Surrogacy

[smileyfaces]

NK's first biological child was born in July 2008 and her surrogate child in December 2010, using her egg. She went through the IVF process to extract her own, healthy eggs and had someone else carry the baby to term.

It may be that a male is forced to fulfil the role of mother and father in some sad cases. What I disagree with is deliberately starting the child out with that scenario.

A role model is not a parent nor a mother or father figure.

This discussion is really failing to take into account the sadness that children feel growing up when one parent is missing.

There was some two years and five months between her children, so it is quite possible that there was secondary infertlity!?!

To me it is more important that there are two loving parents, than what gender they are.

I think your last sentence is too presumptious. Some children may well feel sadness, but I know plenty of people who grew up in a single parent household who never felt such things. Regardless, there isnt a parent missing in many cases, like Elton's children have two parents.

There will be 23 months between my kids and we (somehow) conceived immediately after my menstrual cycle came back, which was delayed because of BFing and whatever other reasons. I wouldn't call myself infertile because of that.

I think infertility is defined as not conceiving for a year, or more at her age, which would mean they decided pretty quickly that she was infertile.

To me, a loving parent is one who does not remove a biological parent at the outset.

I don't think it's presumptuous to suggest children who are missing are parent carry it around with them for a long time and are affected negatively by it. It doesn't mean they can't be happy, but it takes a lot away from them

Ummm Nichole Kidman does not share your uterus, therefore may not share your fertility. Why do you presume to know so much about the fertility issues of a woman you've never met?

Don't talk about my uterus please.

If she can have successful egg extraction, there's no reason for her not to carry the child with the amount of money she has.

Deary me...there are MANY reasons she may not be able to carry a child. I have met sooo many women on BnB who want nothing more than to have their own child but can not physically carry a child. One lady in particular has gone through TWELVE miscarriages because her body will just reject the embryo. It seems she is just not able to carry a child, which she wants to be able to do more than anything. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[Piper84]

What has same sex parenting got to do with surrogacy? Just because they are two men or two women does that not give them the right to a child that is biologically their own?

I don't see it as a right to deliberately bring a child into the world without a mother or father.

I assume you are kidding right? That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. So two fathers or two mothers are inferior to a mother and a father? As long as the child is loved, cared for and wanted then I can't say that I think it makes a difference?

I disagree. It is one of the most selfish things imaginable to bring a child into the world having already decided it will be missing one parent.

 

[smileyfaces]

What has same sex parenting got to do with surrogacy? Just because they are two men or two women does that not give them the right to a child that is biologically their own?

I don't see it as a right to deliberately bring a child into the world without a mother or father.

I assume you are kidding right? That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. So two fathers or two mothers are inferior to a mother and a father? As long as the child is loved, cared for and wanted then I can't say that I think it makes a difference?

I disagree. It is one of the most selfish things imaginable to bring a child into the world having already decided it will be missing one parent.

It is not missing one parent though? It would have two loving parents?

 

[Piper84]

Deary me...there are MANY reasons she may not be able to carry a child. I have met sooo many women on BnB who want nothing more than to have their own child but can not physically carry a child. One lady in particular has gone through TWELVE miscarriages because her body will just reject the embryo. It seems she is just not able to carry a child, which she wants to be able to do more than anything. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

She was able to carry a child though

Money has everything to do with it. Don't you think the ladies on here would use surrogacy if they had the financial means?

 

[LoraLoo]

NK's first biological child was born in July 2008 and her surrogate child in December 2010, using her egg. She went through the IVF process to extract her own, healthy eggs and had someone else carry the baby to term.

It may be that a male is forced to fulfil the role of mother and father in some sad cases. What I disagree with is deliberately starting the child out with that scenario.

A role model is not a parent nor a mother or father figure.

This discussion is really failing to take into account the sadness that children feel growing up when one parent is missing.

There was some two years and five months between her children, so it is quite possible that there was secondary infertlity!?!

To me it is more important that there are two loving parents, than what gender they are.

I think your last sentence is too presumptious. Some children may well feel sadness, but I know plenty of people who grew up in a single parent household who never felt such things. Regardless, there isnt a parent missing in many cases, like Elton's children have two parents.

There will be 23 months between my kids and we (somehow) conceived immediately after my menstrual cycle came back, which was delayed because of BFing and whatever other reasons. I wouldn't call myself infertile because of that.

I think infertility is defined as not conceiving for a year, or more at her age, which would mean they decided pretty quickly that she was infertile.

To me, a loving parent is one who does not remove a biological parent at the outset.

I don't think it's presumptuous to suggest children who are missing are parent carry it around with them for a long time and are affected negatively by it. It doesn't mean they can't be happy, but it takes a lot away from them

Ummm Nichole Kidman does not share your uterus, therefore may not share your fertility. Why do you presume to know so much about the fertility issues of a woman you've never met?

Don't talk about my uterus please.

If she can have successful egg extraction, there's no reason for her not to carry the child with the amount of money she has.

Probably THE most ridiculous statement I have ever read on BnB

 

[Tasha]

There will be 23 months between my kids and we (somehow) conceived immediately after my menstrual cycle came back, which was delayed because of BFing and whatever other reasons. I wouldn't call myself infertile because of that.

I think infertility is defined as not conceiving for a year, or more at her age, which would mean they decided pretty quickly that she was infertile.

To me, a loving parent is one who does not remove a biological parent at the outset.

I don't think it's presumptuous to suggest children who are missing one parent carry it around with them for a long time and are affected negatively by it. It doesn't mean they can't be happy, but it takes a lot away from them

I wouldnt call you infertile either. I wouldnt say you were having fertlity issues at all unless it took you over a year of actively TTC without anything else that can prevent ovulation/conception (such as breastfeeding). So I am not sure what your situation has to do with Nicole's?

Actually at her age, some doctors will start doing tests after six months. Same as at her age, many doctors would start testing after two loses opposed to three. Plus if she had fertlity problems before the 2008 child then tests may of been carried out then, so they already knew what they were dealing with.

But surely that is about what you believe two parents should be, for a child who has two loving same-sex parents, sure they *may* feel sadness but equally they *may* not. They may well feel there is nothing missing from their lives.

 

[TriChick]

NK's first biological child was born in July 2008 and her surrogate child in December 2010, using her egg. She went through the IVF process to extract her own, healthy eggs and had someone else carry the baby to term.

It may be that a male is forced to fulfil the role of mother and father in some sad cases. What I disagree with is deliberately starting the child out with that scenario.

A role model is not a parent nor a mother or father figure.

This discussion is really failing to take into account the sadness that children feel growing up when one parent is missing.

There was some two years and five months between her children, so it is quite possible that there was secondary infertlity!?!

To me it is more important that there are two loving parents, than what gender they are.

I think your last sentence is too presumptious. Some children may well feel sadness, but I know plenty of people who grew up in a single parent household who never felt such things. Regardless, there isnt a parent missing in many cases, like Elton's children have two parents.

There will be 23 months between my kids and we (somehow) conceived immediately after my menstrual cycle came back, which was delayed because of BFing and whatever other reasons. I wouldn't call myself infertile because of that.

I think infertility is defined as not conceiving for a year, or more at her age, which would mean they decided pretty quickly that she was infertile.

To me, a loving parent is one who does not remove a biological parent at the outset.

I don't think it's presumptuous to suggest children who are missing are parent carry it around with them for a long time and are affected negatively by it. It doesn't mean they can't be happy, but it takes a lot away from them

Ummm Nichole Kidman does not share your uterus, therefore may not share your fertility. Why do you presume to know so much about the fertility issues of a woman you've never met?

Don't talk about my uterus please.

If she can have successful egg extraction, there's no reason for her not to carry the child with the amount of money she has.

Please do EVERYONE who suffers from Secondary Infertility a favor and educate yourself somewhat on the issue prior to offering "expertise" regarding a total stranger's struggles with conception.

A completely ignorant and uneducated statement. My GOD.

https://www.resolve.org/diagnosis-management/infertility-diagnosis/secondary-infertility.html

 

[LoraLoo]

I also feel that you are back tracking on your previous comments. You dont agree with bringing a life into the world if its not going to have a Mother or Father. But for a same sexed couple to adopt- thats ok? Bizarre.

 

[Piper84]

What has same sex parenting got to do with surrogacy? Just because they are two men or two women does that not give them the right to a child that is biologically their own?

I don't see it as a right to deliberately bring a child into the world without a mother or father.

I assume you are kidding right? That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. So two fathers or two mothers are inferior to a mother and a father? As long as the child is loved, cared for and wanted then I can't say that I think it makes a difference?

I disagree. It is one of the most selfish things imaginable to bring a child into the world having already decided it will be missing one parent.

It is not missing one parent though? It would have two loving parents?

It's giving the child the second best option before it's even taken its first breath. That is not good parenting in my book.

 

[smileyfaces]

Deary me...there are MANY reasons she may not be able to carry a child. I have met sooo many women on BnB who want nothing more than to have their own child but can not physically carry a child. One lady in particular has gone through TWELVE miscarriages because her body will just reject the embryo. It seems she is just not able to carry a child, which she wants to be able to do more than anything. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

She was able to carry a child though

Money has everything to do with it. Don't you think the ladies on here would use surrogacy if they had the financial means?

Times change, your body does not stay in the same state forever. Just because she carried a child once does not mean to say that she can do it again, and again, and again, and again. And no, money has NOTHING to do with it. As many women in this thread have stated, they would do it for family, family would do it for them....money does not have to play a part.

 

[LoraLoo]

What has same sex parenting got to do with surrogacy? Just because they are two men or two women does that not give them the right to a child that is biologically their own?

I don't see it as a right to deliberately bring a child into the world without a mother or father.

I assume you are kidding right? That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. So two fathers or two mothers are inferior to a mother and a father? As long as the child is loved, cared for and wanted then I can't say that I think it makes a difference?

I disagree. It is one of the most selfish things imaginable to bring a child into the world having already decided it will be missing one parent.

It is not missing one parent though? It would have two loving parents?

It's giving the child the second best option before it's even taken its first breath. That is not good parenting in my book.

Its not good parenting to be so judgemental in my opinion either, what does that teach a child?

 

[smileyfaces]

What has same sex parenting got to do with surrogacy? Just because they are two men or two women does that not give them the right to a child that is biologically their own?

I don't see it as a right to deliberately bring a child into the world without a mother or father.

I assume you are kidding right? That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. So two fathers or two mothers are inferior to a mother and a father? As long as the child is loved, cared for and wanted then I can't say that I think it makes a difference?

I disagree. It is one of the most selfish things imaginable to bring a child into the world having already decided it will be missing one parent.

It is not missing one parent though? It would have two loving parents?

It's giving the child the second best option before it's even taken its first breath. That is not good parenting in my book.

Second best option? According to who? Your views are extremely outdated. You are going to offend many many people.

 

[Piper84]

I also feel that you are back tracking on your previous comments. You dont agree with bringing a life into the world if its not going to have a Mother or Father. But for a same sexed couple to adopt- thats ok? Bizarre.

How is it bizarre? An adopted child has no parents to look after it and if they are adopted by a couple, same-sex or otherwise, that is a bonus and a far more selfless act than bringing a child into the world, spending a fortune in doing so and removing one of its biological parents.

 

[TriChick]

What has same sex parenting got to do with surrogacy? Just because they are two men or two women does that not give them the right to a child that is biologically their own?

I don't see it as a right to deliberately bring a child into the world without a mother or father.

I assume you are kidding right? That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. So two fathers or two mothers are inferior to a mother and a father? As long as the child is loved, cared for and wanted then I can't say that I think it makes a difference?

I disagree. It is one of the most selfish things imaginable to bring a child into the world having already decided it will be missing one parent.

It is not missing one parent though? It would have two loving parents?

It's giving the child the second best option before it's even taken its first breath. That is not good parenting in my book.

Its not good parenting to be so judgemental in my opinion either, what does that teach a child?

Read my mind

 

[Rainbow82]

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.

Erm sorry piper84 but this is wrong, being a same sex couple may not in itself be a fertility problem but that does not mean
that same sex couples do not experience fertility problems, still I know the NHS is under a lot if financial pressure at the moment so I guess you think I shouldnt be allowed treatment for PCOS, an
insufficient lining and a short luteal phase.

I suppose my wife and I can always find a gay couple to
continue trying with though and to share the child I dream of conceiving with my wife.

I'm still confused however why you thunk I'm wring for wanting a child of my own to deprive of a father but it would be ok for my wife and I to adopt a child and as you so
delicately put it, deprive that child of a father.


The children of same sex couples
do not grow up feeling that they are lacking a parent of a particular sex and several studies have shown that they are as well adjusted as children of straight couples. I dint see why they should
be at tge back if the que while male female couples get "first dibs"

 

[Piper84]

Deary me...there are MANY reasons she may not be able to carry a child. I have met sooo many women on BnB who want nothing more than to have their own child but can not physically carry a child. One lady in particular has gone through TWELVE miscarriages because her body will just reject the embryo. It seems she is just not able to carry a child, which she wants to be able to do more than anything. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

She was able to carry a child though

Money has everything to do with it. Don't you think the ladies on here would use surrogacy if they had the financial means?

Times change, your body does not stay in the same state forever. Just because she carried a child once does not mean to say that she can do it again, and again, and again, and again. And no, money has NOTHING to do with it. As many women in this thread have stated, they would do it for family, family would do it for them....money does not have to play a part.

Actually I'm talking about the women on here suffering multiple miscarriages. If they had the money, they would take the same route as NK.

 

[LoraLoo]

I also feel that you are back tracking on your previous comments. You dont agree with bringing a life into the world if its not going to have a Mother or Father. But for a same sexed couple to adopt- thats ok? Bizarre.

How is it bizarre? An adopted child has no parents to look after it and if they are adopted by a couple, same-sex or otherwise, that is a bonus and a far more selfless act than bringing a child into the world, spending a fortune in doing so and removing one of its biological parents.

Because you are saying that a child should not be removed from its mother, the outcome is still EXACTLY the same, it doesnt matter what proccess it was, the outcome is still 2 same sexed parents!

 

[LoraLoo]

Deary me...there are MANY reasons she may not be able to carry a child. I have met sooo many women on BnB who want nothing more than to have their own child but can not physically carry a child. One lady in particular has gone through TWELVE miscarriages because her body will just reject the embryo. It seems she is just not able to carry a child, which she wants to be able to do more than anything. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

She was able to carry a child though

Money has everything to do with it. Don't you think the ladies on here would use surrogacy if they had the financial means?

Times change, your body does not stay in the same state forever. Just because she carried a child once does not mean to say that she can do it again, and again, and again, and again. And no, money has NOTHING to do with it. As many women in this thread have stated, they would do it for family, family would do it for them....money does not have to play a part.

Actually I'm talking about the women on here suffering multiple miscarriages. If they had the money, they would take the same route as NK.

Again very presumption. You speak on behalf of all the women who have had multiple miscarriages on BnB? I'm glad you know their minds better than they do themselves AMAZING.

 

[smileyfaces]

I can't even believe what I am reading. I'm getting a headache

 

[Piper84]

I wouldnt call you infertile either. I wouldnt say you were having fertlity issues at all unless it took you over a year of actively TTC without anything else that can prevent ovulation/conception (such as breastfeeding). So I am not sure what your situation has to do with Nicole's?

Actually at her age, some doctors will start doing tests after six months. Same as at her age, many doctors would start testing after two loses opposed to three. Plus if she had fertlity problems before the 2008 child then tests may of been carried out then, so they already knew what they were dealing with.

But surely that is about what you believe two parents should be, for a child who has two loving same-sex parents, sure they *may* feel sadness but equally they *may* not. They may well feel there is nothing missing from their lives.

I had the opposite of secondary infertility, but I was using my example to say that two and a bit years is a very short time to decide you're infertile.

I just can't condone removing a child from its parent, regardless of what contracts have been signed and how much love you can provide.