Gay dads become a social media sensation and go viral on tiktok after becoming parents to triplets via surrogacy

I'm sorry to ruin the fun, but bespoke rich white gay dad/surrogacy babies are sad and the practice is kind of gross, and I love babies.

I also think all children need a mother.

Queeny Daddy One and Queeny Daddy Two came up with the PERFECT baby names....WREN!!!...WILLOW!!!....WINSTON!!!.......

r1 No need to apologise for expressing your opinion with civility. Well in the UK for example although I appreciate the healthcare provision situation is different in the US there are strict rules around surrogacy a nd increasingly available nhs services to facilitate those pursuing surrogacy so it is not just rich men or couples in the UK pursuing g surrogacy and it seems to be increasing in some many developed countries year by year and such a trend will not be driven or sustained just by rich men or women.

This practise is slowly becoming normalised as an option.

Beautiful. Fish are finally of use!

It seems like the latest thing is to have kids.

I’m left out of the cool kids group again.

Purses!!!

Eww.

Three gender reveals at once!!!

These are children, not accessories...some of us are becoming as insufferable as breeders when it comes to babies.

r5 Not at all! You mustnt and shouldnt feel like that.There is no need to .Your choices are just as valid as theres .

r9 Treating or viewing children as accessories is wrong no doubt about that in my mind. But is this necessarily what they are doing?

R11 that is what it seems like. YMMV.

This situation just goes to show that women are not necessarily the best ones equipped for child-rearing. Two strapping guys will have no trouble carrying around three kids, even after they turn 2, whereas women with twins are typically prone to all kinds of back and arm problems from having to hoist them round.

When the kids are in school, these guys should do publicity telling how physically difficult it was and urging straight men to help their women more.

r12 What does YMMV mean?

You started a thread on them last month. Did you forget?

r15 No I didnt forget but I did not realise they were the same couple because I could not access all of the information in the link on this thread because it is restricted access to people in Europe.

I remember, R15.

R14, Your Mileage May Vary...meaning you may not agree with me.

r18 Cheers.I learn something new everyday.Thats a good turn of phrase.

Babies are not designer goods. Babies know their mother's scent and her voice from the womb. Separation at birth is a trauma and there is plenty of evidence of this. Also needs to nurse from her breast as a bottle is not as good.

Adopting and raising children who need parents is wonderful. Pretending you are a woman who gives birth is sick and just has harmful to kids and gays as the trans bullshit.

r20 Im not sure they have pretended they are women who have given birth or indeed that many do that at all??

Like kittens, the triplets are all from different sperms. It's baffling the doctors.

Surrogative throupling?

They probably think kids will be even more fun to dress up than their fuffy little dogs.

How thoughtless. With a global population that will likely reach 9 billion in the next decade or so, just imagine the carbon footprints these three artificial spawns will leave and what resources it'll cost to sustain their lives for the.next 80-100 years.

"SurvivingAngel", this is the 2nd thread now that you're starting about female pregnancy & surrogacy. Lower middle-class and poor females effectively entering into business contracts to *intentionally* manufacture kids *just to give them away* is not something to be celebrated. It's Orwellian and fecked up.

I am very close to my mother (as are most DLers it seems). And it's deeply ironic that many gays are specifically close to their mothers - and yet some of those same guys want to *INTENTIONALLY* manufacture kids in a way that would automatically rob them of their mother. I think it's wrong to intentionally make ‘schemes’ like this.

A kid is not a dog. Adults shouldn’t be able to sign a “pre-order contract” for a kid to be bred like a dog-pup, and have a stipulation in the contract that the mother has to gift or sell away the kid to the father, like a Christmas puppy present.

But the problem is people are so selfish nowadays. They don't want to give the kid access to their mother or other side of the family because that would mean "sharing" the kid. Because the kid might grow to actually love the mother more & want to spend Christmas with his mother instead of with you. And adults nowadays can't stand that - they want to "own" the kid completely. But kids should not be created to be “owned”.

And the intentionally convoluted ‘schemes’ that people concocted nowadays are so Machiavellian. They take the biological material (embryo) from the kid’s Mother and stick it inside another female - and then sell or gift that kid to the father and some unrelated 4th person. It’s such a diabolical, convoluted scheme - intentionally designed to be convoluted so that the kid will be confused about who his real mother is, and so that the mother will have zero rights. “Where is my Mommy?” - “Well, son/daughter, you don’t have a Mommy. We just ripped out an egg from a “Donor” and shoved it inside a “Surrogate / Carrier” (even the language is so cold & robotic) - and then paid both of them off, or made a contract with them, so that they’d abandon you - which is what we wanted!”.

TL;DR: If you want to create a kid - then ask your Best Female Friend to be the biological mother, so that the kid will have regular access to his mother & his maternal family side. Lavendar parental groups are the best option. Because kids (humans) deserve rights too. Intentionally ‘crafting’ a situation where a kid is created just to be handed over like a bow-tied Xmas present or a paid-for product between adults is just unethical and wrong.

[quote] Well in the UK for example although I appreciate the healthcare provision situation is different in the US there are strict rules around surrogacy

SurvivingAngel / R3, - No, in the UK the rules aren't "strict" at all. It’s a mess. There have been reports that commercial payments to mothers (commercial surrogacy is technically banned in the UK) are simply masked as “altruistic payments for maintenance expenses” (which includes a year’s rent, all food expenses, travel costs, etc). People have paid huge amounts for so-called “altruistic maintenance” - it’s coyly document as “altruistic”, but it’s often obviously a commercial for-profit payment. Most law enforcement don’t pursue charges against these violations. There are so many unethical loopholes and it’s not “strictly” policed at all.

[quote] so it is not just rich men or couples in the UK

No, it is mostly well-off couples doing this (because they are often expected to cover the maintenance costs). And mothers (“embryo-donors”) and birth mothers (“surrogates”) are mostly lower-middle class & lower class. You’ll never see someone like Kate Middleton, Meghan Markle, Kate Winslet, Cara Delevingne or Emma Watson being a “surrogate” or “egg donor” for some blue-collar Indian or black couple in Brixton.

[quote] it seems to be increasing in some many developed countries year by year and such a trend will not be driven or sustained just by rich men or women. This practise is slowly becoming normalised as an option.

People who can afford to spend money on “pre-ordering babies” are “rich” by global standards. And there is nothing “normalised” about this. Once India and Thailand banned or limited surrogacy, richer people from “developed countries” (Western Europe) flocked to war-torn Ukraine to exploit the poor women there.

Carrying triplets is so risky for the mother and the babies. I can’t imagine that a selective reduction wasn’t advised by the doctor in this case.

I have noticed that rich white gay men who choose to have kids are having larger families recently. Next thing you know DLB and Tom Daley will be expecting quadruplets via surrogate.

R26 says it all. If a mother was on a street corner selling her baby to whomever will pay, we'd all judge her. Hell, a good portion of Americans hate the idea of abortion. Yet, both practices are used for successful IVF. You're buying a baby (different than adopting one that already existed, despite you wanting to adopt) and unneeded embroyos are tossed aside way more than with abortion.

r27 Well a decent length glance through Instagram hashtags tells me that many of the uk couples who use surrogacy particthe gay couples are working class and there more of a mix and its the American couples using surrogacy who are much more likely to be wealthy. There was more altruistic surrogacy in the UK too with female relatives like sisters or mothers being the surrogate.

There are lots of people of modest means in the west eg UK and USA and downplaying that by saying you are rich by international standards I don't think is helpful or enlightening of the situation.

I myself gave no plans to partake in surrogacy but rather will be enjoying my life as a child free gay man and all the associated freedoms that brings!!

This is repulsive. Children need a mother.

[quote] Well a decent length glance through Instagram hashtags tells me that many of the uk couples who use surrogacy particthe gay couples are working class

SurvivingAngel/R30, “working class” as in cabbies / taxi drivers, construction workers, Amazon delivery guys, waiters, street cleaners, subway / Tube workers, Kebab makers? Surrogacy is not prevalent among that class - it’s too costly. Besides, “Instagram” is all smoke & mirros, and not the best way to gauge someone’s wealth class.

[quote] There are lots of people of modest means in the west eg UK and USA and downplaying that by saying you are rich by international standards I don't think is helpful or enlightening of the situation.

I was referring to the increasing practice of richer people from Western Europe going to poor, war-torn Ukraine (the current main European hub for cheap, unethical surrogacy).

As for within the UK, as already mentioned, even in a so-called “altruistic” scheme, the ones who are ‘pre-ordering’ the kid are STILL expected to cover “all expenses”, including potentially 9+ months of food bills, rent bills & utility bills for the mother / surrogate. I don’t think it’s helpful or enlightening to downplay the *high* cost of paying all expenses for a surrogate birth mother. Most working-class couples can barely cover their own bills, not to mention a third person's / surrogate’s bills. People who can afford those high costs are well-off by any standard:

“In the UK, which is often said to have an 'altruistic' surrogacy framework, surrogate mothers typically receive £12,000 to £20,000 for their expenses (which is less than in the USA, where surrogacy motherhood is commercialised and surrogate mothers typically receive compensation of $30,000 to $60,000)”

[quote] There was more altruistic surrogacy in the UK too with female relatives like sisters or mothers being the surrogate.

Yes, that does happen. However, trading humans organs in order to “pre-order” kids shouldn’t be seen as “altruism”, because it infringes on a young human’s right not to be sold or traded like chattel property.

As mentioned, the more ethical choice is something akin to a lavender friendship, where the kid is created by close friends in real life (e.g. a gay couple & their best female friend who both conceives & births the kid), and the kid will thus at least have regular access to both his father and his mother in his life.

r32 How is it costly when it is facilated by the NHS?Auxiliary nurses, teaching assistants, Electricians , plumbers, Doctors receptionists etc are all working class .Working class is not as narrowly defined as you seem to think.

These people are human traffickers and engaging in sex slavery. They should be thrown in prison.

[quote] How is it costly when it is facilated by the NHS?

SurvivingAngel/R33, the surrogacy motherhood itself (and all life *expenses* associated with the mother during those 9 months) are NOT "facilitated by the NHS":

"The NHS will pay for the fertilisation of the mother-donor eggs in the lab, and transfer of the mother's embryo to the surrogate mother, plus maternity treatment during the pregnancy. HOWEVER, they will NOT arrange or pay for surrogacy, the COST of which in the UK amounts to 'reasonable EXPENSES'. "

The surrogate mother needs food, maternity clothes, etc - the father ‘pre-ordering’ the kid is usually expected to pay for it. The surrogate mother needs transportation from & to clinics, plus general transportation expenses during the whole 9 months (cab fares, etc) - the father ‘pre-ordering’ the kid is usually expected to pay for it. If she needs housing or rent assistance, perhaps even full coverage of her rent & all utility bills (electricity, gas, water, Council Tax, basic phone/internet bills, especially if she experiences health complications during the pregnancy and loses her main income) - the father ‘pre-ordering’ the kid is usually expected to pay for it. Etc. Etc.

I already gave you the quote upthread @R32 that the COST of covering “reasonable expenses” for a surrogate mother often runs from £10k to £20+k. I repeat: the NHS will NOT cover non-medical surrogate motherhood expenses.

And even regarding IVF treatment expenses for a specifically surrogate mother, while Scotland’s NHS covers its, I don’t think the rest of the UK’s NHS does. So add that to the cost.

[quote] Auxiliary nurses, teaching assistants, Electricians , plumbers, Doctors receptionists etc are all working class

Yeah, and most of them don’t have an extra 20 grand lying around that they can blow on a surrogate mother (especially since the pregnancy might result in a miscarriage, and they'll have to pay for it all over again). As mentioned, surrogate motherhood is usually a service for well-off middle-class and rich people.

Those queens are going to expect three times the attention and three times the gifts.

I just hope that after giving birth, the frau takes a hike voluntarily, and the hot male couple don't get her involved in the children's life. Some women can be very unstable.

if both dads donated sperm, the kids could have different fathers. will "you're mine and she's his" lead to years of therapy?

r35 But I have seen people in those kind of jobs I listed having children through surrogacy. That was the point I was trying to make. Infact one was a supermarket shelf stacker as I recall. I think you are oversimplifying? Naturally I accept your right to disagree with surreal but I do think you are mischaracterising it with pejorative phrases like pre ordering. Normal or average couples work through the bulk of their pregnancy before they take maternity leave and do not get their rent etc paid for them by the government or employer so I'm not sure you are quite right with what you are suggesting about intended parents having to pay these particular expenses for the surrogate. Also laws around surrogacy in the UK are currently being examined and due to be changed in 2022 and probably not in a direction you agree with.

It's not fair that I'm male and don't have a womb to rent.

r39 I meant a right to disagree with surrogacy not surreal!

[quote] But I have seen people in those kind of jobs I listed having children through surrogacy.

And I have seen people in those kind of jobs drive Teslas, SurvivingAngel/R39. But the exception does not make the rule.

[quote] Infact one was a supermarket shelf stacker as I recall.

One shelf stacker? We’re talking about the general clientele here. The unethical surrogacy motherhood industry is not built for the poors.

[quote] I think you are oversimplifying? … mischaracterising it with pejorative phrases like pre ordering

I call a spade a spade. I won’t sugar-coat it. The industry is built on pre-ordering a product (kid) and then telling the mother to get lost. The kid is afforded zero rights or protections against this. “Pre-ordering” is actually the most euphemistic term for this. Creating humans for the *sole purpose* of selling or gifting them away is unethical, bordering on human trafficking.

[quote] Normal or average couples work through the bulk of their pregnancy before they take maternity leave

Omg, SurvivingAngel. You’re comparing apples to oranges. A *contract* for surrogate motherhood is not a “normal / average” situation. The pre-ordering couple want an UNUSUAL, ONE-SIDED service from the surrogate mother ("carrier") - so, in exchange, they foot all her bills, whether she works or not. She can quit her job entirely - and they’ll still be expected to foot all her expenses.

[quote] Normal or average couples work … do not get their rent etc paid for them by the government or employer so I'm not sure you are quite right with what you are suggesting about intended parents having to pay these particular expenses for the surrogate.

Again, apples to oranges. (1) Regular couples are 2 adults. A pre-ordering couple + a surrogate mother are 3 adults, so there are additional costs. (2) Regular couples going through a pregnancy usually *live together*. Surrogate mothers usually DO NOT live with the pre-ordering couple - they have separate housing so you need ADDITIONAL bills to pay. (3) Regular couples usually don’t have to pay for IVF. With a surrogate motherhood, you DO have to pay for IVF (and repeated IVF, if it doesn’t work, again and again). So, taking all that into account, the cost of surrogate motherhood is infinitely higher.

[quote] Also laws around surrogacy in the UK are currently being examined and due to be changed in 2022 and probably not in a direction you agree with.

They said the same about changing the Gender Recognition Act, and then the changes bombed b/c there was big social pushback against it. The top gynaecologist in France, René Frydman, is also increasingly warning about the dangers & lack of ethics in surrogacy.

If my dad (or dads) tried to rob me of my mother, I’d sue their asses off. People need to learn that young humans should not be purchased or created with the main intent of being traded like property & robbed of the right to have access to their maternal family.

r42 Just a quick few points and I will reply in more detail later. It doesn't always involve IVF but can be done via a yoghurt pot or turkey baster kind of thing. In other words DIY. You are not grasping that ordinary pregnant women whether single or a couple do not get all their bills paid for them and just get their maternity leave pay when they decide to take it. Why do you think pregnant surrogates don't work or earn a living all the time they are pregnant?Many women work up until 7 or 8 months into the pregnancy before they activate their maternity leave. Most of the maternity leave is used up caring for their child at home but a surrogate will not be doing that but the intended parents. I don't think its me who is looking at things and drawing the wrong conclusions but you. There is nowhere near the level of pushback against surrogacy in the UK as there was over self id of gender.

This will end in tears and with at least three people in therapy.

So we're supposed to be excited every time some yokels have their brooding sow inseminated.

[quote] It doesn't always involve IVF but can be done via a yoghurt pot or turkey baster kind of thing. In other words DIY.

SurvivingAngel/R43, “DIY”? When it’s the woman’s own egg and she’s knocked up “via a turkey baster” / “yoghurt pot”, then it’s not 'surrogate motherhood' - the woman would be the *actual Biological Mother*. A Biological Mother is not a ‘surrogate’.

'Surrogate motherhood' is when you carry the egg of another woman. That CANNOT be done “DIY”, and this scheme is NOT covered by England's NHS unless the actual biological mother is the *main patient* (the surrogate mother helps the biological mother give birth and the kid stays with its biological mother).

[quote] You are not grasping that ordinary pregnant women whether single or a couple do not get all their bills paid for them and just get their maternity leave pay when they decide to take it.

What the heck do “ordinary pregnant women” have to do with this? There’s nothing “ordinary” about “surrogacy” - it’s a completely artificial arrangement. “You are not grasping” that “surrogacy is a CONTRACT for a SERVICE. Ordinary pregnancy is NOT a contract - “surrogacy” *is*. And if you enter into a CONTRACT with someone - there are COSTS for that contract. How many times do i have to repeat this for you?

Since you stubbornly refuse to believe me, here is the info from SurrogacyUK.org: “Persons should budget approximately … £30k for host surrogacy – this includes ALL EXPENSES for the surrogate, insurance, wills, and surrogacy clinic costs (for host). A surrogates expenses can be from anywhere between £7k and £15k, depending on her personal circumstances e.g. loss of earnings, rate of childcare, number of children, distance from you, etc”.

[quote] Why do you think pregnant surrogates don't work or earn a living all the time they are pregnant? Many women work up until 7 or 8 months into the pregnancy before they activate their maternity leave.

Because she doesn’t *have* to work. And if she works, she can put the money into her *personal* savings account and save it for next year, or use it on her *own* children. Because for those 9 months of surrogacy - it’s the 'commissioning' couple’s contractual OBLIGATION to pay up & cover her expenses, it’s NOT her obligation. She’s already providing a work-like ‘service’ by carrying someone else’s kid - so the ones who pre-ordered the kid reimburse her costs.

[quote] I don't think its me who is looking at things and drawing the wrong conclusions but you.

Says the person who thinks “ordinary pregnancy” = contractual “surrogacy”. *Facepalm*

[quote] There is nowhere near the level of pushback against surrogacy in the UK as there was over self id of gender.

The controversy around self-ID gender is enormous. But don’t underestimate the rising controversy surrounding the surrogacy issue either. There is substantial pushback, with even published articles in The Guardian raising concerns about the violation of children's’ rights in surrogacy clinics. Children's’ rights should override adults’ whims.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child requires the right to dignity and protection from sale or trafficking.

I'm happy for them. And I hope more gay men who want to start a family use surrogacy as well. Fuck off to the homophobic terfs and conservative fuckheads.

R47 thinks buying, selling & trading human organs & young humans is "progressive". JFC.

The idea that children can't grow up well adjusted with two dads is so 40 years ago. And homophobic.

BTW, surrogates knowingly enter into a contract. To conflate that with human trafficking is hysterical nonsense. If these women want to be surrogates, then it's no one's business but their own. Some of the be posters on this thread sound as unhinged as Operation Rescue anti-abortion activists.

[quote] BTW, surrogates knowingly enter into a contract. To conflate that with human trafficking is hysterical nonsense. If these women want to be surrogates, then it's no one's business but their own. Some of the be posters on this thread sound as unhinged as Operation Rescue anti-abortion activists.

You’re the one who is “unhinged” and who lacks reading comprehension skills, R49.

It’s about trafficking the kid, not necessarily the woman. It's selling a human material from its biological mother, implanting it into a second woman and then selling / trading it to the father and some random 4th person. It’s exactly a fecked-up trafficking scheme, treating young humans like they’re tradeable chattels. Just because it’s a “contract”, doesn’t mean it should be a legal “contract”. And, in fact, most European jurisdictions don’t recognise the validity of such a contract.

[quote] The idea that children can't grow up well adjusted with two dads is so 40 years ago. And homophobic.

The idea that a father needs to hire a mother to sell her kid to him is “so 40 years ago”. And it’s misanthropic, treating human life like tradeable / sellable property.

r46 You are wrong to say biological mothers cannot be surrogates and you seem to think only hosting an embryo and then child that isn't biologically connected is surrogacy . You are wrong and the website you reference surrogacy uk will tell you that.

r46 Guardian articles are not the same as public pushback

R50 you proved my point about being unhinged with your over the top posts. We get it - surrogacy makes you go into a tailspin. You've made your point over and over. Let it go and run along.

Just one of many examples of kids brought into the world via surrogacy who seem very happy in a two dad family.

Doesn't fit with what so many people are saying in a very dramatic fashion.

Another picture of children with two gay dads who seem very happy in their circumstances.

And another happy looking child with two dads

[quote] You are wrong to say biological mothers cannot be surrogates

SurvivingAngel/R51, that’s Orwellian language, labelling a biological Mother just a "surrogate". A biological mother is a biological mother. Nothing will ever change that FACT. The kid will have 50% of her DNA, probably some of her features, her ancestry / ethnic origin, even potentially predilections to maternal-line illnesses which she also has. All of that will be passed down to the kid from the mother, not from any “surrogate”. The kid might even turn out to be a female near carbon-copy of the mother.

[quote] Guardian articles are not the same as public pushback

Says SurvivingAngel/R52 - the person who relies on vapid, superficial, window-dressing Instagram photos as some kind of “cosmic proof” for his confirmation bias. That’s like saying: “Oh, look, here’s a cheerful, glossy Instagram photo of a smiling Armie Hammer hugging his wife and smiling kids - that must mean they're all so happy & Hammer is such a good daddy!” (wrong, turned out he cheated on his wife & sent photos of his kids to his hookups, she now the wife got the kids away from him).

R52, if there hadn’t been pushback, then Europe would have had continent-wide commerical surrogacy. But it doesn’t and many European countries even bas advertising surrogacy & guarantee birth mothers automatic parental rights - exactly because of pushback against surrogacy.

r57 You are wrong .I am not trying to hide the fact a surrogate has the mothers dna in these circumstances but her chosen role is surrogate not active involved parent. Nothing orwellian about it given it is openly acknowledged. Europe does not operate as one homogenous group on these kind of issues so you are making a non point They all have different laws on an array of social issues including abortion, gay marriage , drugs etc

Those photos are a rebuke or counterpoint to your hysteria as they show we are talking about real people, real lives and not an abstract.

[quote] You are wrong .I am not trying to hide the fact a surrogate has the mothers dna in these circumstances but her chosen role is surrogate not active involved parent.

No, you are wrong, SurvivingAngel/R58. “A surrogate has the mother’s DNA”? WTF are you even talking about. The daughter/son has the mother’s DNA, not the surrogate. You seem to be getting really confused.

And your adult chosen role does not override the Convention on the Rights of the child - who has a mother, not a 'surrogate'.

[quote] Europe does not operate as one homogenous group on these kind of issues so you are making a non point They all have different laws on an array of social issues including abortion, gay marriage , drugs etc

WTF do “drugs & abortion” have to do with any of this. You’re really throwing everything but the kitchen sink into this.

My point is valid: The majority of Europe pushed back against surrogacy, most banned commercial surrogacy, many banned advertising surrogacy and gave birth mothers default rights.

[quote] Those photos are a rebuke or counterpoint to your hysteria as they show we are talking about real people, real lives and not an abstract.

Lol, superficial “Instagram photos” (like my example about Armie Hammer) are not a “rebuke or counterpoint” to anything. You’re really reaching there. You don’t know anything about IG ppl’s “lives”, just like you don’t know anything about the real lives of Instaho’s who have IG Stories pretending to be “millionaires” on vacation on a yacht in Dubai (but are actually rentboys whoring in Dubai).

You’re the one who’s hysterical that I *dare* mention the rights of young humans not be traded like puppies at Xmas.

I’m sorry that discussing young humans' innate rights (not to be *intentionally* manufactured just to be traded and handed over like chattels) upsets you so much.

r59 Quick typing I meant the child has the dna of the biological surrogate mother in the circumstances outlined .But that is not hidden and never gas been denied. You do know there are two kinds of surrogate mothers don't you? You are dehumanising children referring to them as manufactured Its a vulgar way to talk based on a caricature in your mind.

r59 I know all about rentboys being instahoes!

First sign this won't end well, "Social Media Sensation".

[quote] But that is not hidden and never gas been denied.

Actually it is sometimes, SurvivingAngel/R60. There are couples that do not provide the kid with essential info about the mother (which is in violation of the Convention). As I said, people in these schemes are often selfish and do not want to "share" the kid with anyone: “What if the kid connects with his/her mother more than with meee! What if he/she chooses to spend Xmas with the maternal family instead of with meee!”.

[quote] You do know there are two kinds of surrogate mothers don't you?

Calling a biological mother a “surrogate” is a gross misnomer. A “surrogate” essentially means “substitute”. A biological mother is not a subtitute for anything or anyone. Whereas a birthing mother *is* a substitute (surrogate) - she carries & births the kid instead of the biological mother if the biological mother has health problems and cannot safely carry it herself to term.

[quote] You are dehumanising children referring to them as manufactured Its a vulgar way to talk based on a caricature in your mind.

You are sugarcoating an unethical, controversial practice. The father of such a child doesn’t love or even have any interest in the mother of the child. The father just wants to selfishly get the child for himself & tell the mother to go away, not even caring about the kid's rights. That’s a manufactured, cold transaction.

You are dehumanising children by supporting an unethical practice that involves intentionally creating children as sellable / tradeable property and barring them from having any innate human protections from this.

As already mentioned, there are ethical alternatives to this, like creating a mature co-parenting arrangement where the child is conceived/created with access to both his father & mother in his life in some capacity, where the child is not *intentionally* robbed of either.

Erm r63 I am just testing arguments and playing devils advocate but I do think you are over catastrophising this situation and predicting the worst possible outcome and worst motives in all situations. Look up the meaning of surrogate away from the moral heat of your feelings. I am technically correct about the concept. You can disapprove of the fact that is the reality but it is true a biological mother can agree to be a surrogate and that is recognised by the authorities.

It is illegal to sell children in the UK. You know that.

The only thing repulsive here is dumb cunt homophobes like you R31, and R1. Hopefully, no child has you as a parent.

R49, It's the terf loons that stalk DL who are spewing this crap, not actual gay men– besides the few token morons they have on their side, the rest of us don't actually care about this nonsense. Just check out their Twitter accounts, it's nothing but obsessive whinging about how gay men, trans and drag queens are all predators. They're definitely unhinged.

With their itsy bitsy babies and their teenie weenie tots!

I feel bad for the new generation. Alpha? It's all about hashtags and going viral in parenting today, gays and straights. These kids are gonna be FUCKED.

r68 Perhaps the tide will turn?

A kid is fine with two mums, one mum and one dad, two dads whatever, but this is exploitation of women. It’s undeniable. No woman that had a career of her own or was financially secure would do it, it’s another capitalist function that relies totally on poverty in order to exist.

r70 There are plenty of examples were that is not the case.

R71 what’s your angle here? You kind of present these threads in such a “interested to hear your thoughts x” way but you clearly have a very clear agenda. Your “oh I didn’t post this before did I - oh that’s right I did how silly of me” upthread is so embarrassing I’m surprised you’re still commenting tbh.

Do most gay men want babies? I sure don't. Crying , dirty diapers, tantrums, and all the stresses of raising a child over a period of many years. Bless those who do so life continues on Earth but I like me little comforts of peace and quiet and order. I'm reminded of a joke by raunchy comedian Andrew Dice Clay - " I always wanted a child but I could never catch one"!

An acquaintance of mine had his surrogate birth three kids (twins plus a single) within 18 months. Afterward, the only time I heard him reference her was to chuckle about her pregnancy-induced hemorrhoids and nonchalantly recount all the tearing she experienced from vaginal birth.

If your baby doesn't go viral, you're a bad parent.

r72 Angle? I am not thinking of pursuing surrogacy myself if that's what you are implying by agenda. This is a discussion forum and I find this a good and interesting worthwhile topic for discussion. It really ain't more complicated than that really. I find the fact that only 25 years ago the prospect of these developments and these trends in gay life being unthinkable and outlandish sounding now being close to at least semi mainstreamed absolutely mind-blowing.

R76 but you’re presenting it in a way that is clearly dishonest. You’re clearly extremely pro-surrogacy but you kind of start off as if you’re neutral or looking for information. It’s like a plant. Granted you’re not very good at it (your repeated thread topic / link messiness as evidence) but still I just don’t know why you would present it all in this way. Why not just be upfront about it?

[quote] [R15] No I didnt forget but I did not realise they were the same couple because I could not access all of the information in the link on this thread because it is restricted access to people in Europe.

Like this is just crazy, why would you start a whole thread based around an article that you supposedly couldn’t even read?

I'm looking for discussion on a discussion forum r77

Where is the shock in that and were is it a thing that on here we only start threads if we are looking for information rather than looking for discussion i am looking and hoping for discussion of a social trend I find fascinating. A revolutionary social transformation or phenomenon happening in real time is definitely worthy of discussion in my eyes. I used to be a surrogacy sceptic, I am softening on this as I learn more but I listen to all points of view on the topic. Although it doesn't really matter if I am pro or anti surrogacy or what my opinion is for the purposes of facilitating a discussion. I can't understand what you are objecting to unless you are maybe guilty of what you are accusing me off and that is "having an agenda ".

My agenda is watching and enjoying a discussion on a major social trend that is happening right now.

R79 ok we’re getting somewhere - so you acknowledge your stance is decidedly pro-surrogacy.

Out of interest - why did you start the thread on these guys twice? And why would you start a thread about an article you weren’t able to read b/c of a paywall?

Look upthread and jou will get your explantation r80. I was able to read the first few paragraphs before paywall kicked in and I clicked off the page to start a thread before that became apparent because I thought the topic would be interesting for a thread .I did not at this point realise it was guys I had previously covered until someone pointed it out to me.

It may be a revelation to you but not everyone has to have wildly positive feelings or wildly negative feelings about all topics or have strong feelings for or against things so I don't really accept your characterisation within your first line. I am not decidly pro or decidly against. Thar often happens in life. I thought it would be a busy thread relatively speaking and I have been proven right after all you have posted on this thread several times.

R81 but out of all your comments and your Instagram links to smiling dads there is a general pro-surrogacy stance shown (whether conscious or not (and it clearly is conscious even if you’re trying to hide it behind a “I’m neither for nor against” smokescreen)). You didn’t link to a single anti-surrogacy thought so by virtue of the reality of your posting you are in fact, decidedly pro surrogacy. And I don’t know why you wouldn’t just acknowledge it.

Unless you’re about to start linking to articles showing poverty stricken women suffering medical problems due to the surrogacy industry which would show some balance, but i doubt you’ll be doing that.

r82 You are wrong and misguided. Trying the vague method of you believe something but are not conscious of it is just a silly reaction to your inability to refute the point that people don't have to have strong feelings for or against something. Strong opinions are not a prerequisite to being interested in something or commenting on it. I have listened to many podcasts of surrogates giving their stories and perspectives and most are very informative and enlightening and far more positive than what you present. Should I dismiss all that they say, people actually involved in it, because it doesn't fit with your agenda ? One of the podcasts featuring a surrogacy interview was called if these ovaries could talk. Photos of children born to surrogates but being raised by gay dads clearly happily playing , interacting , giggling and clearly adoring and loving their dads does give me an opportunity to pause and have some food for thought as it runs very counter to the anxieties that they are in a harmful unhappy damaging situation. I think it would be odd if that didn't make me pause and think. Not all opinions have to be solidly fixed unmoving and entrenched

I think surrogacy laws need reform in order to stop poor countries becoming surrogate hubs but that's not the same as thinking the law should ban all surrogacy.

R83 this ^^ is just a word salad. Just be more honest with your comments.

You’ve commented 28 times on this thread and they’ve almost all been in a pro position towards the subject matter, or in agreement with other pro-surrogacy comments, and there have been zero posts of yours containing critique. This means you’re pro surrogacy whether you like it or not bb. I don’t make the rules sorry.

r84 Nuance is your friend. Consider it.

R85 you’re projecting. Just be real with yourself. Call a spade a spade.

r86 On the contrary I have been very honest with myself and with you. The difficulty is you see things in very stark black and white and highly polarising terms and thus you struggle in your reaction to someone who doesn't have a strong opinion, strong feelings and who is nuanced on said topic.

R87 you keep on keepin’ on.