Michael Cook, editor of the bioethics newsletter BioEdge and a columnist for Australian Science in the Brisbane Times:
In heterosexual relationships, the birth rate rises when couples are married. One would expect similar dynamics to apply to same-sex couples. For lesbian couples, this is not a huge problem; all they need is a sperm donor. But male couples need surrogate mothers.
Where will these women come from?
Unless the law of supply and demand is repealed, the answer is: where wombs are cheapest. At the moment, this is India, where surrogate motherhood has become a $2.3 billion industry, with the enthusiastic encouragement of some state governments. A recent investigation by the London Sunday Telegraph found there were only 100 surrogacies in Britain last year, but 1000 in India for British clients. The proportion in Australia is likely to be the same.
There are no official statistics, but it appears gay couples account for a substantial chunk of the overseas market. So will the legalisation of same-sex marriage lead to even more surrogate mothers in India? BioEdge, the bioethics newsletter I edit, emailed IVF clinics in India and the US asking whether they were preparing for a rising demand for surrogate mothers.
The answer was a resounding yes.
36 Comments
More children denied a parent. So sad for the children, but who cares as long as the homosexual boys get their new toy.
This quote from the piece is worth repeating:
"She's just like an easy-bake oven except with no legal rights to the cupcake," the surrogate-mother broker tells a gay couple.
The practice of manufacturing babies for the pleasure of adults is incredibly disturbing.
This practice is simply immoral. Children have the right to be born to a married mother & father who honor marriage vows with complete fidelity. Parents will be held accountable.
Held accountable how DOE? What are you going to do to them? Lay it on me.
I didn't notice in this post the apparently common practice of mixing the men's semen before impregnating the mother, thereby not only depriving the child of a mother but also denying the child the opportunity to know who his father is.
Disgusting, child abuse. No Happy Mother's Day, no Happy Father's Day, just Happy Homosexuals' Day.
DoE:
"Children have the right to be born to a married mother & father who honor marriage vows with complete fidelity."
Obviously, many children are deprived of this "right," the vast majority of whom have no gay parents. To make this the centerpiece of children's so called rights is misguided, in my view. I'm all for being faithful to one's comittments, and long term realtionships provide an amazing richness in a person's life. However, the mere fact that two heterosexual people marry and remain faithful simply does not assure that those same people are qualified to be great parents.
Is NOM going to start another group against all forms of reproductive techonogy, adoption, foster parenting, surrogacy, etc.? Perhaps a group against anything that helps a couple have a child? Go for it! Let's make it happen.
Ignorance is bliss for the opposition.
Let's pretend the child doesn't look exactly like one of the "donors."
Let's pretend there's no mother.
Let's pretend we're "married."
We used to call it psychotic.
OhMyWord, you mistake me. Accountability isn't made to me--it will be to God.
What am I going to do to them? Pray, of course.
That's great DOE. As long as you don't try and legislate some sort of 'Handmaid's Tale' on everyone, pray all you want. And be thankful you can control your own destiny (and body.)
Barb, you make it sound like 'manufacturing babies' is not pleasurable! LOL
Perhaps if no one found is pleasurable, no one would do it!
Oh yes, Overcame, sperm mixing seems to be pretty common for the male couples who use surrogates. But to follow what Barb said, what’s the point? As if the partners, the child, and others won’t know that the child resembles only one of the partners. Who do these people think they’re fooling? They are desperate, bordering on “psychotic,” in their attempts to imitate conjugal unions.
I am really curious to know if SSMers truly believe that two men getting eggs from one woman, mixing their sperm so that no one will know who the father is, implanting the fertilized egg into another woman (this is done so that the surrogate doesn’t decide to try and keep the child after giving birth), and then raising the child in the same-sex household, is “equal” to a man and a woman getting married, having sex, and the child that results being connected both legally and biologically to the people who created her.
And if SSMers have to reference infertile people who do these sorts of weird reproductive practices in heterosexual relationships, then that shows the reproductive methods of homosexual couples are *not* equal, because they only have even a whiff of legitimacy when compared to a heterosexual couple that has a biological problem. When everything is working properly with a man-woman union, homosexual unions don’t even come close to measuring up.
The LGBT lobby will never convince the vast majority of people that this is normal, worthy of celebration, or “equal” to normal human reproduction and child-rearing. I’m just in awe at the interracial marriage comparisons that are thrown about so much.
It is beyond me how they could possibly believe that the marriage of a man and woman who are of different races is comparable to the cruel joke of when same-sex couples try to imitate male-female unions in matters of reproduction.
Ash, are you against a single woman conceiving a child via sprem donation?
@OhMyWord, absolutely.
Good for you, Ash! I'm glad you're comfortable making that decision for women. Because clearly you know what's best for them. And who's going to make the best parent.
Maybe we should set up a national registry of 'qualified parents'? That is, limit childbirth to those people we would like to have children and sterilize the rest. You're a eugenicist and you didn't even know it! Good for you.
OhMyWord good for you. OhMyWord good for you. OhMyWord good for you. Good for you OhMyWord. You for good OhMyWord. Word for you good MyYou. Oh word for food MyGood. Good for you.
OhMy says to Ash: "Because clearly you know what's best for them. And who's going to make the best parent."
OhMy, you made me think of all of those brilliant women in black urban communities, all 70% of them who have children without husbands, a significant percentage of them and their children being supported by me. Yeah, they sure know what's best for them, as long as somebody else is paying for it. I'm with Ash on this one.
The bottom line is, that so long as society can end up on the hook paying for these kids and their brilliant moms, then society can make up rules to prevent them from having to do so. Oh, and lo and behold, there's already a solution: marriage.
LOL!
I can see that I'm arguing with an idiot.
As I'm sure anyone on this thread can see, I've never said anything about sterilization, or making decisions for anyone. Being opposed to someone making selfish decisions about children is not comparable to being a eugenicist. And no one is arguing about who can or cannot reproduce, but whether it's right to willfully bring children into certain circumstances--like a fatherless family.
But have your fun, "OhMyWord," if that's the best you can do.
Ash, you're right, I'm an idiot!
Now, when you say you're 'oppose to someone making selfish decisions about children' how far are you willing to take that? Perhaps outlawing sperm donation or single parenthood, in general?
OMW,
Don't expect much engagement from me on this blog. I've dealt with your type before; and while at once it was exhilarating, now, I'm over it.
People like you are incapable of meaningful discussion. The more someone indulges your comments, the worse you get. After a particularly stupid comment, rude remark, or egregious act of behavior, people like you will then try to ask a serious question to lure a person back into your foolishness.
Not going to happen with me! If you truly wanted an answer from me for your question, you should have asked it before comment #14.
Buh-bye.
OhMyWord
The Handmaid's Tale was a novel warning about the reproductive exploitation of women.
Margaret Atwood just envisioned it would be at the hands of Christian"Theocrats" not secular humanists. Oops.
And who is arguing against adoption? Only in your feverish little mind is there a comparison between commercial conception/ surrogacy and adoption.
Ash, might I remind you, YOU called me and 'idiot'! So funny...
I'm with you, Ash. The opposition has a notable propensity toward extremism. You make an intelligent comment about baby manufacturing and you're promptly accused of being a eugenicist.
This is no different than the opposition's fondness for equating marriage support for bigotry. It's nothing more than a technique they use to garner support from those who don't recognize it for what it is.
Better to ignore people who try to act as if they want a real conversation.
Amen, Barb, and great points.
You get one OMW type on this blog, and a few marriage supporters willing to engage, then you'll have a thread full of comments where marriage supporters are running round and round a barn, fighting off accusations of "bigotry," correcting the most base of falsehoods and remarks, and then leaving the discussion frustrated.
As soon as an SSMer shows you their idiot calling card, best to put on brakes and back out the conversation. Marriage supporters shouldn't waste their thoughts on people like that.
Same-sex “marriage” & gay parenting encourages treating children like consumer goods. That this in turn is built on the backs of brown women is no surprise.
When you divorce marriage from procreation and treat the natural family as only one acceptable form amoung many you court adult satisfaction and not responsible procreation.
This newest manifistation same-sex "marrage" & parenting uses third world economics to “outsorce” the literal “labor” of poor women at rock bottom pricing.
So Barb, do you support the right of a single woman to choose to have a child via sperm donation? Or are you going to say 'NO' like Ash?
"So Barb, do you support the right of a single woman to choose to have a child via sperm donation?"
You're asking the wrong question.
Here's a hint: why she doesn't get pregnant the normal way?
OhMyWord--Count on me voting, if given the chance....Faith without works is dead, you know.
Oh, and did I mention becoming a lobbyist for a family friendly NGO?
Manufacturing a baby for a couple that cannot (or will not) provide both a married mother and father for the baby should be considered human trafficking, and should be banned.
An anti-gay group is calling for a boycott of Ryan Murphy’s upcoming NBC comedy The New Normal.
http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/07/20/new-normal-protest/?hpt=hp_t2
What if science figures out how to take an in vetro egg and somehow implant it into man. Would that make it any better than "using" a woman to be a surrogate?
@Peter Thomas,
"An anti-gay group is calling for a boycott of Ryan Murphy’s upcoming NBC comedy The New Normal."
Thank you for making me aware of 'One Million Moms.' I will be adding them to my acceptable charities list which includes NOM, ADF, and Protect Marriage.
Peter Thomas
Your hypothetical:
First, the child needs oxygen and nutrients to survive, so a uterus would need to be implanted for the placenta to attach. Otherwise it would attach to vital organs and kill the man. Medications necessary to prevent transplant rejection would harm the child. Female hormones would have to be taken to maintain the pregnancy.
Is any of this medically sound and therefor ethical? No.
More and more convinced that gay marriage is no more about redefining marriage than removing the rights to reproduce from biological parents to arbitrary entities(not excluding the state).