MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
And maybe bigotry is bandied about too much, but to question whether or not Daley can be a dad, just because he is in a same sex relationship? Pretty clear case of it there!
with an expresso
The ironing!
And maybe bigotry is bandied about too much, but to question whether or not Daley can be a dad, just because he is in a same sex relationship? Pretty clear case of it there!
BS! The title of the thread eludes to the fact that only one person in that relationship can be the biological father and it is not stated in the news reports who it is and quite frankly I don't care. You could say it isn't any of my business. But then as Geetee said, if you are going to publicise this in the way they have then they are expecting it to raise debate.
If you bothered to read anything else in the thread, you will see that I have no problem with same sex parents. The only thing I find questionable is surrogacy, and I don't believe that makes me a bigot. I would question it no matter the sex of the couple involved.
Agreed, I could of posted the op in a different way, but I was started a debate and not making a personal statement of fact.
we also seem to be classing our biological origin and the notion of mother and father as similarly irrelevant. It’s not; it’s all we have, it’s who we are and you only have to talk to people who were adopted to see that many of them struggle with the notion that they were given up or wonder who their ‘real’ i.e. their biological parents are/were. That search for identity is hard wired into us and the parental instinct to nurture and care for our own off spring, is kind of important evolutionarily speaking
Is this all just made up? Do you actually go around talking to adopted people about this? Seems a strange thing to do? Do you have the same discussions with people who are not adopted? And all that stuff about ‘hard wiring’ what do you actually mean?
As an aside and oddly enough I have had such a conversation an wot goatee1972 says was pretty much the gist of it.
(and no I don't go around asking if people are adopted.:-)
If you bothered to read anything else in the thread, you will see that I have no problem with same sex parents
I did, the first thing you asked for was a debate on the ins and outs of same sex parenting.
If your issue was surrogacy, you should have asked that question.
I did, the first thing you asked for was a debate on the ins and outs of same sex parenting.
If your issue was surrogacy, you should have asked that question.
And at what point did I say I had a problem with it? I was just putting the subject on the table for discussion. If you want to know my personal view then I will tell you. I have no problem with homosexual relationships. I have no problem with same sex parenting. I do question the subject of surrogacy.
So you wanted to know everyone’s option but weren’t prepared to share yours? Sounds plausible...
so how can you be ok with same sex parenting but not surrogacy? What are the terms that make it acceptable to you?
So you wanted to know everyone’s option but weren’t prepared to share yours? Sounds plausible…
I just did
so how can you be ok with same sex parenting but not surrogacy? What are the terms that make it acceptable to you?
Adoption.
only one person in that relationship can be the biological father and it is not stated in the news reports who it is
I assumed they'd both **** into the same beaker (test tube?) and give it a good old shake up. Then there would always be an element of uncertainty over the biological father.
@trailwagger - have you ever been in the position where you had to make the decision between having no children, fostering, adopting, IVF or surrogacy?
Good for them.
The 2% figure is not inconsistent with the higher number, since the 2% is the unknowing proportion of fathers. The rest may be well-aware due to issues of infertility. I still think 9% sounds a little high, but it is an obvious statistical point. The devil is always in the detail.
@trailwagger – have you ever been in the position where you had to make the decision between having no children, fostering, adopting, IVF or surrogacy?
No. Whats that got to do with it?
By the looks of it, STW is in fine form.
There is no need to worry about a lack of content nor the power of arguments 🤦♀️
Since you enjoy a moral and ethical workout, have a ponder on whether other people's life decisions need to be acceptable to you.
No. Whats that got to do with it?
Absolutely everything - you clearly have absolutely no empathy or comprehension of how and why this couple came to the decision that surrogacy was the best option for them.
The two best dads I know one has no biological children but has raised 3 great sons, the other has one biological child and raised 3 great sons. Without any doubt, these men may not be the fathers of all their children - but they are their dads. The male on the scene who showed them love, support, encouragement and by example, what it is to be a good man.
Being in the scene at conception - does not make you a dad.
Since you enjoy a moral and ethical workout, have a ponder on whether other people’s life decisions need to be acceptable to you.
If I was a scientist capable of cloning my self. Would it be ok for me to create 100 clones as long as they don't interfere with your life?
Absolutely everything – you clearly have absolutely no empathy or comprehension of how and why this couple came to the decision that surrogacy was the best option for them.
And that's my issue summed up right there. "whats best for THEM" may not be whats best for the child. While I am sure they could be the best parents in the world, that child will grow up with all the doubt and uncertainty that surrounds adoption (assuming it has no contact with its natural mother). Then there is the bond that only mother and child have that is being taken away from that child. The mother might be fine with that (and that is her right as an adult to make that decision) but the child has no choice in the matter.
If I was a scientist capable of cloning my self. Would it be ok for me to create 100 clones as long as they don’t interfere with your life?
Trailwagger - ^^^^ that wasn't an answer to the question put to you.
The question was:
Since you enjoy a moral and ethical workout, have a ponder on whether other people’s life decisions need to be acceptable to you.
So - do they?
Good luck to them. Him and his husband seem like good guys.
Agree, would have been happy to have had Tom as my father.
And that’s my issue summed up right there. “whats best for THEM” may not be whats best for the child. While I am sure they could be the best parents in the world, that child will grow up with all the doubt and uncertainty that surrounds adoption (assuming it has no contact with its natural mother). Then there is the bond that only mother and child have that is being taken away from that child. The mother might be fine with that (and that is her right as an adult to make that decision) but the child has no choice in the matter.
Finally - three pages and you have made what could be construed as being a good point. It wasn't the original point of your OP but I can see where you are coming from with that question that completely deflects from your question of same sex parenting. However I am sure that Tom and his partner will be fully equipped with the answers when/if they do come, just as the parents of other surrogate children will be – I am sure they will explain that, due to the obvious biological situation, natural parenthood was impossible and that they wanted to bring a child up in a world of love but it needed some outside help.
And a question back to you - how do you feel about conception via IVF where donor eggs or sperm were used – are you as against this as you are surrogacy?
Then there is the bond that only mother and child have that is being taken away from that child.
A cynic might take that comment to mean you have an issue with two guys bringing up a child together.
A cynic might take that comment to mean you have an issue with two guys bringing up a child together.
Let me correct that for you
An idiot might take that comment to mean you have an issue with two guys bringing up a child together.
With 7 billion people on the planet, I don't think anybody should be having children.
So...trailwagger, is Tom going to be a dad?
An idiot might take that comment to mean you have an issue with two guys bringing up a child together.
You start off by questioning a guy's parenthood, followed by questioning same sex parenting and now someone else is the idiot?
So – do they?
@Jondoh, yes they do. That's what society is. Otherwise I could run around raping and killing people and as long as it doesn't directly effect you, you wouldn't care , right?
I think we might be taking the term “life decisions” a little too literally here.
@trailwagger you are confusing yourself here – the question was (indirectly) asking if Tom's decision to have a surrogate child has to be acceptable to you. It had absolutely nothing to do with raping and killing people. The clear distinction being that surrogacy is legal and generally accepted, rape and murder isn't. Personally I think you need to take a step back and reflect on what you are saying.
you only have to talk to people who were adopted to see that many of them struggle with the notion that they were given up or wonder who their ‘real’ i.e. their biological parents are/were.
The way addition is dealt with hah moved on in recent years. The child know from the offset that they're speed and the reasons why, in age-appropriate language, so the wondering is taken away. Our friends adopted their son and he's regularly met up with his older brothers and sisters, includes them in his family tree when taking about family at school, etc.
Non-binding all parenting is relatively common and comes in many different forms.
Other friends conceived (twice) through IVF using donated sperm. The biological father (they used the same doner both times) has no contact with the kids, but at 18 they have a right to make contact.
The grandson of other friends was conceived in an arrangement between their gay son and his partner and a lesbian couple. He's raised by the female couple but has a close relationship with his grandparents.
You start off by questioning a guys parenthood, followed by questioning same sex parenting and now someone else is the idiot?
I started off by questioning who might be the biological father (it was meant to be tongue in cheek) but it is an interesting question in itself. How would a couple make that decision? Flip a coin? Rock paper scissors?
I have never questioned same sex parenting. Go back and read the thread again.
I have questioned some of the methods used by same sex couples to become parents.
[quote=trailwagger] The title of the thread eludes to the fact that only one person in that relationship can be the biological father and it is not stated in the news reports who it is and quite frankly I don’t care.
[quote=trailwagger] I wonder who the father is
Bit stumped as to how some people think there's a difficult moral issue here. There isn't*. Congratulations to them both.
[quote=trailwagger]I have never questioned same sex parenting. Go back and read the thread again.
[quote=trailwagger]
Anyone care to debate the ins and outs of same sex parenting?
I started off by questioning who might be the biological father (it was meant to be [b]tongue in cheek[/b])
And there is the give away. For most, there is nothing humourous or giggleworthy or 'wink wink' or strange that would warrant a 'tounge in cheek' comment.
Are you serious? How is asking a question like "Anyone care to debate the ins and outs of same sex parenting?" turned and twisted into me claiming that same sex parenting is wrong and they should all burn in hell?
Not what I said.
Gonna have to face it, You made some large off topic comments
And there is the give away. For most, there is nothing humourous or giggleworthy or ‘wink wink’ or strange that would warrant a ‘tounge in cheek’ comment.
Think what you like, I am done with this witch hunt. I don't know how many times I can say the same thing. I have no issue with same sex couples, or same sex couples being parents.
You can try to twist my comments as much as you like to get the result YOU desire.
Think what you like, I am done with this witch hunt. I don’t know how many times I can say the same thing. I have no issue with same sex couples, or same sex couples being parents.
The number of times you need to say the same.thing depends on the number of times you say and do things completely contrary to what you say. Nevertheless, I'm glad you are done with. Take those small minded views masquerading as intellectual inquiry and be gone
Half way down page two nails the thread for me.
There’s too much about the story that hasn’t been disclosed to really comment but to answer why anyone should care, well you could say the same thing about any challenging issue in society – why should I care about people who are racist? It doesn’t affect me. Why should I care about an aid worker who sleeps with prostitutes? It doesn’t affect me.
Saying it doesn’t affect you and therefore you have no right to comment, ask, debate etc is at best pathetic and at worst veiled bigotry.
Besides the happy couple decided to publically announce it to the world in a way that demands we debate it. That makes it a public news story and since it’s an important issue, we should debate. Asking the question as the OP did does NOT make him a bigot of any kind. The only bigots on this thread are the ones accusing him or her of that without first thinking more carefully about the intent of the question and presuming to believe it;s motivated by something other than genuine interest; when you presuppose to know something about another person without really knowing it, that right there is bigotry and there are a lot of people on here guilty of that (which by the way also makes you hypocrites
I have never questioned same sex parenting. Go back and read the thread again
Ok...
Then there is the bond that only mother and child have that is being taken away from that child.
sounds very much like your opinion is, every time two guys choose to parent together, they are “taking away” something that you believe is important to a child.
sounds very much like your opinion is, every time two guys choose to parent together, they are “taking away” something that you believe is important to a child.
No. What I am saying is if (and we don't know the details) so it is an if, this is a "baby to order" then yes. But that goes for any couple regardless of their sexual orientation.
So I think that about covers it:
- TD and his partner will both be dads, and that's fine;
- only one one (or possibly neither) of them will be the biological father, and that's fine;
- somewhere there will be a biological mother and, in all probability, biological family members. How fine this is will depend on individuals involved and how relationships are managed. The role of money and power in these sorts of relationships I would consider worthy of debate. But probably not here.
Which leaves the huge issue of the lack of apostrophe and the unnecessary capital in the thread title. That really is deliberately provocative.
so how can you be ok with same sex parenting but not surrogacy? What are the terms that make it acceptable to you?
Adoption.
Ok, So you think that gay couple should have to adopt a child before they can have one of their own via surrogacy. Does this apply equally to lesbian couples or does the fact that they have their own wombs mean it's fine, or do you view surrogate sperm as equally unacceptable?
Does the same apply to hetrosexual couples, after all they are selfishly bringing a child into the world without considering adoption as a first option.
somewhere there will be a biological mother and, in all probability, biological family members. How fine this is will depend on individuals involved and how relationships are managed. The role of money and power these sorts of relationships I would consider worthy of debate. But probably not here.
I know a couple of pairs of adoptive parents - which I imagine is a similar mechanism to the same-sex parenting that Tom Daley and his husband are entering into. They both have to maintain a level of contact with the birth mother, including at least cards, letters and gifts. I’m not sure if physical contact is also mandated. If it is the loss of the maternal relationship becomes less.
No. What I am saying is if (and we don’t know the details) so it is an if, this is a “baby to order” then yes. But that goes for any couple regardless of their sexual orientation.
So how about donor sperm and eggs?
To be honest, there really isn't an issue here. It's incredibly hard to adopt new born children, as there are far more willing parents than newborns up for adoption.
There are many children at older ages that may be requiring care and eventually adoption, but really these children would require an unusual level of support and care and I would think very hard before taking somebody like that on!
There are potential issues with surrogacy of course, but I can't see them being any more significant than those involved with any other way of bringing a child into the world!
I also have questions over that. Do we all have a universal right to become parents? Are we turning babies into commodities?
Oh and while I'm here, whether he's a dad or not is really not up to me.
My little brother (adopted) has been in touch with his biological mother and half siblings, but in his words "You lot are my family, they're my biological family.".
Ok, So you think that gay couple should have to adopt a child before they can have one of their own via surrogacy.
Where did I say that?
Maybe next time think a bit before your attempts at humour then, how about that, trailwagger?
I also have questions over that. Do we all have a universal right to become parents? Are we turning babies into commodities?
1) Yes, luckily we do not live in a totalitarian regime (yet).
2) Nope.
Maybe next time think a bit before your attempts at humour then, how about that, trailwagger?
point taken.
Ok, So you think that gay couple should have to adopt a child before they can have one of their own via surrogacy.
Does this apply equally to lesbian couples or does the fact that they have their own wombs mean it’s fine, or do you view surrogate sperm as equally unacceptable?
Does the same apply to hetrosexual couples, after all they are selfishly bringing a child into the world without considering adoption as a first option.
I think that is something we should be considering as a society. There are many unwanted and unloved children out there who could really use some loving parents. Of course I understand the desire to have your own offspring (regardless of method), however the costs associated with enabling this in an artificial manner would be far better spent IMHO getting existing children matched up with potential new parents. And yes, that includes heterosexual couples who cannot conceive naturally.
1) Yes, luckily we do not live in a totalitarian regime (yet).
2) Nope.
Care to elaborate?
Where did I say that?
I'm not going to re quote you fully as it's too much of a PITA on this form at the moment. but
you state you don't have a problem with gay parents
you state you have a problem with surrogacy.
I asked you what your preferred option to surrogacy is and you replied, adoption.
so you think that gay parents should adopt before having a child by surrogacy. on that basis can you answer my questions about whether this applies equally to lesbian or hetrosexual couples?
Then there is the bond that only mother and child have that is being taken away from that child.
My mother is an evil cow. I'd much rather have had my dad x 2
I think that is something we should be considering as a society.
@rene59, careful in some peoples eyes we no right to consider this as a society, and people should be left alone to do whatever they like.
so you think that gay parents should adopt before having a child by surrogacy. on that basis can you answer my questions about whether this applies equally to lesbian or hetrosexual couples?
I already have, but yes I do think it applies equally to lesbian and hetro couples.
Ok, so the only option to agree with is the old fashioned way between a man and a woman. Should adoption come before that?
I read an article earlier last year which argued that infertile people having children should be a right and not a privilege and that this should be enabled by the NHS for all. That alone is controversial for me. The article then expanded on the definition of infertile for the purposes of treatment. This included not having a partner and also unable to gain a suitable partner. When we get to the stage in society that we can't even discuss these things and opposing views are shouted down and accusations thrown about then I'll be opting out altogether. Not that anyone would give a ****.
Ok, so the only option to agree with is the old fashioned way between a man and a woman. Should adoption come before that?
There will come a point (if we are not already there) that we need to manage the population of the earth, and also the problem of unwanted pregnancy and orphaned children. That is not the issue we are discussing.
Science and the advancement of technology has enabled us to become Gods, the creators of life (in an artificial way). So two of my previous questions still stand.
1. Just because we have the capability of creating life artificially, does that automatically mean we should, or is there an ethical or moral debate to be had on this subject?
2. Do we all have a universal right to be parents?
Ok, so the only option to agree with is the old fashioned way between a man and a woman. Should adoption come before that?
I think everyone should consider all the options and pros and cons before having children. You can't legislate or enforce policy on that though as old fashioned way between a man and woman will always produce unplanned offspring so no. However when it comes to public money being spent on artificial methods then is that honestly the best use of that money?
Science and the advancement of technology has enabled us to become Gods, the creators of life (in an artificial way). So two of my previous questions still stand.
1. Just because we have the capability of creating life artificially, does that automatically mean we should, or is there an ethical or moral debate to be had on this subject?
2. Do we all have a universal right to be parents?
Seems to me you are backtracking from your original intention to debate the 'ins and outs' of same sex parenting. I fail to see how having a child via a surrogate mother is the same as becoming Gods and creating life in an artificial way. although as you state you don't know much about biology so I can see how you might think that. So what is your actual issue with surrogacy?
The original questions you posited revolved around wanting to know who the actual father and mother were, and the rights of the child to know their biological parentage.
I think everyone should consider all the options and pros and cons before having children. You can’t legislate or enforce policy on that though as old fashioned way between a man and woman will always produce unplanned offspring so no. However when it comes to public money being spent on artificial methods then is that honestly the best use of that money?
well, the right to have children whenever you choose to do so, and in whatever numbers you wish is a basic human right applied to both couples and individuals. I don't believe there is a caveat that they must both be fertile first. You get into dangerous ground when you apply caveats to human rights IMHO.
You are entirely correct when you say that people should consider all the options whenever possible, and a responsible government should make information freely available to assist in informed decision making
Just because we have the capability of creating life artificially, does that automatically mean we should, or is there an ethical or moral debate to be had on this subject?
And how about artificially prolonging life?
However when it comes to public money being spent on artificial methods
Lots of the time it isn't public money. My CCG doesn't provide any IVF under the NHS (despite it being recommended by NICE) so we had to pay £6,000 to privately fund a single course of IVF with ICSI. I am sure Tom didn't get his pregnancy done on the NHS either.
Should rich people be able to buy a baby?
(Would have been a better thread / topic for the Moral ****ing Maze.) Everyone immediately involved may end up happier, including the baby. But it feels unfair on people who can't afford to buy one...
[EDIT: to say, sorry posted before seeing the post above so looks insensitive to say the least. Fwiw IVF is not in any way 'buying a baby', though it may be paying for healthcare which is a whole other topic. Paid surrogacy however may well be 'buying a baby'. I'd personally expect society/the state/us to take an interest.)
Happy to be corrected as I don't claim to be an expert in the methods of IVF. But as I understand it IVF is helping two people who cannot conceive naturally by fertilizing and egg and placing it back into the womb.
That is a world apart from two people who would not be able to conceive in any way naturally, paying to use someone else's genetic material and to have a baby for them.
It is a tricky one though (assuming the would-be parents really want to have some kind of biological attachment)...
Fertile female + infertile male = sperm donor
Infertile female (but with functioning womb) + fertile male = egg donor
Infertile female (no functioning womb) + fertile male = surrogacy
Female + female = sperm donor
Male + male = surrogacy
Happy to be corrected as I don’t claim to be an expert in the methods of IVF. But as I understand it IVF is helping two people who cannot conceive naturally by fertilizing and egg and placing it back into the womb.
But what happens if (as my above examples) the would-be parents need donor egg or sperm? Infertility isn't simply a case of not being able to get pregnant by conventional means without explanation (which can be a cause for unspecified infertility leading to IVF implantation).
And how about artificially prolonging life?
I'm not sure I can think of an example where this happens. Are you are referring to medical care and treatment that cures illness that would otherwise kill someone?
I’m not sure I can think of an example where this happens. Are you are referring to medical care and treatment that cures illness that would otherwise kill someone?
Any kind of medical intervention (for example, oxygen given to a person with pneumonia, stitches given to someone who fell drunkenly through a window and are mortally losing blood, putting a premature baby in a SCUBU, etc etc etc).
Any kind of medical intervention (for example, oxygen given to a person with pneumonia, stitches given to someone who fell drunkenly through a window and are mortally losing blood, putting a premature baby in a SCUBU, etc etc etc).
I don't think you can class medical care as artificial life prolonging, in the same way that artificial insemination and surrogacy could be classed as artificial.
Just out of interest @johndoh, where do you stand on the designer baby debate? Is that ok too? We have the knowledge and technology to do it, so is that ok or is it none of your business.
Is this all just made up? Do you actually go around talking to adopted people about this? Seems a strange thing to do?
Of course I go around talking to adopted people - do you specifically make a point of NOT talking to adopted people? That would seem to be a very strange and rather prejudicial thing to do. What have you got against talking to people who were adopted?
Do you have the same discussions with people who are not adopted?
Again yes of course I do. The subject of identity, what it means to be the person you are, how you see yourself, how others see you and who you are really (and objectively) is something I spend a lot time exploring with other people. In fact I've created an entire website dedicated to this very subject.
And all that stuff about ‘hard wiring’ what do you actually mean?
I mean evolutionary biology and genetically inherited characteristics.
Just out of interest @johndoh, where do you stand on the designer baby debate?
Define 'designer baby'.
Define ‘designer baby’.
A baby conceived and engineered specifically to meet the desires or needs of the parent. That could be motivated by eugenics (desire) or to help a sibling through donation (need).
Define ‘designer baby’.
Genetically modified to order, "I want a baby with brown hair and blue eyes please"
Just to chip in, me and my partner (don't worry Trailwagger, we're not same sex) adopted two children, neither of which were babies. They have contact with siblings, no other birth family, but have photos of them and adoption is no secret in our house - we talk about things they remember from before they lived with us.
I guess my point is some of the arguments against the diving chaps kid seem to assume that the birth mum in this case will be a secret never to be mentioned, but you don't know that. Growing up with a (for today's standards, who knows in future) "unconventional" family doesn't automatically mean the kid's going to be suffering from an identity crisis and and not know who they are.
Just to chip in, me and my partner (don’t worry Trailwagger, we’re not same sex)
How presumptuous of you to assume that I am homophobic!
Sorry, didn't mean it, just for my own amusement.
I also wanted to make a comment about being surprised at Geetee being up in arms when I thought he'd be over the moon at a woman free family, but thought better of it.