There's that too. I still don't think that it's right for gay couples to have children....yet. It seems wicked and selfish to bring a child into a world of bullying and exclusion by others because of having two dads or two mums.
I know someone who was brought up by two mothers and I'm sure they'd prefer to be alive than not given the opportunity because of possible prejudice from others...
She'll probably turn out to be a lesbian, or maybe even transexual.:mad: Poor lass, her life was ruined:rolleyes::(
Nope, she had a boyfriend when the article was written 2 years ago. But then, you probably think that people choose their sexuality, rather than being born with it.
I'll admit that some people choose to have same-sex relations because they've never been strongly attracted to people of the opposite sex and therefore think they might be gay but I don't think the majority of gay men would choose to be gay unless they had strong feelings towards people of the same sex.
We do know that the average sperm count is going down at the moment, so for all we know, this might be having an effect in other areas.
I think it's lovely and I'm very pleased for them. They obviously wanted this child very much to go to such lengths.
It's an admirable thing for the surrogate mother to do also.
As for Elton John dying while the child is young, all parents run that risk.
I can't see why it bothers so many people. Babies and children are born into the most horrendous circumstances the world over, being abused, starved, suffering in pain from diseases that could be easily cured in the Western world.
This child is desperately wanted, unlike thousands that are born every year.
All parents do run that risk, but it is obviously much more likely in their case.
I do feel that they would probably have had a child by now if they had really wanted one. People who don't have children by the traditional route still have kids for a vast number of reasons, many of them selfish in nature.
If Elton finds it difficult to cope, then he can always hire a nanny or whatever, like many of the other celebs. The child won't want for anything in terms of material goods. I'm not sure how grounded he will be when he grows up though.
That bullying and exclusion, prejudice and bitchy whispers of course no doubt purpourtraitehd by people like yourself.
We've reached a point now where the 'I don't think that...'s', are thankfully ignored.
My nephew, I found out over Xmas, has a boy with two same-sex female parents in his class. His Dad, who already know and had a few jokes preprepared, sniggered away whilst his son at the age of 11 got quite annoyed at his Dad for caring about it.
I despise this pretense that we live in a country filled with prejudice in this respect just to fan the flames of the argument of people like yourselves.
I'm not saying bigotry doesn't exist. However the time has come to actually face up to reality and accept that for most people it isn't a big deal at all. All this "oh no we mustn't just in case..." attitude will set us back and keep us their far longer than any prejudice does.
Congratulations to both of them! I don't see a problem with it at all, the little fella will undoubtedly be surrounded by people (young and and old) who love him very much, he'll have a lovely life.
Because there is something inherently unnatural about having a baby with the sole purpose of having nothing to do with it.
I can understand people having an unwanted pregnancy and deciding on adoption, that's different.
But to get deliberately pregnant with a baby you want absolutely nothing to do with is wrong.
How is that fair on the baby to be rejected by the woman who carried them from pre conception nevermind at birth or even during the pregnancy?
She may not have had any biological attatchement to the baby though, she was just a womb to grow him in. how can it be wrong when he is a much wanted baby? so many young girls have babies and dont really want them, they have taken the time to do this, and the baby will be loved and cared for.
The baby was not rejected, he was born from a couple loving each other so much and wanting to give a baby a wonderful life.
I see that as a totally different situation though, David had family, he was a child in his own right,she ripped him away from his family and culture because she wanted a 'brahn' baby a la Waynetta.
This baby has been born from surrogacy, a planned pregnancy with possibly sperm from one of the fathers and possibly a donated egg, it has no family to be dragged away from and has no knowledge of family or culture.
Madonna's baby was in an orphanage wasn't it? The family had already rejected it.
The baby was already born and in need, not created to be purchased by a rich old man's to satisfy his whims.
She may not have had any biological attatchement to the baby though, she was just a womb to grow him in. how can it be wrong when he is a much wanted baby? so many young girls have babies and dont really want them, they have taken the time to do this, and the baby will be loved and cared for.
The baby was not rejected, he was born from a couple loving each other so much and wanting to give a baby a wonderful life.
The baby was rejected by its mother.
That's just a fact.
To see a woman's womb as another detached part of her that just functions to reproduce for whoever has the money to buy one, to me is Frankenstinean.
Add in to that mix that at least one of the couple probably only has a 50 50 chance of making it until the child reaches adulthood, then what you have is a rich selfish old man who can meet his needs by buying a baby.
If it were a young couple I'd feel a lot more at ease about this but put creating a baby for a man who will in all likelihood be dead by the time the child is an adult and it's just wrong.
Madonna's baby was in an orphanage wasn't it? The family had already rejected it.
The baby was already born and in need, not created to be purchased by a rich old man's to satisfy his whims.
The baby was taken out of his culture and away from extended family who had contact with him, all on the whim of a scraggy old woman who wanted to buy a brahn baybee, see? it works both ways.
What Madge did was unforgivable, what Elton has done is , IMO beautiful and loving.
To see a woman's womb as another detached part of her that just functions to reproduce for whoever has the money to buy one, to me is Frankenstinean.
I think you wil find that Davids mother had died. the father knew where the baby was but could not look after him, would it not have been better for Madonna to pay for the child to stay with his family and in his own country?
The baby was taken out of his culture and away from extended family who had contact with him, all on the whim of a scraggy old woman who wanted to buy a brahn baybee, see? it works both ways.
What Madge did was unforgivable, what Elton has done is , IMO beautiful and loving.
Creating a baby that you probably wont be around to bring up to adulthood beautiful and loving. One mans' beautiful and loving is another man's selfish loss of sense as to the needs of the baby.
The baby's extended family either couldn't or wouldn't look after her, she was in an orphanage, that's for babies with family who can't or won't look after them. No ripping gong on there if that's the case.
Yes she's lost the right to live in her culture, but perhaps she was saved from it. It does reek of designer babies but at least she took a child who was suffering away from that.
I don't agree though that the rules should have been broken for her.
The baby was rejected by its mother.
That's just a fact.
Giving something up is not necessarily rejection.
To see a woman's womb as another detached part of her that just functions to reproduce for whoever has the money to buy one, to me is Frankenstinean.
It's the ultimate selfless act and should be commended not condemned.
Add in to that mix that at least one of the couple probably only has a 50 50 chance of making it until the child reaches adulthood, then what you have is a rich selfish old man who can meet his needs by buying a baby.
Alternatively, you have a stable couple who can provide a child with a loving home. Damn Elton for being so selfish as to want to provide financially and emotionally and physically for a child that is not of his own blood.
If it were a young couple I'd feel a lot more at ease about this but put creating a baby for a man who will in all likelihood be dead by the time the child is an adult and it's just wrong.
So, this has more to do with age than the principle? Fair enough.
Elton John isn't that old now and is not that much more likely to die before the baby is an adult than the rest of us.
Lots of people die when their children are young. That's life, or rather, death. It's a lottery.
There's that too. I still don't think that it's right for gay couples to have children....yet. It seems wicked and selfish to bring a child into a world of bullying and exclusion by others because of having two dads or two mums.
On that point I disagree, a child can be bullied for any reason and having gay parents isn't going to make that more or less likely.
If Sir Elton is the biological father, which I'd wager a bet he is, he has risked the health of the child by having a baby at his age.
QUOTE
The results reinforced that men, like women, are less likely to produce healthy children as they advance in age.
The difference however was that in the case of men, the reduction was not in the quantity of sperm they could produce but in its quality. The older men were observed to have almost five times more cases of fragmentation in their DNA – thereby increasing risks of infertility significantly.
Babies fathered by them were also more likely to suffer from achondroplasia, a kind of dwarfism caused by mutation in genes.
In fact, this risk was found to increase at the rate of two percent every year making 40 year old men twice as prone to fathering children with achondroplasia compared to 20 year old men.
Sperm produced by older men also reduced chances of a sustained, complications-free pregnancy for the woman.
These findings, which were published in the on-line edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Nevertheless, as Dr Andrew Wyrobek who led the study pointed out, men who become fathers late significantly increase the risks of conception and pregnancy related problems as well as of producing children with genetic defects.
Comments
I know someone who was brought up by two mothers and I'm sure they'd prefer to be alive than not given the opportunity because of possible prejudice from others...
Nope, she had a boyfriend when the article was written 2 years ago. But then, you probably think that people choose their sexuality, rather than being born with it.
I'll admit that some people choose to have same-sex relations because they've never been strongly attracted to people of the opposite sex and therefore think they might be gay but I don't think the majority of gay men would choose to be gay unless they had strong feelings towards people of the same sex.
We do know that the average sperm count is going down at the moment, so for all we know, this might be having an effect in other areas.
All parents do run that risk, but it is obviously much more likely in their case.
I do feel that they would probably have had a child by now if they had really wanted one. People who don't have children by the traditional route still have kids for a vast number of reasons, many of them selfish in nature.
If Elton finds it difficult to cope, then he can always hire a nanny or whatever, like many of the other celebs. The child won't want for anything in terms of material goods. I'm not sure how grounded he will be when he grows up though.
In saying that, I hope it all works out for them.
This was great and I agree with you completely.
Well he is.
Seconded.
I wish them a happy life together! Finally ome good news for a change, amongst all the doom and gloom.
Care to elaborate?
Because there is something inherently unnatural about having a baby with the sole purpose of having nothing to do with it.
I can understand people having an unwanted pregnancy and deciding on adoption, that's different.
But to get deliberately pregnant with a baby you want absolutely nothing to do with is wrong.
How is that fair on the baby to be rejected by the woman who carried them from pre conception nevermind at birth or even during the pregnancy?
Isn't it just, if you don't agree with a 63 year old man buying a baby via a surrogate then you must be a homophobe.
Madness!
She may not have had any biological attatchement to the baby though, she was just a womb to grow him in. how can it be wrong when he is a much wanted baby? so many young girls have babies and dont really want them, they have taken the time to do this, and the baby will be loved and cared for.
The baby was not rejected, he was born from a couple loving each other so much and wanting to give a baby a wonderful life.
Madonna's baby was in an orphanage wasn't it? The family had already rejected it.
The baby was already born and in need, not created to be purchased by a rich old man's to satisfy his whims.
The baby was rejected by its mother.
That's just a fact.
To see a woman's womb as another detached part of her that just functions to reproduce for whoever has the money to buy one, to me is Frankenstinean.
Add in to that mix that at least one of the couple probably only has a 50 50 chance of making it until the child reaches adulthood, then what you have is a rich selfish old man who can meet his needs by buying a baby.
If it were a young couple I'd feel a lot more at ease about this but put creating a baby for a man who will in all likelihood be dead by the time the child is an adult and it's just wrong.
The baby was taken out of his culture and away from extended family who had contact with him, all on the whim of a scraggy old woman who wanted to buy a brahn baybee, see? it works both ways.
What Madge did was unforgivable, what Elton has done is , IMO beautiful and loving.
I think you wil find that Davids mother had died. the father knew where the baby was but could not look after him, would it not have been better for Madonna to pay for the child to stay with his family and in his own country?
Creating a baby that you probably wont be around to bring up to adulthood beautiful and loving. One mans' beautiful and loving is another man's selfish loss of sense as to the needs of the baby.
The baby's extended family either couldn't or wouldn't look after her, she was in an orphanage, that's for babies with family who can't or won't look after them. No ripping gong on there if that's the case.
Yes she's lost the right to live in her culture, but perhaps she was saved from it. It does reek of designer babies but at least she took a child who was suffering away from that.
I don't agree though that the rules should have been broken for her.
I'm not convinced you aren't just a WUM.
I'm convinced that the poster is a WUM.
Elton John isn't that old now and is not that much more likely to die before the baby is an adult than the rest of us.
Lots of people die when their children are young. That's life, or rather, death. It's a lottery.
On that point I disagree, a child can be bullied for any reason and having gay parents isn't going to make that more or less likely.
If Sir Elton is the biological father, which I'd wager a bet he is, he has risked the health of the child by having a baby at his age.
QUOTE
The results reinforced that men, like women, are less likely to produce healthy children as they advance in age.
The difference however was that in the case of men, the reduction was not in the quantity of sperm they could produce but in its quality. The older men were observed to have almost five times more cases of fragmentation in their DNA – thereby increasing risks of infertility significantly.
Babies fathered by them were also more likely to suffer from achondroplasia, a kind of dwarfism caused by mutation in genes.
In fact, this risk was found to increase at the rate of two percent every year making 40 year old men twice as prone to fathering children with achondroplasia compared to 20 year old men.
Sperm produced by older men also reduced chances of a sustained, complications-free pregnancy for the woman.
These findings, which were published in the on-line edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Nevertheless, as Dr Andrew Wyrobek who led the study pointed out, men who become fathers late significantly increase the risks of conception and pregnancy related problems as well as of producing children with genetic defects.
UNQUOTE
Still beautiful and unselfish?