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?