And I suppose you have an intimate knowledge of what Elton and David are thinking? If they want a child, and have love to give, why not have one?
In your opinion how will the child be deprived of either love or material things?
I don't have any more intimate knowledge of Elton and David's thoughts than you. Obviously they want a child and think they will love him or her - I just don't think that is the question we as a society should be asking when sanctioning the renting of wombs for money to buy babies. I think we should have regard to a child's needs and welfare through out his/her minority. We have rules in this country for the maximum age when couples or individuals, gay or straight, are permitted to adopt or, in the case of IVF, become mothers. They are not designed arbitrarily but because a child needs love, not just expressed as passing sentimentality, but in selfless care through infancy and adolescence, stability and boundaries. Of course, some parents die young or become ill but statistically, the chances of losing a parent at psychologically significant ages are massively increased if a parent is aged 50 or over, leaving aside the fact that the generation gap is significantly out of kilter. These two children will, as a fact, have both parents who are OAPs when they are young adolescents. One parent is highly unlikely (bearing in mind his health) to live to see them grow up. I add to that the fact that surrogacy raises significant psychological issues surrounding identity which are poorly understood at present (because surrogacy is a relatively new phenomenon) but, on the limited research we have suggest that such children are at increased risk of mental health problems and conduct disorders in adolescence. I personally think these factors are rather more important than the material advantages that wealthy people who can afford to buy children in middle and old age can offer, whatever 'loving' things they say!