Well done Julie. The "surrogates" are the purchasers, the baby's mother is the woman who intimately shared it's first nine months of life. Because babies aren't zero when they are born, they are nine months old, with a profoundly dependant relationship with one person and one person only - their mother. You can whitter on about genetics, which suits men nicely, but a baby doesn't care about genetics, it only cares about the smell, the sound, the feel, the energy of it's mother. Remove that and the babies and mothers suffer profoundly. It's against UK law to remove a puppy from it's mother, but removing a human baby from it's mother is just fine guys if that's what you want.
Just like porn and prostitution, this is yet another comercialising of the female body using the world view of men to pretend it isn't cruel and life-threatening to women and children.
In my teaching career, I've taught several children adopted by gay men. One, a boy from China, kept talking about wanting a mother. His fathers were actually sensitive about it, but the child's wish didn't go away. Then there's the interracial dads couple who had a high conflict split and the boy, then about 9, with special needs they'd adopted felt so abandoned by his Black dad, who essentially abandoned him. I recall another dads couple who adopted siblings from Central America. The story was that the natural parents had so many other children already, it was going to be a better life to give them away to this college professor (gender studies or something) and architect. What I rolled my eyes about with these dudes was their insistence that 3 books about gay dads couples have a prominent place in our Pre-K library. I learned to tape together the pages I felt went into dads in bed a little too graphically. This later pair used their adopted children as props for their political agenda. I sometimes wonder if either of the children got religion or became politically conservative in a young adult period of rebellion. Thank heaven, I'm retired.
These are really sad stories. Thank you for sharing them. One thing I suspect is modern people often assume that they can ignore tradition and biology (in this case, babies being raised by their mothers). Unfortunately, ignoring tradition and biology does not always work and in this case it appears to have hurt children. I hope the children find peace, love, and eventually understand what happened to them. If the damage is repaired, it will probably take decades.
I’ve not met many people who acquired children by surrogates. But even “ethical” stories leave me unsettled (putting it politely). The new “mum” insisting she can’t collect the baby because the dogs can’t be left on their own. Asking if it’s ok for her husband to drive a newborn baby 500 miles on his own with an overnight at a motel.
As a single dad it was hard enough with two young girls. Dealing with first periods and bras and things when they were with me and not their mum. But after a day or so they were back with her or on the phone. To have no “mum” is to deny what girls need. And I know there are children without a mum. But that’s by accident and not design.
I have friends who have children by surrogacy. They’re good people. But society and the system has opened a door to something that raises profound ethical problems.
The vast majority of child sex offenders and violent abusers in the home are male. But, while Philip Larkin made an important point, most parents are OK. A vast majority of men aren’t paedophiles or violent abusers. Dangerously chaotic households are quite easily identified by social services and many of these feature single women with children, even if multiple ‘stepfathers’ loom large as the biggest threat when it comes to violent or sexual abuse. These ‘birth mothers’ are wholly complicit in the abuse of their kids, knowingly or otherwise. Many have multiple children. Meanwhile, within UK child services, the qualification bar is set higher for gay male couples seeking to adopt - and rightly so. But given the financial pressure on children’s’ services, money talks. Surrogacy is a special issue. With so many kids in need of parents, surrogacy is immoral. I’m not sure it should be illegal, but surrogacy certainly has no place on an NHS menu. Yes, the ‘birth mother’ argument is strong, but it is by no means absolute - and refuted by millions of positive examples of adoption, living and dead. Yet, for the record, I am also exercised by people who spend thousands on cockapoos and their like, when there are so many dogs (especially sight hounds) facing death rather than rescue. Not so different….
Hmmm. I know a single woman who I believe is mentally and physically unsuitable to manage her pet, but she has passed all the tests (largely financial) to be accepted as an adopting parent of a toddler. With the huge cost to the public purse of children in care (especially those in their teens) children’s’ services all over the country are desperate to get younger kids off their books before they become an expensive problem. They’re really not so discriminatory. But adoption is very different from surrogacy, which - in the presence of so many young kids in care who need parenting - can only be immoral. But Julie, please don’t make this a bloke thing. That’s just your misandry showing. You are better than that.
Babies need their birth mothers? So are you anti-adoption, too? And what exactly is wrong with egg donation? Is sperm donation also wrong? With all that said, agree there is absolutely no way that single men should be able to obtain babies through surrogacy or otherwise. That should just be common sense.
Well done Julie. The "surrogates" are the purchasers, the baby's mother is the woman who intimately shared it's first nine months of life. Because babies aren't zero when they are born, they are nine months old, with a profoundly dependant relationship with one person and one person only - their mother. You can whitter on about genetics, which suits men nicely, but a baby doesn't care about genetics, it only cares about the smell, the sound, the feel, the energy of it's mother. Remove that and the babies and mothers suffer profoundly. It's against UK law to remove a puppy from it's mother, but removing a human baby from it's mother is just fine guys if that's what you want.
Just like porn and prostitution, this is yet another comercialising of the female body using the world view of men to pretend it isn't cruel and life-threatening to women and children.
So when it comes to making babies, precisely no one is confused about what a woman is.
In my teaching career, I've taught several children adopted by gay men. One, a boy from China, kept talking about wanting a mother. His fathers were actually sensitive about it, but the child's wish didn't go away. Then there's the interracial dads couple who had a high conflict split and the boy, then about 9, with special needs they'd adopted felt so abandoned by his Black dad, who essentially abandoned him. I recall another dads couple who adopted siblings from Central America. The story was that the natural parents had so many other children already, it was going to be a better life to give them away to this college professor (gender studies or something) and architect. What I rolled my eyes about with these dudes was their insistence that 3 books about gay dads couples have a prominent place in our Pre-K library. I learned to tape together the pages I felt went into dads in bed a little too graphically. This later pair used their adopted children as props for their political agenda. I sometimes wonder if either of the children got religion or became politically conservative in a young adult period of rebellion. Thank heaven, I'm retired.
Here's my new video on recommendations for dealing with a child's cross-sex ideation before they mess themselves up at a "gender clinic."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EULLul3XpFQ
These are really sad stories. Thank you for sharing them. One thing I suspect is modern people often assume that they can ignore tradition and biology (in this case, babies being raised by their mothers). Unfortunately, ignoring tradition and biology does not always work and in this case it appears to have hurt children. I hope the children find peace, love, and eventually understand what happened to them. If the damage is repaired, it will probably take decades.
I’ve not met many people who acquired children by surrogates. But even “ethical” stories leave me unsettled (putting it politely). The new “mum” insisting she can’t collect the baby because the dogs can’t be left on their own. Asking if it’s ok for her husband to drive a newborn baby 500 miles on his own with an overnight at a motel.
As a single dad it was hard enough with two young girls. Dealing with first periods and bras and things when they were with me and not their mum. But after a day or so they were back with her or on the phone. To have no “mum” is to deny what girls need. And I know there are children without a mum. But that’s by accident and not design.
I have friends who have children by surrogacy. They’re good people. But society and the system has opened a door to something that raises profound ethical problems.
It’s not misandry to be concerned about male pedophiles—it’s a sad biological fact that most pedophiles are male.
The vast majority of child sex offenders and violent abusers in the home are male. But, while Philip Larkin made an important point, most parents are OK. A vast majority of men aren’t paedophiles or violent abusers. Dangerously chaotic households are quite easily identified by social services and many of these feature single women with children, even if multiple ‘stepfathers’ loom large as the biggest threat when it comes to violent or sexual abuse. These ‘birth mothers’ are wholly complicit in the abuse of their kids, knowingly or otherwise. Many have multiple children. Meanwhile, within UK child services, the qualification bar is set higher for gay male couples seeking to adopt - and rightly so. But given the financial pressure on children’s’ services, money talks. Surrogacy is a special issue. With so many kids in need of parents, surrogacy is immoral. I’m not sure it should be illegal, but surrogacy certainly has no place on an NHS menu. Yes, the ‘birth mother’ argument is strong, but it is by no means absolute - and refuted by millions of positive examples of adoption, living and dead. Yet, for the record, I am also exercised by people who spend thousands on cockapoos and their like, when there are so many dogs (especially sight hounds) facing death rather than rescue. Not so different….
Hmmm. I know a single woman who I believe is mentally and physically unsuitable to manage her pet, but she has passed all the tests (largely financial) to be accepted as an adopting parent of a toddler. With the huge cost to the public purse of children in care (especially those in their teens) children’s’ services all over the country are desperate to get younger kids off their books before they become an expensive problem. They’re really not so discriminatory. But adoption is very different from surrogacy, which - in the presence of so many young kids in care who need parenting - can only be immoral. But Julie, please don’t make this a bloke thing. That’s just your misandry showing. You are better than that.
Thank you! I wholeheartedly agree and am so glad you are shedding light on this issue.
I had never thought about this dark side of surrogacy... thank you for sharing this.
Babies need their birth mothers? So are you anti-adoption, too? And what exactly is wrong with egg donation? Is sperm donation also wrong? With all that said, agree there is absolutely no way that single men should be able to obtain babies through surrogacy or otherwise. That should just be common sense.