Anyone care to debate the ins and outs of same sex parenting?
Tom Daley and his partner announced today that they are expecting by showing a baby scan photo on Twitter. Now I know enough about biology to know that its not their scan so to speak. I wonder who the father is? Who the biological mother is? Would the child have a right to find out who its mother was at a later date? Etc etc.
*sits back and opens biscuits*
<i></i>No to the debate.
A simple congratulations will do.
No to the debate.
A simple congratulations will do.
no need to comment then.
It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
I'm really not comfortable with the whole apparent 'baby-to-order' thing that such an announcement represents.
Why not just adopt a child in genuine need of a loving home?
[Checks calendar]
No it is still 2018, I didn't magically travel back into more ignorant times
I’m really not comfortable with the whole apparent ‘baby-to-order’ thing that such an announcement represents.
Why not just adopt a child in genuine need of a loving home?
the news story I read was on the BBC, it was seriously lacking any detail (maybe for legal or other reasons) but didn't state what the situation of the natural mother was.
Live your own life… let others live theirs.
I'll join the debate.
No problem with same sex parents, why not? Lack of role models? Let's face it, there's plenty of "traditional" male / female partnerships making a right royal pigs ear of bringing up their children. As far as I can see there is no real argument against it.
I suspect something to do with the desire for genetic legacy.
I too see little benefit in producing another baby in a same sex marriage, adoption IMO would be a fair step to take.
As for their commitment to each other I see no reason to bring gender into the conversation.
Tunnocks Wafers and a Double Espresso, thanks.
I'm not sure about it, like saxonrider says its the whole baby to order thing. I have no doubt that two men are quite capapble of raising a child, but I also have a feeling of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should"
"I’m really not comfortable with the whole apparent ‘baby-to-order’ thing that such an announcement represents. Why not just adopt a child in genuine need of a loving home?"
You could apply that logic to any couple wishing to breed if you wanted.
I also have a feeling of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”
Applies to lots of "conventional" parents too.
I hope they're good parents, and that the kid(s) and they have a good life. Couldn't care less beyond that.
Applies to lots of “conventional” parents too.
I hope they’re good parents, and that the kid(s) and they have a good life. Couldn’t care less beyond that.
Do you think those kids would have a right to a relationship with the woman who carried them for nine months and gave birth to them?
I also have a feeling of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”
Their decision doesn't affect your life in any way at all. Why should you remotely care.
As the details haven't been made clear (as far as I am aware anyway – I haven't seen anything detailing the conception method) he could quite easily be the daddy anyway. Afford them the same 'column inches' any other couple of a similar public profile would get when announcing a baby. No more, no less. For example, a traditionally normal male/female couple might not be able to conceive so go the surrogate route - would that make them any less the mummy and daddy to the child?
Loving married couple have baby...In other news; dog barks.
This and the Golliwog thread all in one day!! We really are being spoilt 🤗 who said the forum was dying?
It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
I think you'll find it's Tom and Dustin
Do you think those kids would have a right to a relationship with the woman who carried them for nine months and gave birth to them?
Not unlike normal adoption where the Mother steps away after the birth? I'd say it would/could become an issue for the Mother in later life, as for the child I would imagine having two "parents" loving and living happy environment wouldn't care much .. until later in life ..
Tough one.
This and the Golliwog thread all in one day!! We really are being spoilt who said the forum was dying?
The Golliwog thread started yesterday. Therefore, the forum is still dying.
Their decision doesn’t affect your life in any way at all. Why should you remotely care.
No it doesn't, but it is an interesting moral debate of modern times.
Not unlike normal adoption where the Mother steps away after the birth? I’d say it would/could become an issue for the Mother in later life, as for the child I would imagine having two “parents” loving and living happy environment wouldn’t care much .. until later in life ..
Depends on the situation here really, but there are few details in the news (which I am not in any way suggesting is wrong). I guess most adoption takes place because the biological mother cant look after the child for one reason or another. The assumption here (and it is a big assumption) is that the mother is having a child purely for the reason of giving it away.
You haven't seen the documentary 'junior' then? starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Depends on the situation here really, but there are few details in the news (which I am not in any way suggesting is wrong). I guess most adoption takes place because the biological mother cant look after the child for one reason or another. The assumption here (and it is a big assumption) is that the mother is having a child purely for the reason of giving it away.
Unless you're a paid up Catholic and every sperm is sacred then what does it matter to you, it's her/their decision.
Good luck to them, no objections from me (not that it even matters), but the BBC article says they are having a baby. No, they are getting a baby.
The surrogate is giving birth to a child that she knows will be going to a loving couple that are in a position to give that child every opportunity in life. She's doing an exceptionally good thing.
I'm failing to see any negatives to this.
I'm pleased for them, but I wish Roy and Lexi had just decided to have a child of their own.....
The surrogate is giving birth to a child that she knows will be going to a loving couple that are in a position to give that child every opportunity in life. She’s doing an exceptionally good thing.
I’m failing to see any negatives to this.
But that child is biologically hers. If it was me I would want to know who my mother was, where I came from, what made me, me. etc.
But that child is biologically hers. If it was me I would want to know who my mother was, where I came from, what made me, me. etc.
Have you ever sat your parents down and asked them explicitly whether you're adopted?
Or on ballance are you quite accepting having grown up with them that they're your parents?
"But that child is biologically hers. If it was me I would want to know who my mother was, where I came from, what made me, me. etc."
I know quite a few families with adopted children. Some do want to know the above, some don't. In most cases the adopted children view their parents as just that, their parents. The biological component is just a small part of it. A parent will love, nurture and be there for their children unconditionally be that as a biological parent or an adoptive one. There are plenty biological parents who are shithouses totally undeserving of the gift of children.
Question for the OP. Would you be as questioning if the prospective parents were the traditional male / female or is it the same sex element that is making you feel uncomfortable?
It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
One of those piss poor expressions that just show how limited the imagination of bigoted people is.
Have you ever sat your parents down and asked them explicitly whether you’re adopted?
Or on ballance are you quite accepting having grown up with them that they’re your parents?
Can you really not see the difference? This child will not have to ask, he/she will know.
I'd say he's too young. Get out and live a bit more.
Can you really not see the difference? This child will not have to ask, he/she will know.
I can see the difference, doesn't matter though.
1 in 50 kids in the UK isn't the Dad's, so if we're going to make it an "us and them" issue, our house is hardly in order!
This is brilliant, one day on STW and we've travelled back to racists, bigots and pre-tech revolutionary time.
I'm going to write a letter of complaint to Mark with my quill and parchment to see if I can get the antagonists hung drawn and quartered sorry I mean moderated.
But that child is biologically hers. If it was me I would want to know who my mother was, where I came from, what made me, me. etc.
Tom's child might or might not want to know more, they may want a relationship with the surrogate, which for all we know might be cool with Tom and his husband. How and at what age that's dealt with will be for the parents to decide. Which would be the same as any heterosexual couple that used a surrogate except there's no chance of any misunderstanding as the questions will likely come up as soon as the child is old enough to understand where babies come from.
I would expect that these questions will have been considered very carefully by Tom, Mr Tom and the surrogate. It's not as if the baby is the result of an ill considered drunken fumble.
[edit]
Can you really not see the difference? This child will not have to ask, he/she will know.
I sort of touched in this above and I can see the difference but I think that it can be viewed as a positive, the child will ask questions and they will need to be told the truth in a way that's age appropriate. There's no room for white lies which means there's less room for the child to grow up thinking one thing only to find out later in life that it wasn't the case and that he or she had been deceived even if that deception was with a kind heart and the best of intentions.
Absolutely no problem with Tom and Dustin having a child together. Good luck to them.
This happens every day for same sex couples with no issues it's just that this is publically announced.
BTW Non paternity in the UK is 9% not 1:50.
CFor example, a traditionally normal male/female couple might not be able to conceive so go the surrogate route – would that make them any less the mummy and daddy to the child"
Why doesn't that fruitless couple adopt?
As said above, plenty of kids out there is need of a stable home.
"The assumption here (and it is a big assumption) is that the mother is having a child purely for the reason of giving it away."
Or for financial gain?
"But that child is biologically hers."
This is where there could be issues 10 years later when the child starts to question its origin.
plenty of kids out there is need of a stable home
baby Jesus for a start.
Good luck to Mr Daley imo.
We are good friends* with a same sex couple who have a child. They split up recently and the biological parent attempted to block access to the other, non- biological parent.
Very sad& lengthy situation which thankfully the courts rectified.ie shared access.
*now with only one of the parents after our court testimony.:-(
And nico’s Adam and Eve comment is Pish!
Why doesn’t that fruitless couple adopt?
But that is another question for another thread. This thread isn't about the rights and wrongs of surrogacy, it's the OPs discomfort with same sex parents to a child. And Tom and his husband could have adopted in the same way they could have chosen surrogacy. But they didn't. Same way we chose to go through expensive IVF rather than surrogacy or adoption.
I find the use of surrogates a bit, well fraught with ethical problems. Especially if money involved..same no matter what the gender of parents. I have some friends who are a male couple with kids and two ladies with adopted kids. All are great parents.
BTW Non paternity in the UK is 9% not 1:50.
Sauce*?
*another man's baby gravy
This study found it was 1in50 and looking back at the genome it seemed to be fairly consistent going back in time (i.e. infidelity isn't a new thing, or at least it's rate of increase is inline with that of successful contraception!)