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.
They have contact with siblings, no other birth family,
That's interesting. I thought that the adoption authorities tried at all costs not to separate siblings. Of course it could well be that the siblings in question are from after the adopted child was removed from the parents.
As I said before, adoption is both a triumph and tragedy.
I wasn't sure whether to join in as I don't want to go into too much detail about our situation, but some is needed to try and make my point. Adoption services are run to make the best choice for the children, so while it's preferable to keep them together, it's not always best for individual cases.
And you're right - it's a difficult thing to get your head around as it's both amazing and heartbreaking. The worst, most traumatic events in our kids lives has lead them to living with us and making us happy beyond belief.
Sorry, didn’t mean it, just for my own amusement.
No problem, at least you had the balls to apologise.
Adoption services are run to make the best choice for the children, so while it’s preferable to keep them together, it’s not always best for individual cases.
It's an interesting subject and I certainly respect your privacy so won't ask any more questions.
It's interesting though that I know personally the individual whose own adoption case was the reason the law on adoption was changed so that only the child's best interests are considered rather than also those of the parents.
This is a fascinating case. In brief, social services falsified records to expedite the adoption process. It was only when the biological parents finally got their act together and applied to have their daughter returned did this come out. Her adoptive father fought a two year legal battle to keep her and won, after which the law was changed.
That sounds horrendous, hope things worked out as well as they could.
We had a good experience with the social workers in our case, but the whole system is so complex, how do you make evidence based judgements about emotional, life altering events trying to balance the needs of everyone. In the end, what is best for a child? Dunno.
Anyway, a digression from Tom and co's fitness to parent. Let 'em crack on with it, they won't be perfect but who is.
Anyway, a digression from Tom and co’s fitness to parent. Let ’em crack on with it, they won’t be perfect but who is.
I don't think anyone has questioned their fitness to parent, I know I certainly haven't. What has been questioned (mostly by me) is whether it is right for them (or any other couple) to become parents in the way they have chosen.
What has been questioned (mostly by me) is whether it is right for them (or any other couple) to become parents in the way they have chosen.
Have you said why you don’t think it’s right ?
I may may have missed it if you have.
Have you said why you don’t think it’s right ?
I may may have missed it if you have.
yes, several times. Mainly its the whole baby to order thing. The buying and selling of genetic material, and the use of bodily functions for others gain (similar in some ways to prostitution). Turning babies into commodities etc.
This isn't really going anywhere is it?
As I pointed out in my first response, you don't know what the arrangement with the assumed surrogate is. So to start "debating" the ethics of it is crass to say the least.
This probably hasn't gone how you expected it to. If you want your views backed up, there's no doubt a suitable opinion piece in today's Daily Mail.
Have you said why you don’t think it’s right ?
It comes down to whether it's morally or socially acceptable to bring a child into the world in a way that specifically excludes one of its biological parents.
However, we don't know if that is what is happening with Tom and his husband. It might not be this; it might be that the plan of for the mother to be fully involved.
That said though, it's very clear that Tom and his husband have chosen to announce their news in a way that invites debate. It is also the case, that this idea of having children that specificall excludes one of the parents, does already happen in many parts of the world.
It's an important debate to have. It's not remotely crass unless of course you steadfastly refuse to accept the reasons given for debating the issue and choose instead to believe they are based on prejudice.
This probably hasn’t gone how you expected it to. If you want your views backed up, there’s no doubt a suitable opinion piece in today’s Daily Mail.
Yet another (underhanded) accusation of bigotry and/or homophobia.
I do not need random strangers on the internet to validate my views and opinions thank you very much. It has gone exactly how I expected it to as well. IE. some very well made arguments and some differing points of view around a rather sensitive but very topical subject. *edit* that has made for a very interesting discussion.
I've run out of biscuits.
Mainly its the whole baby to order thing. The buying and selling of genetic material, and the use of bodily functions for others gain (similar in some ways to prostitution). Turning babies into commodities etc.
Is it specifically the money aspect that you disagree with.
It would it be ok if it was just a female friend offering a favour to a couple who really wanted to be parents.
The OP seems have a problem with a future state of genetic manipulation and custom baby manufacturing.
Quite what it has to do with a surrogate mum and a couple is still beyond me, I still don't know if he has the same problem with a lesbian couple using donated sperm. But we seem to have moved away from a gay couple raising a child, maybe that conversation didn't go as planned?
Is it specifically the money aspect that you disagree with.
It would it be ok if it was just a female friend offering a favour to a couple who really wanted to be parents.
I don't know. The money aspect is a big part of it. I am not remotely religious, but there is something that doesn't sit right about it. Life is precious and a gift and all that, and to create life and then give it away to friends or neighbours or whoever just seems to make the whole creation of life miracle a little less special.
But we seem to have moved away from a gay couple raising a child, maybe that conversation didn’t go as planned?
That has never been part of the debate, how they go about getting that child has been the discussion since page 1. So maybe the discussion isn't going how YOU want it to, so that YOU can make it about homophobia and score points for calling someone homophobic and or a bigot.
Life is precious and a gift and all that, and to create life and then give it away to friends or neighbours or whoever just seems to make the whole creation of life miracle a little less special.
Have you thought for a moment that (as is often the case) the surrogate mother already has children, realises what a joy they can be for any loving couple and wants to be able to help others to achieve what would otherwise be an impossibility (ie, impossible to have a biological child should that be their wish).
Have you thought for a moment that (as is often the case) the surrogate mother already has children, realises what a joy they can be for any loving couple and wants to be able to help others to achieve what would otherwise be an impossibility (ie, impossible to have a biological child should that be their wish).
Yes I have. Does it change my view? no.
Have you considered that in the case of a gay male couple or a couple with an infertile female, that there may be both an egg donor and a surrogate (and not necessarily the same person)
I think the OP should figure out what it is he doesn’t like about the situation and then come back.
The thread starts.....
Anyone care to debate the ins and outs of same sex parenting?
But apparently suggesting that’s what it’s actually about is an insult to the OP (who wrote it)
so until someone decides what it is that we should be discussing, there seems very little point
So maybe the discussion isn’t going how YOU want it to, so that YOU can make it about homophobia and score points for calling someone homophobic and or a bigot
Yes that's it. Because I would much prefer it if other people were homophobic..
I'm still at a loss to what your problem is with surrogacy, and the limits to where it applies. You are either ignoring my point about sperm donorship, or you see it as less important than a surrogate womb. which is it?