surrogates to have children. Many straight wealthy celebrity couples are doing it too. Kim Kardashian is still in her 30s and used a surrogate. Garbrielle Union used one. It has taken off in popularity among people with money.

That's what clued me in to it being nothing but homophobia.

They only go after gay men.

When a woman uses a surrogate, silence.

Even in this thread title.

I’d be glad to see the research, r185, but I’m doubtful you will find much for something that seems to define false equivalence. The birth mothers I know were scarred for life. Many of the birth fathers never knew of their progeny - some feel connected to their children once they find out, many don’t.

r186, I think you are mixing apples and oranges. Women who are unable take care of their child and women who are paid professional surrogates are two different topics of discussion.

[Quote] Of course they're doing it for money. $100,000 or more. That's enough money to buy a house in some areas. Or a college education.

While the full cost of surrogacy in the US can go far about $100K, the surrogate gets about $25k

[Quote] Most of those women are doing for money.

While money may be part of the equation, many really do want to help gays especially.

Soldiers tend to join the military because they need the money. Does that mean it’s automatically immoral too?

Some people consider their own DNA in a bio child as their (true) legacy they leave behind after they die.

And adoption isn't always an option when you live in a homophobic state and adoption agencies are run by bigots who gladly discriminate based on their "deeply held" beliefs. In other cases the bio parents want their child back and come up with some sob story why the kid is better off with their bio parents, who abandoned them, than some gay dudes.

[quote]Most of those women are doing for money.

Would you want to go through pregnancy and child birth for someone else for free?? Surrogacy is a highly paid service because you wont find many women who don't mind being pregnant and giving birth for someone else. It is also a legal transaction for all parties. These women are not just pulled off the street. They are usually recommended by top OB-GYNs and have already given birth to their own children and other babies.

Some people want to adopt. Some people want to be biologically related to their child.

I don't see the problem here, assuming that all parties entered into either transaction of their own volition.

I mean, it's not as if baby trafficking for adoption isn't a thing.

Nobody is talking about Angelina Jolie, like Madonna, who went very far to adopt children from all over the world. These celebrities could have adopted in the US, but it was better to be seen like they are saving a child from a third world. Some of them were not really orphan and in a dodgy situation, it's closer to human trafficking, where rich people are buying children. They want to look good, but in the end, they could do with some psychatric help themself... I'm not sure the adopted kids (and the bio kids) should be consider safe with those parents... You don't know how the kids will turn up, but you don't know how the parents will turn up either...

I loved this Angelina vs Madonna showndown on Weekend Update

OP mind your own shit!

What about wealthy women choosing surrogacy (Sarah Jessica Parker, Deidre Hall, Peri Gilpin...)

R188

Range of $15k -$25k is on the low end, some surrogates get more, much more....

Keep in mind there is a base pay rate for surrogates, then there additional expenses/costs that mean extra payments.

California rates example of...

Income from surrogacy is taxable same as any other; but many do not pay taxes in all or part of their income.

Much like the other sort of women who rent out their bodies a good number of surrogates tell themselves various things to justify not reporting any or all of their income.

Of course NOW Pete and Chasten are talking about adopting, but it was such a pleasure to see a high-profile gay couple WITH NO KIDS.