Surrogacy

[NellyLou]

I would do it for a close friend of family member experiencing problems, but with their eggs or donated eggs. It would be hard, but facing up to never having your own children is harder.

What I find hard to stomach is celebrities paying surrogates to have children when they are capable of having their own. I also find the recent trend of people like Ricky Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, Elton John and Ryan Murphy buying little versions of themselves wrong somehow. It's not because they're gay, more because they are buying little versions of themselves and removing them from their mothers without a second thought, just for the sake of passing on their genes.

Is that actually a thing?

Also...not really sure what those celebs have to do with it...they are doing it for exactly the same reason many other people use a surrogate..because they can't have children of their own. Pretty sure with Elton John the mother is a close friend and still has a lot of input? Not sure on the others though. It just seems like you've made a pretty judgmental statement just because of who these people are.

Have to agree with Fantastica... How are they buying little versions of themselves? I really don't get that comment at all... And how do you know that certain celebrities can have children themselves? A lot of them wait until they are older to have kids which means it's harder to get pregnant without even considering other issues.

 

[special_kala]

I would do it for a close friend of family member experiencing problems, but with their eggs or donated eggs. It would be hard, but facing up to never having your own children is harder.

What I find hard to stomach is celebrities paying surrogates to have children when they are capable of having their own. I also find the recent trend of people like Ricky Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, Elton John and Ryan Murphy buying little versions of themselves wrong somehow. It's not because they're gay, more because they are buying little versions of themselves and removing them from their mothers without a second thought, just for the sake of passing on their genes.

How do you know these people dont have years of fertility issues behind them, or genetic problems they are scared to pass on or havnt found the right person because of their hectic work schedule.

How else would a gay person have a child other then adopt or use a surrogate (i mean men here)?

Are most babies born via surrogacy not taken from their mothers. That is what you sign up for when you become a surrogate mum. You are giving a deserving couple the gift of a child.

 

[Broodypants]

My husband and I were taking about this the other night and I would absolutely be a surrogate for a close friend or family member if it was with their eggs, I would feel honoured to be able to give them the gift of a child.

I am lucky enough to know someone who is doing exactly this at the moment, she is carrying twins for her brother and sister in law. We're friends through a Facebook group who got together from another forum when I was pregnant with DD. It's amazing hearing about and sharing her journey with her.

 

[TriChick]

My husband and I were taking about this the other night and I would absolutely be a surrogate for a close friend or family member if it was with their eggs, I would feel honoured to be able to give them the gift of a child.

I am lucky enough to know someone who is doing exactly this at the moment, she is carrying twins for her brother and sister in law. We're friends through a Facebook group who got together from another forum when I was pregnant with DD. It's amazing hearing about and sharing her journey with her.

That's incredible of her to be able to do that for her sibling. When I was younger my doctor hinted that I may have fertility issues in the future based on issues at the time. When I spoke to my sister about it in passing, she immediately volunteered to be a surrogate should the need ever arise.

 

[TriChick]

I would do it for a close friend of family member experiencing problems, but with their eggs or donated eggs. It would be hard, but facing up to never having your own children is harder.

What I find hard to stomach is celebrities paying surrogates to have children when they are capable of having their own. I also find the recent trend of people like Ricky Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, Elton John and Ryan Murphy buying little versions of themselves wrong somehow. It's not because they're gay, more because they are buying little versions of themselves and removing them from their mothers without a second thought, just for the sake of passing on their genes.

How do you know these people dont have years of fertility issues behind them, or genetic problems they are scared to pass on or havnt found the right person because of their hectic work schedule.

How else would a gay person have a child other then adopt or use a surrogate (i mean men here)?

Are most babies born via surrogacy not taken from their mothers. That is what you sign up for when you become a surrogate mum. You are giving a deserving couple the gift of a child.

I completely agree. For many, the conventional means to conceive a child are not a realistic option. I think it is an amazing medical advancement to have the ability to parent a child that has your genetic make-up.

Parenthood is an enormous task to take on, and I have seen NO indication with the above-mentioned celebrities that they made such a monumental decision out of vanity. From what I've observed, they are people who's situations dictated that surrogacy was needed in order to receive the same gift of parenthood that many of us have been blessed with. I would venture to guess that the surrogates were people who were more than happy to help them achieve their dreams, and not helpless victims who's children were ripped out of their arms.

On Elton:
https://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/04/2020-elton-john-david-furnish-say-surrogate-mom-is-will-be-part-of-babys-life.html

On Ricky:
https://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Ricky-Martin-on-Coming-Out/8
https://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Ricky-Martin-on-Coming-Out/9

Side note: His boys are adorable!

 

[Piper84]

Surrogacy, for me, is an option for when a couple are having fertility problems. If having a child was that important to the men I've mentioned, they could have adopted. There are several countries which allow same-sex parents to adopt. It's a lot cheaper too.

Nicole Kidman and Sarah Jessica Parker both used surrogates when they could have had their own. It's rumoured that a lot more women in Hollywood do this too. Age doesn't matter when you have that much money as there are ways to allow even older women to carry a child.

The celebrities I've mentioned are all rich and privileged. That's another problem I have. Shouldn't everyone have access?

The biological mother of Elton John's first child FedExes breastmilk to them. That makes me very uncomfortable. Kids need a mother and, ideally, a father too. These poor babies have no physical bond with a nurturing female because they were removed at birth and given a nanny. Fathers fulfil an equally important but different role.

I'm just not OK with that. Call it judgemental if you like, but I have a right to my opinion

 

[Tasha]

Thanks for all the opinions.

Piper, some people feel the need for a child that is biologically theirs, regardless of what their sexuality is. Otherwise surely it could be said the same for couples who are fertility issues, about adoption.

I've not read about Sarah Jessica Parker and Nicole Kidman, have both said they used surrogates? Have both said they had no fertility issues?

I dont think kids need a mother per say, I think they need strong male and female role models. But that is most likely something we wont agree on

I dont understand about the physical bond thing, perhaps they have that with a Nanny!?!

 

[Piper84]

Thanks for all the opinions.

Piper, some people feel the need for a child that is biologically theirs, regardless of what their sexuality is. Otherwise surely it could be said the same for couples who are fertility issues, about adoption.

I've not read about Sarah Jessica Parker and Nicole Kidman, have both said they used surrogates? Have both said they had no fertility issues?

I dont think kids need a mother per say, I think they need strong male and female role models. But that is most likely something we wont agree on

I dont understand about the physical bond thing, perhaps they have that with a Nanny!?!

I can understand that biological need, but it's also something most men inevitably check at the door when they enter a same-sex relationship, unless they are millionaires.

Both SJP and Nicole Kidman had biological children and then used a surrogate.

Nannies are hired and fired from this day to the next. If the kids get a nanny from birth and this woman fulfils the female role model role, then it's an OK substitute, but it's not a mother or mother figure as they're just doing a job. If it develops into more than just a job then great, but it's so many ifs.

I think the "children need a mother AND a father!" line has been hijacked by the right-wing press who are out to suppress a lot of freedoms, but just because they shout it out all the time and are wrong on so many other things, doesn't make the original statement wrong. I think a child does ideally need a mother and, if possible, a father who is present. That mother figure can be a stepmother, adoptive mother, whatever, but it is a nurturing female who loves the child unconditionally, provides its food and shelter and is not just an employee.

I'll be interested to see what young Zachary and the rest have to say about it when they're older

 

[TriChick]

Surrogacy, for me, is an option for when a couple are having fertility problems. If having a child was that important to the men I've mentioned, they could have adopted. There are several countries which allow same-sex parents to adopt. It's a lot cheaper too.

Nicole Kidman and Sarah Jessica Parker both used surrogates when they could have had their own. It's rumoured that a lot more women in Hollywood do this too. Age doesn't matter when you have that much money as there are ways to allow even older women to carry a child.

The celebrities I've mentioned are all rich and privileged. That's another problem I have. Shouldn't everyone have access?

The biological mother of Elton John's first child FedExes breastmilk to them. That makes me very uncomfortable. Kids need a mother and, ideally, a father too. These poor babies have no physical bond with a nurturing female because they were removed at birth and given a nanny. Fathers fulfil an equally important but different role.

I'm just not OK with that. Call it judgemental if you like, but I have a right to my opinion

You may find that the following articles talks briefly about how Elton John failed in an adoption attempt in Finland prior to exploring surrogacy. In addition, it mentions that both Nichole Kidman and Sarah Jessica Parker had struggles with natural birth and fertility, though they decline to go into detail which is understandable. Because of this, I wouldn't assume that they are able to have their own. Money can't solve every fertility issue, regardless of age. I'm sure there are many women who can attest to that.

https://www.helloonline.com/celebrities/gallery/201101184803/celebrity/surrogate/children/1/1/#1https://www.helloonline.com/celebrities/gallery/201101184803/celebrity/surrogate/children/1/1/#1

https://www.today.com/id/30832692/site/todayshow/ns/today-entertainment/t/sarah-jessica-parker-opens-about-surrogate/
https://blogs.babycenter.com/celebrities/nicole-kidman-fertility-hell-surrogate-love/

Regarding access, I'm not sure if you are referring to the ability for everyone to have access to surrogacy?

The final paragraph in your post I won't go into detail about because I have a very different opinion regarding the necessity for a birth mother to be present in order for a child to have a happy and fulfilled life. As a strong supporter of same-sex parenthood, I believe that love comes in all forms and children's emotional needs can be fulfilled by loving and nurturing parents regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

 

[TriChick]

Thanks for all the opinions.

Piper, some people feel the need for a child that is biologically theirs, regardless of what their sexuality is. Otherwise surely it could be said the same for couples who are fertility issues, about adoption.

I've not read about Sarah Jessica Parker and Nicole Kidman, have both said they used surrogates? Have both said they had no fertility issues?

I dont think kids need a mother per say, I think they need strong male and female role models. But that is most likely something we wont agree on

I dont understand about the physical bond thing, perhaps they have that with a Nanny!?!

I can understand that biological need, but it's also something most men inevitably check at the door when they enter a same-sex relationship, unless they are millionaires.

Both SJP and Nicole Kidman had biological children and then used a surrogate.

Nannies are hired and fired from this day to the next. If the kids get a nanny from birth and this woman fulfils the female role model role, then it's an OK substitute, but it's not a mother or mother figure as they're just doing a job. If it develops into more than just a job then great, but it's so many ifs.

I think the "children need a mother AND a father!" line has been hijacked by the right-wing press who are out to suppress a lot of freedoms, but just because they shout it out all the time and are wrong on so many other things, doesn't make the original statement wrong. I think a child does ideally need a mother and, if possible, a father who is present. That mother figure can be a stepmother, adoptive mother, whatever, but it is a nurturing female who loves the child unconditionally, provides its food and shelter and is not just an employee.

I'll be interested to see what young Zachary and the rest have to say about it when they're older

I believe there are many children of same-sex couples who have already matured and are vocal about their lives with two loving fathers. If you are really interested, there are many resources online regarding the topic.

 

[Piper84]

You may find that the following articles talks briefly about how Elton John failed in an adoption attempt in Finland prior to exploring surrogacy. In addition, it mentions that both Nichole Kidman and Sarah Jessica Parker had struggles with natural birth and fertility, though they decline to go into detail which is understandable. Because of this, I wouldn't assume that they are able to have their own. Money can't solve every fertility issue, regardless of age. I'm sure there are many women who can attest to that.

https://www.helloonline.com/celebrities/gallery/201101184803/celebrity/surrogate/children/1/1/#1https://www.helloonline.com/celebrities/gallery/201101184803/celebrity/surrogate/children/1/1/#1

https://www.today.com/id/30832692/site/todayshow/ns/today-entertainment/t/sarah-jessica-parker-opens-about-surrogate/
https://blogs.babycenter.com/celebrities/nicole-kidman-fertility-hell-surrogate-love/

Regarding access, I'm not sure if you are referring to the ability for everyone to have access to surrogacy?

The final paragraph in your post I won't go into detail about because I have a very different opinion regarding the necessity for a birth mother to be present in order for a child to have a happy and fulfilled life. As a strong supporter of same-sex parenthood, I believe that love comes in all forms and children's emotional needs can be fulfilled by loving and nurturing parents regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

I'm wondering why Elton John didn't try adopting in a country that has a proven record of placing children with same-sex parents.

I mean access to surrogacy.

Read my final paragraph again. I said nothing about "birth" mothers being present, but very carefully described a nurturing, female mother figure who loves the child unconditionally and provides for that child. I repeat: nothing to do with "birth" mothers.

 

[Piper84]

Thanks for all the opinions.

Piper, some people feel the need for a child that is biologically theirs, regardless of what their sexuality is. Otherwise surely it could be said the same for couples who are fertility issues, about adoption.

I've not read about Sarah Jessica Parker and Nicole Kidman, have both said they used surrogates? Have both said they had no fertility issues?

I dont think kids need a mother per say, I think they need strong male and female role models. But that is most likely something we wont agree on

I dont understand about the physical bond thing, perhaps they have that with a Nanny!?!

I can understand that biological need, but it's also something most men inevitably check at the door when they enter a same-sex relationship, unless they are millionaires.

Both SJP and Nicole Kidman had biological children and then used a surrogate.

Nannies are hired and fired from this day to the next. If the kids get a nanny from birth and this woman fulfils the female role model role, then it's an OK substitute, but it's not a mother or mother figure as they're just doing a job. If it develops into more than just a job then great, but it's so many ifs.

I think the "children need a mother AND a father!" line has been hijacked by the right-wing press who are out to suppress a lot of freedoms, but just because they shout it out all the time and are wrong on so many other things, doesn't make the original statement wrong. I think a child does ideally need a mother and, if possible, a father who is present. That mother figure can be a stepmother, adoptive mother, whatever, but it is a nurturing female who loves the child unconditionally, provides its food and shelter and is not just an employee.

I'll be interested to see what young Zachary and the rest have to say about it when they're older

I believe there are many children of same-sex couples who have already matured and are vocal about their lives with two loving fathers. If you are really interested, there are many resources online regarding the topic.

I believe my comment regarding "people like" Elton John, Ryan Murphy and Ricky Martin was directed at the fact that they are rich, privileged and open about employing nannies to look after their children. Do you have any resources in which the children of two millionaire celebrity dads talk about how happy their childhoods were?

 

[TriChick]

You may find that the following articles talks briefly about how Elton John failed in an adoption attempt in Finland prior to exploring surrogacy. In addition, it mentions that both Nichole Kidman and Sarah Jessica Parker had struggles with natural birth and fertility, though they decline to go into detail which is understandable. Because of this, I wouldn't assume that they are able to have their own. Money can't solve every fertility issue, regardless of age. I'm sure there are many women who can attest to that.

https://www.helloonline.com/celebrities/gallery/201101184803/celebrity/surrogate/children/1/1/#1https://www.helloonline.com/celebrities/gallery/201101184803/celebrity/surrogate/children/1/1/#1

https://www.today.com/id/30832692/site/todayshow/ns/today-entertainment/t/sarah-jessica-parker-opens-about-surrogate/
https://blogs.babycenter.com/celebrities/nicole-kidman-fertility-hell-surrogate-love/

Regarding access, I'm not sure if you are referring to the ability for everyone to have access to surrogacy?

The final paragraph in your post I won't go into detail about because I have a very different opinion regarding the necessity for a birth mother to be present in order for a child to have a happy and fulfilled life. As a strong supporter of same-sex parenthood, I believe that love comes in all forms and children's emotional needs can be fulfilled by loving and nurturing parents regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

I'm wondering why Elton John didn't try adopting in a country that has a proven record of placing children with same-sex parents.

I mean access to surrogacy.

Read my final paragraph again. I said nothing about "birth" mothers being present, but very carefully described a nurturing, female mother figure who loves the child unconditionally and provides for that child. I repeat: nothing to do with "birth" mothers.

I think I may need some clarification then. You want everyone to have access to surrogacy, yet have an issue with celebrities using the method to become parents? Why are they different because they ARE rich?

How do you know that the children of same-sex parents don't have a strong female in their lives to love and nurture them? Just because it isn't on the front page does not mean that they don't exist in the children's lives.

Respectfully, I feel as though you may be filling in the blanks regarding the situations of these individuals due to lack of information.

 

[TriChick]

Thanks for all the opinions.

Piper, some people feel the need for a child that is biologically theirs, regardless of what their sexuality is. Otherwise surely it could be said the same for couples who are fertility issues, about adoption.

I've not read about Sarah Jessica Parker and Nicole Kidman, have both said they used surrogates? Have both said they had no fertility issues?

I dont think kids need a mother per say, I think they need strong male and female role models. But that is most likely something we wont agree on

I dont understand about the physical bond thing, perhaps they have that with a Nanny!?!

I can understand that biological need, but it's also something most men inevitably check at the door when they enter a same-sex relationship, unless they are millionaires.

Both SJP and Nicole Kidman had biological children and then used a surrogate.

Nannies are hired and fired from this day to the next. If the kids get a nanny from birth and this woman fulfils the female role model role, then it's an OK substitute, but it's not a mother or mother figure as they're just doing a job. If it develops into more than just a job then great, but it's so many ifs.

I think the "children need a mother AND a father!" line has been hijacked by the right-wing press who are out to suppress a lot of freedoms, but just because they shout it out all the time and are wrong on so many other things, doesn't make the original statement wrong. I think a child does ideally need a mother and, if possible, a father who is present. That mother figure can be a stepmother, adoptive mother, whatever, but it is a nurturing female who loves the child unconditionally, provides its food and shelter and is not just an employee.

I'll be interested to see what young Zachary and the rest have to say about it when they're older

I believe there are many children of same-sex couples who have already matured and are vocal about their lives with two loving fathers. If you are really interested, there are many resources online regarding the topic.

I believe my comment regarding "people like" Elton John, Ryan Murphy and Ricky Martin was directed at the fact that they are rich, privileged and open about employing nannies to look after their children. Do you have any resources in which the children of two millionaire celebrity dads talk about how happy their childhoods were?

You're comment does not read clearly as such, to be honest. However, I would not be quick to assume that the children will grow up anything other than happy and loved whether or not their parents are a same-sex couple or celebrities. Many people utilize nannies, including mothers. Ricky Martin himself states in one of the interviews I posted that he does not spend a night away from his children. My question is, why do you assume that the children WOULDN'T grow up happy if they were surrounded by love?

 

[Piper84]

I think I may need some clarification then. You want everyone to have access to surrogacy, yet have an issue with celebrities using the method to become parents? Why are they different because they ARE rich?

How do you know that the children of same-sex parents don't have a strong female in their lives to love and nurture them? Just because it isn't on the front page does not mean that they don't exist in the children's lives.

Respectfully, I feel as though you may be filling in the blanks regarding the situations of these individuals due to lack of information.

I think couples with fertility issues should be able to have access to surrogacy without the hardcore financial problems.

I also think, if we're going to establish a priority queue of people who should have access to financially manageable surrogacy, it should be a TTC male/female couple that gets first dibs. They are the ones who have often spent years TTC and experienced chemical pregnancies, miscarriages and stillbirths and "should" be able to conceive naturally if all was well health-wise. Same-sex couples do not have "fertility problems".

It's also completely possible for a male/male couple to enter into an arrangement with another female/female couple and have children in this way. This doesn't seem to be done that often by the mega-rich men I've mentioned, although it's no less possible. This enforces the idea that it's an inherently selfish move to remove the mother from the equation when this doesn't have to be the case.

 

[Tasha]

I can understand that biological need, but it's also something most men inevitably check at the door when they enter a same-sex relationship, unless they are millionaires.

Both SJP and Nicole Kidman had biological children and then used a surrogate.

Nannies are hired and fired from this day to the next. If the kids get a nanny from birth and this woman fulfils the female role model role, then it's an OK substitute, but it's not a mother or mother figure as they're just doing a job. If it develops into more than just a job then great, but it's so many ifs.

I think the "children need a mother AND a father!" line has been hijacked by the right-wing press who are out to suppress a lot of freedoms, but just because they shout it out all the time and are wrong on so many other things, doesn't make the original statement wrong. I think a child does ideally need a mother and, if possible, a father who is present. That mother figure can be a stepmother, adoptive mother, whatever, but it is a nurturing female who loves the child unconditionally, provides its food and shelter and is not just an employee.

I'll be interested to see what young Zachary and the rest have to say about it when they're older

There are plenty of same sex (male) couples who use surrogates, and arent millionaires.

Can you clarify your point about the NK and SJP? You only have to look around the board to know there are many cases of secondary infertlitly. I dont have fertility issues, I have three children with me yet a surrogate might be something I have to chose because I can no longer get pregnant and stay pregnant.

I think that it doesnt have to be a stepmother, adoptive mother. I think if the male is providing food, warmth, shelter, then as long as there are strong females role models, it doesnt matter what title they are, could be an auntie, a really close friend of the dad's.

Elton John announced the birth Elijah this morning

 

[TriChick]

I think I may need some clarification then. You want everyone to have access to surrogacy, yet have an issue with celebrities using the method to become parents? Why are they different because they ARE rich?

How do you know that the children of same-sex parents don't have a strong female in their lives to love and nurture them? Just because it isn't on the front page does not mean that they don't exist in the children's lives.

Respectfully, I feel as though you may be filling in the blanks regarding the situations of these individuals due to lack of information.

I think couples with fertility issues should be able to have access to surrogacy without the hardcore financial problems.

I also think, if we're going to establish a priority queue of people who should have access to financially manageable surrogacy, it should be a TTC male/female couple that gets first dibs. They are the ones who have often spent years TTC and experienced chemical pregnancies, miscarriages and stillbirths and "should" be able to conceive naturally if all was well health-wise. Same-sex couples do not have "fertility problems".

It's also completely possible for a male/male couple to enter into an arrangement with another female/female couple and have children in this way. This doesn't seem to be done that often by the mega-rich men I've mentioned, although it's no less possible. This enforces the idea that it's an inherently selfish move to remove the mother from the equation when this doesn't have to be the case.

You DO realize that the mothers offer to do this, correct? They are volunteers, willing participants who desire to give the gift of a child to a same-sex couple. They make a huge, heartfelt commitment to help better the lives of other people. The child is conceived with this understanding. They are not held down while the child is abducted from a wailing mother.

 

[Piper84]

You're comment does not read clearly as such, to be honest. However, I would not be quick to assume that the children will grow up anything other than happy and loved whether or not their parents are a same-sex couple or celebrities. Many people utilize nannies, including mothers. Ricky Martin himself states in one of the interviews I posted that he does not spend a night away from his children. My question is, why do you assume that the children WOULDN'T grow up happy if they were surrounded by love?

I didn't assume that the children wouldn't grow up happy and loved. I'd still be interested to see what the offspring from these arrangements have to say about their childhoods. It's unprecendented so far.

Many mothers use nannies - they are still the ones who put the kids to bed when they get home from work and will be there regardless of employment contracts. Mothers who allow nannies to completely raise their own kids is another matter.

Ricky Martin may be a good father, but his children appear to have no relationship to their mother, in which case he took them away from their mother. I can't excuse that.

 

[Piper84]

You DO realize that the mothers offer to do this, correct? They are volunteers, willing participants who desire to give the gift of a child to a same-sex couple. They make a huge, heartfelt commitment to help better the lives of other people. The child is conceived with this understanding. They are not held down while the child is abducted from a wailing mother.

As far as I can tell surrogate mothers are paid for their services.

I'm actually talking about the effect on the children that this removal has. It's not about the wailing mother, who chose her path and is adult enough to make decisions such as these, but what the children are being deprived of.

 

[Rainbow82]

Surrogacy, for me, is an option for when a couple are having fertility problems. If having a child was that important to the men I've mentioned, they could have adopted. There are several countries which allow same-sex parents to adopt. It's a lot cheaper too.

Nicole Kidman and Sarah Jessica Parker both used surrogates when they could have had their own. It's rumoured that a lot more women in Hollywood do this too. Age doesn't matter when you have that much
money as there are ways to allow even older women to carry a child.

The celebrities I've mentioned are all rich and privileged. That's
another problem I have. Shouldn't everyone have access?

The biological mother of Elton John's first child FedExes breastmilk to them. That makes me very uncomfortable. Kids need
a mother and, ideally, a father too. These poor babies have no physical bond with a nurturing female because they were removed at birth and given a nanny. Fathers fulfil an equally important but different role.

I'm just not OK with that. Call it judgemental if you like, but I have a right to my opinion

Sorry I'm confused, it's okay for a same sex couple to adopt but not to want/have a child that's biologically related to them?

But it's ok for a straight couple to use a surrogate instead of adopting?