TriChick
Mom-Wife-Triathlete:)
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 787
- Reaction score
- 1
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?
I would like to know as well why it is then ok for a heterosexual couple to utilize a surrogate when, essentially, they would also be "taking the child from their mother"? Honestly, I'm curious as to the reasoning.