[Betty Britain]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

but I think that gay people wanting children is a different matter. Gay couples may leave it a long time to have children in their lives because they have to consider the pitfalls of parenthood even more deeply than hetero couples, and they have no choice but to go down the surrogacy route.

A genuine question ...
I don't understand this part of your post... How is it different for gay parents

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by Betty Britain

A genuine question ...
I don't understand this part of your post... How is it different for gay parents

Because.....read the post.

I think I've worded it well enough for most people to understand.

[missfrankiecat]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

As I've said on another thread, my own mother was 33 when I was born, my sister was born 10 years later. My dad was two years older than my mum. My sister always felt that our parents were too old when she was born as they were sometimes mistaken for her grandparents. Their attitudes - which were very old fashioned - were shaped by WW2 in which they both served. My grandmother was born in 1890, and had my mother when she was over 30, which makes my sister and I only one generation removed from the Victorians.

I like to think that any child born to older parents today wouldn't feel like my sister did and still does, despite our parents both being dead for nearly 20 years. I don't believe in women of over 50 becoming mothers, but I think that gay people wanting children is a different matter. Gay couples may leave it a long time to have children in their lives because they have to consider the pitfalls of parenthood even more deeply than hetero couples, and they have no choice but to go down the surrogacy route.

I think I have real problems with applying different rules to men and women where social policy is concerned. If it is wrong for a woman to become a mother over a given age (presumably you mean by surrogacy, IVF or adoption) why is it right for a man to be treated differently? More particularly, given you seem to argue gay couples should be allowed to use surrogacy when older than straight couples, does this apply to lesbians in your argument (given what you have said about mothers?) See the difficulties? This would amount to (unlawful?) discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. ! have a lot of sympathy for gay couples who want to have a family life caring for a child but they do have choices other than paid surrogacy routes, such as adoption or fostering. I know professionally and personally many fantastic couples and single gay men and women who are wonderful care givers to children biologically unrelated to them. That doesn't mean that we should sanction paid renting of women's wombs (usually in third world countries for people who don't have Elton's wealth and influence).

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by missfrankiecat

I think I have real problems with applying different rules to men and women where social policy is concerned. If it is wrong for a woman to become a mother over a given age (presumably you mean by surrogacy, IVF or adoption) why is it right for a man to be treated differently? More particularly, given you seem to argue gay couples should be allowed to use surrogacy when older than straight couples, does this apply to lesbians in your argument (given what you have said about mothers?) See the difficulties? This would amount to (unlawful?) discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. ! have a lot of sympathy for gay couples who want to have a family life caring for a child but they do have choices other than paid surrogacy routes, such as adoption or fostering. I know professionally and personally many fantastic couples and single gay men and women who are wonderful care givers to children biologically unrelated to them. That doesn't mean that we should sanction paid renting of women's wombs (usually in third world countries for people who don't have Elton's wealth and influence).

So you don't agree with surrogacy full stop, or am I just being obtuse?

What if a gay couple want a child that is a part of their genetic heritage and don't wish to adopt or foster? It's very difficult for gay couples to do either from what I've heard. Your gay friends must live in a very rare local authority area where they are very willing to let them foster or adopt children.

[missfrankiecat]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

Because.....read the post.

I think I've worded it well enough for most people to understand.

Actually, I'm not sure I understand why you think gay people need longer to 'consider the pitfalls' of parenting than straight ones. I believe parenting is exactly the same for straight and gay people; sexuality is completely irrelevant to parenting capacity.

[DiamondDoll]

Originally Posted by missfrankiecat

I think I have real problems with applying different rules to men and women where social policy is concerned. If it is wrong for a woman to become a mother over a given age (presumably you mean by surrogacy, IVF or adoption) why is it right for a man to be treated differently? More particularly, given you seem to argue gay couples should be allowed to use surrogacy when older than straight couples, does this apply to lesbians in your argument (given what you have said about mothers?) See the difficulties? This would amount to (unlawful?) discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. ! have a lot of sympathy for gay couples who want to have a family life caring for a child but they do have choices other than paid surrogacy routes, such as adoption or fostering. I know professionally and personally many fantastic couples and single gay men and women who are wonderful care givers to children biologically unrelated to them. That doesn't mean that we should sanction paid renting of women's wombs (usually in third world countries for people who don't have Elton's wealth and influence).

Obviously I didn't have my first child aged fifty but my late husband did.
What is your stance on that one?
Was he too old to be a father in your opinion?

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by missfrankiecat

Actually, I'm not sure I understand why you think gay people need longer to 'consider the pitfalls' of parenting than straight ones. I believe parenting is exactly the same for straight and gay people; sexuality is completely irrelevant to parenting capacity.

Now I think it's you who are being obtuse.

If you're gay, you have to think about bringing a child into the world where their parents aren't the 'normal' family unit. One mum, one dad, in a usual family unit versus one of two mums/dads. This could be problematic for children when going to school and mixing with their peers, and something which doesn't happen in a family with two parents of different sexes.

Whilst some gay parents may not have problems, some might and I'd imagine it's something which has to be considered when deciding to become a gay parent.

[missfrankiecat]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

So you don't agree with surrogacy full stop, or am I just being obtuse?

What if a gay couple want a child that is a part of their genetic heritage and don't wish to adopt or foster? It's very difficult for gay couples to do either from what I've heard. Your gay friends must live in a very rare local authority area where they are very willing to let them foster or adopt children.

It is unlawful for any local authority to discriminate against gay people as adopters or fosterers. I work for several local authorities who are proactive in seeking gay and lesbian couples and individuals to adopt and especially foster. You don't want to believe everything you read in the papers!

I don't believe in paid surrogacy no. I simply don't understand how paying someone (usually desperate and in a third world country) to rent their womb is regarded with any less abhhorence than we would regard, for example. taking their kidney for payment (as opposed to willingly and freely for a friend or loved one donated).

[DiamondDoll]

Originally Posted by missfrankiecat

It is unlawful for any local authority to discriminate against gay people as adopters or fosterers. I work for several local authorities who are proactive in seeking gay and lesbian couples and individuals to adopt and especially foster. You don't want to believe everything you read in the papers!

I don't believe in paid surrogacy no. I simply don't understand how paying someone (usually desperate and in a third world country) to rent their womb is regarded with any less abhhorence than we would regard, for example. taking their kidney for payment (as opposed to willingly and freely for a friend or loved one donated).

Imho that is a whole new discussion and is irrelevant in this one.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by missfrankiecat

It is unlawful for any local authority to discriminate against gay people as adopters or fosterers. I work for several local authorities who are proactive in seeking gay and lesbian couples and individuals to adopt and especially foster. You don't want to believe everything you read in the papers!

I don't believe in paid surrogacy no. I simply don't understand how paying someone (usually desperate and in a third world country) to rent their womb is regarded with any less abhhorence than we would regard, for example. taking their kidney for payment (as opposed to willingly and freely for a friend or loved one donated).

OK, point taken re the LA's and adoption & fostering by gay couples. But that doesn't answer my question. What about couples who want their own children and not someone else's?

Do you think they shouldn't be able to have them if they can find a woman who'll act as a surrogate? I agree with DD, the BiB is totally outside the remit of this conversation and a different matter altogether.

[missfrankiecat]

Originally Posted by DiamondDoll

Obviously I didn't have my first child aged fifty but my late husband did.
What is your stance on that one?
Was he too old to be a father in your opinion?

The point is you weren't both over 50, so although one parent, the father, was older than might be considered optimum, one parent - significantly the mother who is usually the primary care giver - was not. Your children did not have two elderly parents and your children, despite having lost a loving father, still have you.

[missfrankiecat]

Originally Posted by DiamondDoll

Imho that is a whole new discussion and is irrelevant in this one.

May I ask why? It is in fact one of the policy reasons behind the law of surrogacy in the UK and the reason why we do not (generally) sanction surrogacy arrangments involving payment beyond medical expenses.

[missfrankiecat]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

OK, point taken re the LA's and adoption & fostering by gay couples. But that doesn't answer my question. What about couples who want their own children and not someone else's?

Do you think they shouldn't be able to have them if they can find a woman who'll act as a surrogate? I agree with DD, the BiB is totally outside the remit of this conversation and a different matter altogether.

My point is that I would support surrogacy arrangements where the donor mother (of the egg) and more particularly the surrogate mother (whose womb is used) enter into the arrangement for non commercial reasons. In other words, not for payment (other than reasonable expenses). Which is in fact the law here (as opposed to certain states in America - hence Elton's new residency there). That ensures the mother is not exploited, makes it more likely that she will play some part in the child's upbringing (because statistically she is likely to be related or a friend of the couple or individual) and at the very least the child will grow up knowing he or she was not 'bought'.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by missfrankiecat

May I ask why? It is in fact one of the policy reasons behind the law of surrogacy in the UK and the reason why we do not (generally) sanction surrogacy arrangments involving payment beyond medical expenses.

People aren't allowed to receive payment in this country in return for donation of organs either, so what point are you trying to make? .

Elton and David's surrogate is in the US, so UK laws don't apply anyway. We also don't know whether or not the mother of the children has contact. She may well do.

[Saltydog1955]

STOP PRESS! It's now being denied they've had a second child.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2447602.html

http://abcnewsradioonline.com/music-...rnish-hav.html

[missfrankiecat]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

OK, point taken re the LA's and adoption & fostering by gay couples. But that doesn't answer my question. What about couples who want their own children and not someone else's?

Do you think they shouldn't be able to have them if they can find a woman who'll act as a surrogate? I agree with DD, the BiB is totally outside the remit of this conversation and a different matter altogether.

On your first point, I hope you don't think me flippant to quote Mick Jagger - "You can't always get what you want"! Many of us want things - perfectly naturally but that doesn't necessarily justify using unconventional means to obtain them. I also think that those who feel unable to love and care for a child who needs them because he or she is not biologically theirs may not be totally cut out for real parenting (as opposed to just spreading their genes!)

[DiamondDoll]

Originally Posted by missfrankiecat

May I ask why? It is in fact one of the policy reasons behind the law of surrogacy in the UK and the reason why we do not (generally) sanction surrogacy arrangments involving payment beyond medical expenses.

Of course you may ask and of course I will answer.

Elton John and David Furnish are not running away to a third world country (your words btw) and exploiting someone.
I'm 100% certain that they have a legally binding business contract with someone and I just cannot compare that to someone selling a kidney for money to feed their children.

Its a nonsensical argument to say that my children still had me when their father died because, as I said earlier, tomorrow isn't promised to anyone..............least of all me.

My cousin and his wife were both killed in a carcrash and two teenagers were left without parents so age really doesn't come into it.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by missfrankiecat

On your first point, I hope you don't think me flippant to quote Mick Jagger - "You can't always get what you want"! Many of us want things - perfectly naturally but that doesn't necessarily justify using unconventional means to obtain them. I also think that those who feel unable to love and care for a child who needs them because he or she is not biologically theirs may not be totally cut out for real parenting (as opposed to just spreading their genes!)

Let me quote you something - 'Different strokes for different folks'. To say that because you might not be cut out for parenting because you want a child who's genetically connected to you is - imo and with respect - daft.

As the story now seems to have been denied (see ^) I'll bid you adieu.

[missfrankiecat]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

People aren't allowed to receive payment in this country in return for donation of organs either, so what point are you trying to make? .

Elton and David's surrogate is in the US, so UK laws don't apply anyway. We also don't know whether or not the mother of the children has contact. She may well do.

I was asked why I disagree with paid surrogacy; I explained the analogy with organ donation and you said it was irrelevant.

I am fully aware that the Elton arrangement is made in California and is legal there. I am explaining my ethical view - which is, incidentally the legal view here and in most of Europe as well as other states in America.

[The Prumeister]

Originally Posted by lexi22

BIB - I think that's unfair, Pru. And really, unless you know him, is just your perception of him. I don't know him and can only go by what he himself says about the effect parenthood has had on him, and that's that it's been an overwhelmingly grounding and lovely thing for him. Just my impresssion. That's he's in his 60s and a bit long in the tooth for it is a fact, but not one that - JMO - entitles people to think it's a shallow experience for him.

Of course it's my perception of him and of course I don't know him; as in everything on here, it is all based on opinion and perception. IMHO, Elton is a thoroughly spoiled man (you alluded to this earlier when mentioning his documentary) and whilst I don't doubt he has matured since then, I do personally think that he has the money to be able to think he can buy whatever the hell he likes - inlcuding children.

I don't think his age makes it a shallow experience for him - his temperament does that - but his age is something that should have made him stop and think. Some people don't have children earlier in life for whatever reason and then have left it too late; it's unfortunate - but we shouldn't embrace a society that just allows ANYONE to acquire children irrespective of age and personality.

[DiamondDoll]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

OK, point taken re the LA's and adoption & fostering by gay couples. But that doesn't answer my question. What about couples who want their own children and not someone else's?

Do you think they shouldn't be able to have them if they can find a woman who'll act as a surrogate? I agree with DD, the BiB is totally outside the remit of this conversation and a different matter altogether.

There has to be a first time for everything Saltydog.

[missfrankiecat]

Originally Posted by DiamondDoll

Of course you may ask and of course I will answer.

Elton John and David Furnish are not running away to a third world country (your words btw) and exploiting someone.
I'm 100% certain that they have a legally binding business contract with someone and I just cannot compare that to someone selling a kidney for money to feed their children.

Its a nonsensical argument to say that my children still had me when their father died because, as I said earlier, tomorrow isn't promised to anyone..............least of all me.

My cousin and his wife were both killed in a carcrash and two teenagers were left without parents so age really doesn't come into it.

I agree we have to disagree as it sounds as if you have a lot more inside knowledge than me about the woman involved in Elton's arrangement with the Californian agency and her personal circumstances. [BTW I have never suggested that Elton and David used a third world country for their arrangement - I am perfectly aware of the agency they used in California which is very well known - I mentioned in the context of my reasons for disliking these surrogacies that most of them in Europe use third world countries because they are much cheaper and most couples cannot afford to pay what Elton has paid for his child(ren)] Anywhoo ...

[DiamondDoll]

Originally Posted by missfrankiecat

I agree we have to disagree as it sounds as if you have a lot more inside knowledge than me about the woman involved in Elton's arrangement with the Californian agency and her personal circumstances. [BTW I have never suggested that Elton and David used a third world country for their arrangement - I am perfectly aware of the agency they used in California which is very well known - I mentioned in the context of my reasons for disliking these surrogacies that most of them in Europe use third world countries because they are much cheaper and most couples cannot afford to pay what Elton has paid for his child(ren)] Anywhoo ...

OK.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by The Prumeister

I don't think his age makes it a shallow experience for him - his temperament does that - but his age is something that should have made him stop and think. Some people don't have children earlier in life for whatever reason and then have left it too late; it's unfortunate - but we shouldn't embrace a society that just allows ANYONE to acquire children irrespective of age and personality.

He has a younger partner. It's not just about him, or what he wants.

Does that mean because Elton's older, that David should be deprived of the chance to have a child? If Elton was taken ill and died, David would be there. It's not just age related things that can deprive a child of a parent either. Accidents, car crashes etc can do the same.

[bbnutnut]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

He has a younger partner. It's not just about him, or what he wants.

Does that mean because Elton's older, that David should be deprived of the chance to have a child? If Elton was taken ill and died, David would be there. It's not just age related things that can deprive a child of a parent either. Accidents, car crashes etc can do the same.

BIB People paying a biological mother to give up her child are depriving that child of one of its parents on purpose.