Gay parents

I do not want to turn this into a debate about wether gay (man-man) couples should have children but I do want to hear your views about in vitro fertilization of donor (female) eggs plus the use of a surrogate mother to produce a child for this couple, perhaps with the DNA (sperm) of one of the men.

And I also want to know if you could have the opportunity of facilitating this procedure, would you do it?

P.S. Just to define terms. Surrogacy is where an embrio is implanted into the uterus of a woman who has not contributed her genetic material to the embrio. These women are called womb-for-rent in some cultures. They do it for money, or in some cases when they are related to a member of the couple, they do it to facilitate the joy of paternity to a barren couple.

By facilitating the procedure I mean, recommend the doctor, recommend the procedure, put surrogate and the couple in contact, donate egg, donate sperm, or other similar activity.

I have mixed feelings on the topic. I would not be a donor - in my heart, I believe it is in the best interest of children to have parental representation from both genders. However, I also understand that, in the real world, this is not always the case. And I also realize that sometimes, even when it IS the case, the representation isn't always a positive influence. That's pretty much a reader's digest version of my thoughts on the subject.

That said, would I support a same sex couple who wants to bring a child into their lives? If they were a solid, loving couple with a long-term commitment to coparent that child to the best of their abilities, even though I would not facilitate surrogacy, I would be a supportive friend.

That said, would I support a same sex couple who wants to bring a child into their lives? If they were a solid, loving couple with a long-term commitment to coparent that child to the best of their abilities, even though I would not facilitate surrogacy, I would be a supportive friend.

So I take it that you would try to persuade them towards adoption instead of surrogacy? :confused:

I believe gay couples should be able to marry. So I don't see why they shouldn't be able to have kids, I'm straight but i believe being gay is just a natural thing...you are what you are. I don't feel they shouldn't have common rights because they are in the minority.....

My only thing is a kid growing up with two gay parents is gonna hear about it so much during their school years, it'll be bad. They could either grow into a stronger person or it may completely destroy their self esteem

I believe gay couples should be able to marry. So I don't see why they shouldn't be able to have kids, I'm straight but i believe being gay is just a natural thing...you are what you are. I don't feel they shouldn't have common rights because they are in the minority.....

My only thing is a kid growing up with two gay parents is gonna hear about it so much during their school years, it'll be bad. They could either grow into a stronger person or it may completely destroy their self esteem

I agree with you 100%. I'm not gay and I don't know any gay people but I feel they should have the same rights that everyone else has, they are the same as normal everyday people just attracted to the same sex, that's not reason to take away anything from them.

So I take it that you would try to persuade them towards adoption instead of surrogacy? :confused:

really? where'd that idea come from?

Ok, let me add another element to this question. As you know, when a couple wants to adopt, they undergo a long series of tests, physical, psychological, a social worker visits the couple's home, they have to provide reference letters from friends and other members of the community, they have to prove they have been married (or together) for X number of years.

In the case of surrogacy, the couple just goes to a doctor and asks for the procedure. If they have the money, the procedure is done. They even get to pick the donor egg based on looks and intelligence.

Having said this, do you still think the same?

I probably know more gay people than I do straight....
Personally, I would do anything in my power to help make their dreams come true.
I can tell you that in my experience I haven't seen near as many longterm, loving, straight couples as I have gay couples.
All that being said....I think there are way too many humans inhabiting our planet already and sometimes our personal dreams should be put aside for the greater good of what our world is going through....just me.
Blessings, TD

really? where'd that idea come from?
You said you would not facilitate surrogacy, so the remaining option is adoption. That is why I asked for clarification. :confused:

Sheila....I still think te odds of a child having decent parents is higher than all the poor, under schooled, people who are having children every minute of every day :confused:

Sheila....I still think te odds of a child having decent parents is higher than all the poor, under schooled, people who are having children every minute of every day :confused:
You mean the odds an adopted child has or a child from surrogacy? The question is because with adoption, there are many more controls prior to handing over a child vs with surrogacy. (At least in my country)

I think whatever rules apply to straight couples needing fertility assistance should apply to any couple. And I don't have a problem with people choosing donors based on whatever criteria they want. After all, people choose their partners based on whatever criteria they want (and women have been able to choose sperm donors based on a variety of criteria as well), and when people do have a choice about particular characteristics of a baby in fertility treatments they usually choose those that make their baby resemble themselves, from what I've read. I am wondering if it's possible to combine the DNA of both partners in the nucleus of a donated egg, making them both equal biological parents. I'd think that would be preferable to having a DNA donor.

No Sheila....either way should still be better odds of raising a happy healthy child than the majority of straight couples that seem to "accidently" get pregnant.
I wish ALL people would just stop procreating for the sake of the planet and the mess we are in!
I agree with Pink on the rights of ANY loving couple!

I think whatever rules apply to straight couples needing fertility assistance should apply to any couple.

^^ What Pink said.

Ok, then it should be established that they are a stable, loving and viable couple. I am not sure if this is done in the case of surrogacy, but it is done in the case of adoptions.

I am not against surrogacy, I just think that more controls are needed. This should not be left in the hands of a doctor.

This should not be left in the hands of a doctor.
It really isn't left in the hands of a doctor, although I think that would be better than leaving personal decisions about medical procedures and reproduction in the hands of legislators. It's mostly left in the hands of adult citizens who make the decision to reproduce and to use their own bodies as they see fit.

This is not the sort of procedure that most people would take lightly, as it requires quite a bit more forethought than just having sex and getting pregnant. So I'm less concerned about the sorts of people who would go through procedures like this than I am about the vast majority of people who have children, and who have no need to prove anything whatsoever about themselves to the government prior to doing so.

A woman can also artificially inseminate herself with no meddling from the government (and possibly no partner). The only thing that makes surrogacy different is the identity of the person who's uterus contains the developing fetus, which I don't think the government has any business even knowing. So doing all sorts of background checks on men who are doing essentially the same thing (and they could also just skip the doctor and inseminate a woman themselves), seems to represent more discrimination against men in terms of parental rights. I don't want my government deciding who can reproduce and what medical procedures they can use in doing so, beyond basic concerns about the safety of the procedure itself.

I don't know what the general rules for adoption are, and I know they do vary, but I'm not sure I see how anything beyond mental health and criminal background screenings and perhaps a basic financial requirement is any of the government's business.

Well, again.....there are more "hoops" to go through than what post people who have unprotected sex and end up pregnant have.
I see no difference.....if the government is needed to put regulations on one form of conception.....maybe we should put a cap on procreating altogether.
Adoption is different b/c the unwanted child already exsists and it is up to the agencies involved as to what rules they wish to impose.
Even adopting an animal from a shelter has more regulations, checks, and guidelines than a women bearing a child......and, it is always a law that the animal be spayed or neutered to keep down the population.
Gay people should not even enter into the conversation about who should or should not have children.......I see no difference in their abilities to raise a happy child or a screwed up kid for that matter.

What Pink and Angel said...

;)