Researchers have created eggs from the cells of male mice, raising the prospect of male couples having their own children...

Thank you to the ladies who answered my questions about IVF. I couldn’t imagine that anyone meant IVF was buying a child and therefore not to be allowed, but it seemed unclear to me as I read it. I regard IVF as a treatment and it seems others do too. Good.

As for adoption, whilst it is generally regarded that an adoptive child should maintain links with the birth family, I think each case should be considered individually. When a young child or baby is removed, they often have no memory of the birth family after a period of time and introducing the family, or a member of the family, can, and does cause enormous emotional distress and insecurity. I have seen this happen in my own family and totally support my family member in the decision that this line of action is currently harmful, backed up by the school in fact, and to limit contact to when and if the child wants it. The child knows he is adopted but not the truly horrible circumstances around his removal.

I think each case should be considered individually. absolutely maddyone but we should start from a premise that the child will know of their birth family and some contact may be maintained if suitable. For a very few children this will not be possible and a fully closed adoption will be best.

In my own family is someone who was adopted, and to cut a long story short discovered their birth father in late middle age. That person, while always having adored their adopted parents felt 'more complete' meeting the father and discovering many shared interests. It also opened up a lot of medical history that was actually very relevant.

I wasn't talking about withholding information

I was simply talking about how people discuss it.

I see absolutely no need to use the words "adopted" or "step" in everyday life as a constant reminder to children

Children are permitted to discuss their origins and how they feel about them. Saying you would ban surrogacy is simply expressing prejudice about one group of people (in this case mostly children). It isn't just hurting someone's feelings to deny them the right to exist, it is dehumanising them And once it is done for one group of people it is easier to extend to another.

Surrogacy is the only way for gay men to have children

I've never come across a discussion about surrogacy before so having it exist in this context is discomforting

It will be interesting hearing how they deal with REAL pain.
Stupid idea though imo.

I haven’t got a problem with surrogacy as long as the following guidelines/laws are out in place and adhered to.

The surrogate is doing it by free choice not due to poverty and or coercion.

The child is made aware of the women who gave birth to them and given the opportunity of contact if that is the child’s wish.

The law is clear on the rights of the child, the surrogate, the egg donor along with the sperm donor, no grey areas or confusion.

Glorianny

Children are permitted to discuss their origins and how they feel about them. Saying you would ban surrogacy is simply expressing prejudice about one group of people (in this case mostly children). It isn't just hurting someone's feelings to deny them the right to exist, it is dehumanising them And once it is done for one group of people it is easier to extend to another.

You could extrapolate this to include children with Down Syndrome or any other condition considered a medical reason for abortion. That they weren't fit to be born, maybe shouldn't exist, should have been aborted along with the many others that had the same condition. Don't you think they can be hurt by that implication? Yet I think you approve of a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, as do I.

GrannyGravy13

I haven’t got a problem with surrogacy as long as the following guidelines/laws are out in place and adhered to.

The surrogate is doing it by free choice not due to poverty and or coercion.

The child is made aware of the women who gave birth to them and given the opportunity of contact if that is the child’s wish.

The law is clear on the rights of the child, the surrogate, the egg donor along with the sperm donor, no grey areas or confusion.

Good post GG13

Fosie they already do this in Iceland virtually no children born with Downs they are aborted

Rosie51

Glorianny

Children are permitted to discuss their origins and how they feel about them. Saying you would ban surrogacy is simply expressing prejudice about one group of people (in this case mostly children). It isn't just hurting someone's feelings to deny them the right to exist, it is dehumanising them And once it is done for one group of people it is easier to extend to another.

You could extrapolate this to include children with Down Syndrome or any other condition considered a medical reason for abortion. That they weren't fit to be born, maybe shouldn't exist, should have been aborted along with the many others that had the same condition. Don't you think they can be hurt by that implication? Yet I think you approve of a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, as do I.

I approve of a woman's right to choose if she wants to continue a pregnancy or not. The reason behind that decision is none of my business. I'm not advocating the abortion of all children with any condition. It is totally different to banning something which has already resulted in many much wanted and loved children.

Violet Sky , you talk a lot of sense . Well done you ! Yes Surrogacy is the only way for gay men to have their own children. I have mixed feelings about paying a surrogate - I also do know that paying is illegal in this country. However........ Why shouldn't she be paid , the prospective parents would not be buying a child they are quite simply paying the woman who is prepared to take good care of herself during the 9 months and acknowledging the discomfort pregnancy may bring not to mention the hours of pain involved in giving birth!!! Why shouldn't she be rewarded, the parents would quite simply be paying the surrogate for her service. I know these comments will put the cat among the pigeons and I am not sure of my own thoughts about this.

And how exactly are two men, even if their sperm can be converted into an egg to have a child? Neither has a uterus or a vagina, so surely a surrogate mother will still be needed?

How I wish countries would make it easier for the infertile for any reason, who are desperate for children to adopt. The world is full of children in orphanages.

VioletSky

I wasn't talking about withholding information

I was simply talking about how people discuss it.

I see absolutely no need to use the words "adopted" or "step" in everyday life as a constant reminder to children

My grandson knows he is adopted because his mum couldn’t look after him, but his parents are his parents and we are his grandparents (and his other set of grandparents too) and his aunties, uncles, and cousins are just that. We are his family and he is ours.

It’s such a shame that gay men, unable obviously to have a baby, don’t adopt, I know it’s not an easy route to parenthood but it’s now open to gay people and there are so many children awaiting adoption.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny

Children are permitted to discuss their origins and how they feel about them. Saying you would ban surrogacy is simply expressing prejudice about one group of people (in this case mostly children). It isn't just hurting someone's feelings to deny them the right to exist, it is dehumanising them And once it is done for one group of people it is easier to extend to another.

You could extrapolate this to include children with Down Syndrome or any other condition considered a medical reason for abortion. That they weren't fit to be born, maybe shouldn't exist, should have been aborted along with the many others that had the same condition. Don't you think they can be hurt by that implication? Yet I think you approve of a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, as do I.

I approve of a woman's right to choose if she wants to continue a pregnancy or not. The reason behind that decision is none of my business. I'm not advocating the abortion of all children with any condition. It is totally different to banning something which has already resulted in many much wanted and loved children.

I disagree that it is totally different, in fact I think it could be viewed as worse. You can't escape that the message given to these children is that their condition is valid grounds for denying others like them the right to life, to exist. Yes it's uncomfortable to acknowledge that you don't consider their hurt, their feelings of lack of worth, their questioning of their right to exist. I struggle to reconcile that with my support for a woman's right to choose. I still have an instinctive rejection of surrogacy. The baby has heard that woman's voice and heartbeat for 9 months, then they're taken away from that major source of comfort.

We have much loved adopted children in our immediate family maddyone they know they are adopted also.

We could say that any family should adopt rather than have their own biological children

Any family

We don't say that though

Gay couples are no different

VioletSky

We could say that any family should adopt rather than have their own biological children

Any family

We don't say that though

Gay couples are no different

They are different in as much as two women cannot procreate without sperm and two men cannot procreate without an egg and a female to carry the baby and give birth.

Not an opinion just biological facts…

Rosie51

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny

Children are permitted to discuss their origins and how they feel about them. Saying you would ban surrogacy is simply expressing prejudice about one group of people (in this case mostly children). It isn't just hurting someone's feelings to deny them the right to exist, it is dehumanising them And once it is done for one group of people it is easier to extend to another.

You could extrapolate this to include children with Down Syndrome or any other condition considered a medical reason for abortion. That they weren't fit to be born, maybe shouldn't exist, should have been aborted along with the many others that had the same condition. Don't you think they can be hurt by that implication? Yet I think you approve of a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, as do I.

I approve of a woman's right to choose if she wants to continue a pregnancy or not. The reason behind that decision is none of my business. I'm not advocating the abortion of all children with any condition. It is totally different to banning something which has already resulted in many much wanted and loved children.

I disagree that it is totally different, in fact I think it could be viewed as worse. You can't escape that the message given to these children is that their condition is valid grounds for denying others like them the right to life, to exist. Yes it's uncomfortable to acknowledge that you don't consider their hurt, their feelings of lack of worth, their questioning of their right to exist. I struggle to reconcile that with my support for a woman's right to choose. I still have an instinctive rejection of surrogacy. The baby has heard that woman's voice and heartbeat for 9 months, then they're taken away from that major source of comfort.

Who is giving any such message? Some women will cope with a child with Down's syndrome some women won't. Some women will cope with a child conceived by rape, some won't. The reason for any abortion is purely the business of the woman and her medical team, no one else.
No one is questioning the worth of a Downs syndrome child or their right to exist.
You seem to be creating subjects for arguments using statements that haven't been made.

I don't reject anything which has resulted in much wanted and loved children. Children who are usually not genetically related to the surrogate mother.
Children given up for adoption, children whose mothers die in childbirth, all are in the same position as surrogate children, all are loved and cared for and thrive.

Grannygravy

Many couples can't conceive without help

As long as the help is willing and able, no problem

Would you tell an infertile couple the must adopt because "facts" when actually there are alternate facts available?

Glorianny If you can't or won't see that society thinking it's perfectly reasonable to abort a baby solely because it will have Down syndrome gives a negative, hurtful message to a child with Down syndrome then I can't do anything about that.

Children given up for adoption, children whose mothers die in childbirth, all are in the same position as surrogate children, all are loved and cared for and thrive. while I wish that was true that all are loved and cared for and thrive, children given up for adoption or the much rarer ones whose mothers die in childbirth weren't created with the sole purpose of removing them from the woman who gestated them.

VioletSky

Grannygravy

Many couples can't conceive without help

As long as the help is willing and able, no problem

Would you tell an infertile couple the must adopt because "facts" when actually there are alternate facts available?

VioletSky biology is that you need sperm and an egg along with a uterus to produce a baby human, male + female.

Some couples need help, I would never say they shouldn’t have it.

I haven’t said who can and cannot have a child, just pointed out biological facts.

Medical intervention helps many couples, a child is a gift not a right.

You know just because we can doesn’t mean we should

Rosie51

Glorianny If you can't or won't see that society thinking it's perfectly reasonable to abort a baby solely because it will have Down syndrome gives a negative, hurtful message to a child with Down syndrome then I can't do anything about that.

Children given up for adoption, children whose mothers die in childbirth, all are in the same position as surrogate children, all are loved and cared for and thrive. while I wish that was true that all are loved and cared for and thrive, children given up for adoption or the much rarer ones whose mothers die in childbirth weren't created with the sole purpose of removing them from the woman who gestated them.

I don't think society thinks that. I think individual women can and should make their own decisions. Why is it more hurtful for Downs children to know some children with the condition are aborted, than for any child to know that some children are aborted?

Surrogate children are not "removed" from the mother at birth the mother gives the child to the genetic parents, just as a birth mother gives a child to adoptive parents.
Why is it wrong for a woman to offer to carry a child for two people who desperately want one?