Is It Selfish for a Gay Couple to Have Kids via Surrogacy?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 2:08 AM GMT
    14ethicist-master315-v2.jpg

    NYT: Question from David Lat of New York: My husband and I are gay and are exploring the possibility of having children using an egg donor and a surrogate mother.

    Sometimes when we mention this in conversation, people ask us, in a chiding tone, Why don’t you adopt? They often then argue that with so many children in need of good homes, it would be ethically superior for us to adopt, instead of spending a small fortune so we can have children to whom we are genetically tied. In addition, there are ethical issues related to paying women for their eggs or paying women to carry our children as surrogates.

    Are we acting unethically — or at the least selfishly or self-indulgently — in pursuing biological children instead of adopting orphans who could benefit from what (we like to think) would be a good home?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/magazine/is-it-selfish-for-a-gay-couple-to-have-kids-via-surrogacy.html?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 2:33 AM GMT
    do what you want.

    Adoption has its benefits from legal, cost, no birth risks
    Surrogacy has benefits in that if you maintain contact you have medical records of the parents.

    -be the thrifty gays parents; dont underestimate the cost of raising a child and or his hers college education.
    -take care in choosing a lawyer that has experience in gay Adoption Surrogacy. interview a few lawyers. ck to see if the State of NY Attorney Regulation has any complaints. Somewhere in your state government this department exists. From you and the attorney make sure you get a signed dated detailed statement of work, list of deliverables and a schedule. the legal work has to durable for 18 or 20 years so go for quality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 3:04 AM GMT
    What a croc!

    Don't know how the NYT came down on the subject, but it is absurd to criticize gay men for having natural children. Why should gay men only have children through adoption? There are 100 million straight couples in the USA who could just as easily decide not to have their own children and instead adopt. Why should gay men (or lesbians) be singled out for liberal guilt?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 3:08 AM GMT
    FROM THE ARTICLEMy husband and I are gay and are exploring the possibility of having children using an egg donor and a surrogate mother. Sometimes when we mention this in conversation, people ask us, in a chiding tone, Why don’t you adopt?


    Typical nosy and judgmental nazi liberals.

    Same attitude with cars and politics. Best thing to do is just ignore them. Oftentimes, they're hypocrites and don't even follow their own lecturing.
  • jlars12

    Posts: 82

    Aug 05, 2016 4:30 AM GMT
    I would probably adopt, to be honest, for all the same reasons listed by OP.

    Pellaz, what's the benefit of having medical records of the orphans' parents?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 1:29 PM GMT
    benefit
    -for example; if both parents had a blood clotting disorder "factor 5" the child is phucked. If only one parent had the inherited condition the child can largely ignore it and live a normal life but still nice to know
    -were the parents tall, short, have hair on their legs... as a teenager; he she might want to know what they will look like as an adult
    -how the child's parents died might indicate the child's fate too as he she hits middle age.




  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Aug 05, 2016 4:33 PM GMT
    There's a natural desire to extend oneself beyond our own life through kids. But its also kind of like buying a dog through a reputable breeder vs a rescued dog in need of love. Both are valid and neither should be looked down on. Do whatever you two want and if anyone has an issue with it, just say "So that's your opinion. Thank you for that." No need to debate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2016 9:08 PM GMT
    worldPopulationGraph_year0to2100_billion
    It is unethical for ANYONE to create more children at this point in time. Our planet is ridiculously overpopulated and creating more babies is unethical and selfish. Being gay has nothing to do with it.
  • leanandclean

    Posts: 268

    Aug 05, 2016 9:50 PM GMT
    No more selfish than male/female procreation by usual means rather than adopting.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Aug 05, 2016 11:53 PM GMT
    woodsmen said14ethicist-master315-v2.jpg

    NYT: Question from David Lat of New York: My husband and I are gay and are exploring the possibility of having children using an egg donor and a surrogate mother.

    Sometimes when we mention this in conversation, people ask us, in a chiding tone, Why don’t you adopt? They often then argue that with so many children in need of good homes, it would be ethically superior for us to adopt, instead of spending a small fortune so we can have children to whom we are genetically tied. In addition, there are ethical issues related to paying women for their eggs or paying women to carry our children as surrogates.

    Are we acting unethically — or at the least selfishly or self-indulgently — in pursuing biological children instead of adopting orphans who could benefit from what (we like to think) would be a good home?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/magazine/is-it-selfish-for-a-gay-couple-to-have-kids-via-surrogacy.html?


    Lol. We now have four children and three men in the household. They were built -- literally -- with eggs from the surrogate mothers. The mothers carried them to term and exited. The two older are approaching 4. The younger two are mid-way to being two year olds.

    Do your own thing and make your own ethics.
  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 800

    Aug 05, 2016 11:57 PM GMT
    HikerSkier saidWhat a croc!

    Don't know how the NYT came down on the subject, but it is absurd to criticize gay men for having natural children. Why should gay men only have children through adoption? There are 100 million straight couples in the USA who could just as easily decide not to have their own children and instead adopt. Why should gay men (or lesbians) be singled out for liberal guilt?


    Really? FROM THE MAINSTREAM (non-"gay") POINT OF VIEW, ONLY a male/female couple ought to have children BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT NATURE INTENDED. This, to me, is ridiculous, but this is probably how the majority of people feel. At least a lesbian is a woman and a potential MOTHER. Mothers are socially thought to be more likely to remain with their kids and love them--UNLIKE fathers.

    "Gay" men are too flighty, too concerned with their freedom to hit the bars, attend circuit parties, and go to the parks to suck penises in the bushes to TRULY be domestically responsible. As soon as the baby cries, they'll be running to the nearest fire department or safe haven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law) to be rid of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2016 2:00 AM GMT
    conservativejock said
    woodsmen said14ethicist-master315-v2.jpg

    NYT: Question from David Lat of New York: My husband and I are gay and are exploring the possibility of having children using an egg donor and a surrogate mother.

    Sometimes when we mention this in conversation, people ask us, in a chiding tone, Why don’t you adopt? They often then argue that with so many children in need of good homes, it would be ethically superior for us to adopt, instead of spending a small fortune so we can have children to whom we are genetically tied. In addition, there are ethical issues related to paying women for their eggs or paying women to carry our children as surrogates.

    Are we acting unethically — or at the least selfishly or self-indulgently — in pursuing biological children instead of adopting orphans who could benefit from what (we like to think) would be a good home?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/magazine/is-it-selfish-for-a-gay-couple-to-have-kids-via-surrogacy.html?


    Lol. We now have four children and three men in the household. They were built -- literally -- with eggs from the surrogate mothers. The mothers carried them to term and exited. The two older are approaching 4. The younger two are mid-way to being two year olds.

    Do your own thing and make your own ethics.



    Only a Conservative could say something like this. Lets see now......."I feel like killing someone today and my own ethics say that's okay."
  • Eleven

    Posts: 150

    Aug 06, 2016 3:17 AM GMT
    I dont think its selfish to want to spread your seed im sure theres lots of ppl who need sperm donations ..


    But I think its stupid to do surrogacy, babies need their mothers at a young age, and we live in an over populated world with abandoned kids, what the fuck is wrong with people? I dont understand the way ppl think, its not equality we need its equity, and
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 06, 2016 10:24 PM GMT
    A child should always have the opportunity to know both of his or her biological parents. To decide that a child knowing his or her mother and father is not necessary and/or to decide that some substitute will suffice is selfish.

    self·ish
    /'selfiSH/
    adjective
    (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
  • Joshthegaymer

    Posts: 83

    Aug 07, 2016 1:15 AM GMT
    Children need to have a place called home whether it be with a mother and a father, two fathers, or two mothers. As long as the child or children are loved, I don't see a problem with that.
  • mcbrion

    Posts: 305

    Aug 07, 2016 5:05 AM GMT
    HikerSkier saidWhat a croc!

    Don't know how the NYT came down on the subject, but it is absurd to criticize gay men for having natural children. Why should gay men only have children through adoption? There are 100 million straight couples in the USA who could just as easily decide not to have their own children and instead adopt. Why should gay men (or lesbians) be singled out for liberal guilt?


    I didn't get where the NY Times "came down" on anyone. I must have missed something other than the caveats the writer mentioned, which are pretty sensible ones. What did you see that I missed?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 07, 2016 2:46 PM GMT
    yes;
    the NYTimes article was relatively none committal on surrogacy and the article had a tendency to rambled on about a lot of things

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 08, 2016 11:41 AM GMT
    As it will be you who are raising the child, I don't think anyone else's opinion matters really! That may be considered selfish by some but you have to do what you feel is right for you and your relationship and the future you want to have with your family.

    If I have kids in future I would choose to adopt though, as I do not feel the need to have a child who is 'mine' genetically and there are plenty of children who need families already without creating more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2016 11:47 AM GMT
    I'm biased, being adopted, so I do think it's selfish.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2016 1:46 AM GMT
    Great fully my partner and I, don't need rug rats to feel compleate. Give me two dogs any day.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Aug 24, 2016 3:07 AM GMT
    It's not selfish. We have a biological desire to have offspring of our own. And in some (many?) places it's illegal for same-sex couples to adopt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2016 3:37 AM GMT
    A former BF of mine had a lesbian sister with a partner. The sister was artificially impregnated. I have no knowledge regarding the donator sperm.

    She had twins. I saw the 2 girls as infants, until they were pre-schoolers. Absolutely adorable! They would have rivaled Shirley Temple for cuteness in the day, and perfect mirror images. I couldn't tell them apart.

    I asked my BF how they distinguished between the 2 women, what they called them. "They call one Mom, and the other Mommie."

    I wondered how they would be received in school when the twins started, but by then we had broken up. So I never knew.

    An issue with kids from non-traditional homes is not only how they're treated at home, but also how the broader community, and the kids they interact with, treat them. That's a lot more problematic, and virtually impossible to anticipate & control.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2016 1:45 AM GMT
    Cough, cough, cough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2016 2:13 AM GMT
    UMayNeverKnow said
    CODY4U saidA child should always have the opportunity to know both of his or her biological parents. To decide that a child knowing his or her mother and father is not necessary and/or to decide that some substitute will suffice is selfish.

    self·ish
    /'selfiSH/
    adjective
    (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.


    I wholeheartedly agree with this.



    Millions of children have had their fathers and/or mother die and made it to adulthood just fine. If a kid can grow up emotionally healthy with only one parent (or none), I'm pretty sure they would be in just as good a care (or better) with two loving same sex parents.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2016 6:02 PM GMT
    I don't know if I would use the word selfish, but I have always wondered why gay or straight couples go to such lengths to use artificial means to create children when there are so many waiting to be adopted. Also, the fantasy of a cute little nuclear family (assuming the couple stays together) usually has a lot of dents and dings in it by the time the kids reach adolescence and (often) become a huge problem. Most parents I know wonder what they were thinking when they so wanted to have kids. Better to adopt and do something really honorable. Or get a dog.