What do you think about surrogacy?

It's a sophisticated form of human trafficking and child abuse. Babies shouldn't be made-to-order like a piece of designer furniture, and no child should be taken from it's own mother unless necessary. It's barbaric, and no one who "loves" a child would ever do that to him or her.

Own mother? What are you talking about? Do you even know how surrogacy works? The egg is from a different person that the woman who surrogates. She’s not her mother.

[quote]Reading the “adoption horrors stories” thread, I realized lot of people, don’t know if fraus, gays or both; are against surrogacy.

It's mostly homophobic w*men.

[quote]What do you think about surrogacy?

That it ends with a child.

R3 They talk like it was easy for gay men to adopt. They choices we have when adopting are limited and not very good.

I personally think's a socially accepted form of eugenics. I know a gay couple who recently used a surrogate to have a child (boy). Because they now have access to the remaining eggs that were harvested, they talk about possibly giving their son a brother. I thought that was so distasteful because they were making it clear their family is being carefully curated.

A lot of gays, especially well-to-do gays, are so egotistical they can only think in terms of their brilliance being passed along, or they're convinced they'd make cute babies. Anyone who truly wants to be a parent and cannot do it naturally would see nothing wrong with adopting. Unfortunately, they would rather demonize children who are up for adoption as being damaged goods.

We are not suffering from a human shortage on this planet. Stop pumping out babies, period.

I'm personally against any artificial means of having children, and that goes for anyone and everyone (surrogacy, artificial insemination, etc.). But I also think the number of "natural" conceptions should be limited to only those who can afford to properly raise children and have passed a psychological exam to ensure their mental health as parents. Basically, if it were up to me, there would be far fewer people born every year.

I'd rather see educated, financially secure people using surrogacy than people who are not emotionally, financially or intellectually prepared popping out unwanted spawn.

R8 Are you a Mormon or something?

R7 That’s your opinion, you can’t be banning things because your opinion. Would you like Trump banning same sex marriage because his opinion?

Surrogacy does any harm, on the contrary, it provides a wanted baby to a family who is going to love him or her.

R8 Are you a Mormon or something?

R7 That’s your opinion, you can’t be banning things because your opinion. Would you like Trump banning same sex marriage because his opinion?

Surrogacy does any harm, on the contrary, it provides a wanted baby to a family who is going to love him or her.

Am I a bit nazi for starting to feel like women shouldn’t vote on this pole?

There are too many people in the world. If people can't conceive naturally they shouldn't be able to restore to surrogacy or any other artificial means to have a child.

Adopt! There are plenty of children, particularly in developing nations that need homes.

And to top it of all add that all medical effort trying to help people conceive could have their resources used more effectively in other medical areas.

R13 Adopt being gay?

[quote] Am I a bit nazi for starting to feel like women shouldn’t vote on this pole?

No.

How many children are born every year through surrogates?

Gay men using surrogates are not the ones overpopulating the planet.

But I do support mandatory sterilization for ciswomen.

I think about it like I think about abortion. The choice should be left to the woman who is pregnant.

Major Oh dear above!

I have no issue with someone wanting a biological child and using whatever means they can to make that happen. In theory, I have no issue with adoption or fostering, but it takes a strong, special person to take on someone else's rejects.

no judging here, but if i wanted a child that badly, i would marry a woman, have a family and get dick on the side.

You sound pathetic, R20.

Who cares? To be trite: MYBODYMYCHOICE

If someone wants to rent out their womb for big cash, why not? Servants across the centuries had to whip out their tits to feed the babies of the wealthy (wet nurse) at no choice of their own.

Shocker: there’s also a tit milk industry for people that can’t/won’t breastfeed themselves, are surrogate parents, or for whatever other reason.

And if someone wants designer progeny, again: who cares? Far worse things those with income could waste their money on. Adoption is not easy and fostering can be VERY challenging and you’d rather raise your own child.

Let people make their own choices.

R21 you do understand that this is 90 percent more common then surrogacy. It is the default method of child raising, dick on the side or not

For the people who think it's take a special kind of person to adopt, you should know that it's hard to raise biological children too. They don't turn out the way you want and they're often huge disappointments. Ask your own parents. It's especially hard when that person's mother is some "donor" with a family you don't even know. At least when you're raising it with the other biological parent, you have someone to share the burden. I'm glad I'm not going to be that surrogate kid. Sounds like a creepy family.

Not saying it's easy, but it's just different when the child is biologically related to you R24. I don't care what anyone says.

It should be said that most couples using surrogates are straight, and straight people enforce the nuclear family norm. I have a lot of sympathy for those who want children, but I wish more people would accept childlessness as a valid state. Yes, the wish for children is inherent to a great degree, but societal pressure is a huge factor. I'm torn because I do feel especially for gay couples, but I feel the ethical issues aren't being addressed in the rush to make surrogacy legal.

R22, it's not a bad analogy. Even a little over a hundred years ago, poor women were put into servitude when hired as wet nurses for middle class women. Usually they were forced to separate from their own babies, most of whom died. Such women weren't even seen as human - they were merely producers of breast milk.

On the other hand, in many cultures where wealthy children were placed with foster families, they were seen as having a kind of kinship. Perhaps that could be an analogy for the cases where surrogacy occurs as a gesture of love or friendship.

[quote] Not saying it's easy, but it's just different when the child is biologically related to you [R24]. I don't care what anyone says.

So, biology should matter for you, but not the child? Pure selfishness. As I said, I'm glad I'm not that kid. Or toy, rather.

r20 I wonder what proportion of gay men used to do that, what proportion do that now and whether surrogacy ,adoption and coparenting with a female friend whilst being openly gay are going to be game changers in reducing the number of gay men who marry women so they can become dads and have relationships or dick on the side?

Bump!!

I've posted a number of times about this: my partner and I have two kids that we had through surrogacy. Surrogacy is a very personal decision and I am very happy we had our kids that way. All surrogacy situations are different - but our relationship with the egg donor and our two surrogates is very nice. No issues. Dlers can rant and rave about surrogacy - but unless you have been through it, keep your fuckin; mouths shut.

r30 I am glad things worked out so well for you. May I ask please at what age you were when you became a father and do you think you will have a third child? Did you receive any backlash from other gay men in your local community who you know personally?

R30, are you the biological father of one of your kids and is your husband the biological father of the other?

I'm glad that a lot of guys here are finally admitting that it is a natural urge to want a child or a mini me. Not for everyone, but for a lot of people. I used to be less for donated eggs and surrogacy, but now I've been hearing about how hard it is to get a kid other ways. Fostering would just suck, that kid might get taken from you any minute. It seems very hard to get an American baby (so much competition and the parents would probably want money for the baby), and other countries mostly adopt out kids who have fetal alcohol syndrome or something just as bad. Yes, there are plenty of kids who need good homes but it's a giant mess.

I worked with one woman who fosters kids, I guess she can't have any of her own. She's very against abortion and I wondered if it was partly because she thinks that if there were no abortions there would be more unwanted babies around and she could adopt one.

I'm for altruistic surrogacy, which is the law in Canada. But I'm against commercial surrogacy which is the case in the US. It doesn't sit right with me that you can rent a womb. And women who are poor might me desperate. Kids are not properties to sell and buy. On the other hand if you do it because you want to help couples who have no other way to receive, then it's fine. But no money should change hands, other than expenses for the IVF treatment.

R33 But I am sure you are fine with porn?

It is not the job of gay men to fix the lives of straight people. It is fine if someone wants to adopt. But, why should gay men have to do that if they do not want to and be stuck with the children that straight people were either unwilling or unable to care for.

R30 (ProudPapa) here

R31 (SurvivingAngel): my partner and I were older when we had kids (50 and 60). It was/is rough - but we have wonderful family (complete with an 18-month old puppy). We are not going to have a third. Two kids is plenty (we have a girl and a boy) and we didn't experience any backlash from other gays, though honestly, a majority of our friends were/are straight.

R32: Yes. My partner is the biological father of our daughter and I am the biological father of our son. Both of our kids have the same egg donor/bio-mom.

r13 The IVF industry is huge and some have plans to expand or enter the market and shake it up to become financially within reach for more average citizens especially in the USA were it is very expensive.

IVF will not be going anywhere or banned and I doubt surrogacy is either. The latter is slowly becoming mainstreamed or at least an increasingly commonplace occurence in the gay community.The implications are of course huge including for the gay community as increasing domestication of gay mens lives poses a challenge to how gay communitys and the gay scene as an oppressed marginalised part of society operate .

Interesting times but also the changes will make some very uncomfortable or uneasy.

Surrogacy on the way to being semi commonplace amongst gay men was unthinkable to anyone who started out in the gay scene even in the mid 1990s.

It's just more of the rich exploiting the poor, and I'm repelled by it.

Most users of surrogates are not gay men, but straight couples who are either infertile or who want to spare themselves the inconveniences of pregnancy. People like Kim Kardashian and Beyonce are using surrogates just so they won't have to worry about a pregnancy ruining their figures, and that's just not right.

r38 But if surrogacy becomes mainstream and has to operate within rules it might be people of average means in a western country eg the UK having the assistance of a surrogate who is of similar financial means to them? Eg not a rich poor exploitation scenario.It could evolve that way if handled and nudged in that direction by law and policy makers .

The Instagram hashtags around the issue of fay surrogacy are increasing quite markedly .I suspect we really are at the beginning of a significant shift in society.

r40 I meant gay surrogacy lol!!

"But if surrogacy becomes mainstream and has to operate within rules it might be people of average means in a western country eg the UK having the assistance of a surrogate who is of similar financial means to them?"

How does that work, R39? People become surrogates because they want money, and to use a surrogate you have to have enough money to make it worth their time, effort, and stress involved. Which does mandate that the baby buyer have more cash than the baby seller, the relationship between paid surrogate is inherently unequal.

Well r42 We don't have paid surrogacy in the UK so perhaps you are mistaken on motives?

To me, surrogacy is like paying a breeder for a puppy, rather than adopting from a shelter.

It also smacks of utter narcissism - it's not about raising A baby, it's about raising YOUR baby.

Whatever about surrogacy, the fucked up thing about these threads is that there’s no noise over the glossed over accepted position that someone should only ever have a child ‘if they can afford it’. What a fucked up thing to say, that only the rich deserve children. The rich are catered to every which way, do we really need to now judge someone that’s not rich for having a child? How nasty, classist and racist.

"...the fucked up thing about these threads is that there’s no noise over the glossed over accepted position that someone should only ever have a child ‘if they can afford it’."

It really is in the child's best interest to be born to people who can feed it, keep a roof over its head, offer a reasonable degree of safety, and provide at least a basic education. That doesn't mean "rich", but yes, it actually is smart to hold off on breeding until there's some degree of financial stability in the family.

As for some kinds of infertility treatment only being available to the prosperous or rich, that isn't fair, but if that was ever changed I'd want it to be in the direction of fewer infertility treatments being available and not more! Infertility treatment isn't medically necessary for anyone, and the world is damn overpopulated anyway. The world doesn't need more breeding, it needs more people taking good care of the children who are already here.

R43, that doesn’t stop surrogacy tourism, though. If you have enough money, you may find it worthwhile to stop by Florida, for example, which has very liberal surrogacy laws.

r47 Perhaps tourism surrogacy might become illegal?

r44 To be consistent morally you should apply that criticism to all across the board regardless of their fertility status. You say to people who are fertile and can have kids that they are being selfish and should adopt. To only target people who choose the surrogacy option with that criticism I think is not fair.

There's sn interesting fove part documentary series in the UK being shown by the BBC were they follow 5 or 6 families or couples having children via surrogacy with at least half of the participants being gay.

Is anti-surrogacy another one of those British feminist things, like being anti-trans?

It’s selfish on an overcrowded planet. Plus it’s creepy, I wouldn’t want my own child growing in a womb for rent.

r51 Would you say surrogacy us more socially accepted in the US?

I don’t know how accepted it is in the UK, so I’m not sure. It’s not something I’m aware of Americans having a problem with, generally, unless it’s some religious thing.

It'll be interesting if they ever figure out how to create ova from male DNA, or sperm from female DNA so that gay couples can have biological children together. I thought about it after randomly coming across these guys who have two sons who look a like a combo of their dads.

R55 that would erase the need for stink fish entirely !

^ Not unless they can also engineer wombs. Synthetic sperm, otoh, would obviate the need for men...

This is more British feminist bullshit. Women are basically children that need to be protected. These morons scream that you shouldn’t tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies and then turn around and do just that. If a woman wants to carry a baby for a couple, regardless of the reason, that’s her business. These same anti-surrogacy morons are the ones screaming for sex work and porn to be legalized and normalized... let’s pretend that those professions don’t fuck up and exploit women.

[quote] Would you say surrogacy us more socially accepted in the US?

It is. The UK is so backwards dvd hypocritical on so many subjects it’s not even funny. They were just trying to ban Internet porn to protect children. You’d have to call up and give info to get porn to your computer. lol. This is what you get when you live under a nanny government.

[quote]Would you say surrogacy us more socially accepted in the US?

It is. The UK is so backwards and hypocritical on so many issues it’s not even funny. They were just trying to ban Internet porn to protect children. You’d have to call up and give info to get porn to your computer. lol. This is what you get when you live under a nanny government.

r55 The fertility technology is in its early stages but it is called IVG and holds out the real possibility of skin cells from men being used to create female eggs and skin cells from women being converted into sperm cells .Thus making it possible for a same sex couple to have a child genetically related to both of them equally.

r59 Well that is the government but in terms of the public a great many opposed that policy of having to get a porn pass. Opposition amongst the public built up and was one of the reasons ot was quietly dropped.