‘We are expected to be OK with not having children’: how gay parenthood through surrogacy became a battleground

[DreamKing]

Who said it was a disease? It is a condition, the condition of infertility.

so you are going to bring your sex toy to your local hospital to treat the condition of infertility?

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Who said it was a disease? It is a condition, the condition of infertility.

Except it's not infertility. You can cum into a cup and fertilise an egg in a lab. If your sperm is fertile, you are fertile...

 

[Cosmik Debris]

You guys keep saying "not be able to pro-create" but there are surrogates for everyone, there are complicated relationships out there and even some biological females will get ****ed over by nature and not be able to reproduce.

The problem is you want me to pay for others' complicated relationships. I'm not willing to.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Dear CD, doesn't this go against what you said earlier that exclusively homosexual people do not marry and have children?

How could he be exclusively homosexual if he married and had children?

 

[Lucas Buck]

Who said it was a disease? It is a condition, the condition of infertility.

Who says it is.

As in the World Health Organisation

 

[SlinkyMike]

Except it's not infertility. You can cum into a cup and fertilise an egg in a lab. If your sperm is fertile, you are fertile...

Yea, I'm not saying it is the status quo, I am saying there are ways this can work for aspiring same sex parents and for capitalism. Do not see the issue but then again I don't have any hangups regarding gay people which is what pretty clearly delineated the folks who have an issue with this on this forum at any rate.

Strange how the same people who come here to gaybash ten times a day in the gender "debate" thread are the same ones finding all sorts of "economic" foibles with this.

Not accusing you BTW just an observation.

Who says it is.

As in the World Health Organisation

I do. You were putting words in my mouth and you have been corrected. Dafuq does the WHO have to do with your inability to read good?

 

[AstroTurf]

Simple solution: Find some nice Mexican, Canadian, or South African girl looking for a green card.

Get married as a throuple in Somerville, Have the baby using a turkey baster, get her marriage citizenship and win win all round.

As an added bonus baby can get real mothers milk.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Yea, I'm not saying it is the status quo, I am saying there are ways this can work for aspiring same sex parents and for capitalism. Do not see the issue but then again I don't have any hangups regarding gay people which is what pretty clearly delineated the folks who have an issue with this on this forum at any rate.

Strange how the same people who come here to gaybash ten times a day in the gender "debate" thread are the same ones finding all sorts of "economic" foibles with this.

Not accusing you BTW just an observation.


I do. You were putting words in my mouth and you have been corrected. Dafuq does the WHO have to do with your inability to read good?

The only issue I have is the economic one. If a medical aid agrees to cover a 3rd party who isn't contributing to the scheme, that cost would get passed onto me. Gay or straight, I don't care, I'd be pissed. Have no issues with gay couples doing this if they're paying for it.

With that said, how do gay couples decide whose genes get poked into the egg. I imagine that would make for some amusing arguments...

 

[Lucas Buck]

I do. You were putting words in my mouth and you have been corrected. Dafuq does the WHO have to do with your inability to read good?

You were saying that by definition a gay couple is infertile. WHO defines infertility as a disease and not a condition of infertility. What dafuqs so hard to comprehend.

 

[Kieppie]

The only issue I have is the economic one. If a medical aid agrees to cover a 3rd party who isn't contributing to the scheme, that cost would get passed onto me. Gay or straight, I don't care, I'd be pissed. Have no issues with gay couples doing this if they're paying for it.
With that said, how do gay couples decide whose genes get poked into the egg. I imagine that would make for some amusing arguments...

The top obviously.. The bottom is infertile

 

[Lucas Buck]

The only issue I have is the economic one. If a medical aid agrees to cover a 3rd party who isn't contributing to the scheme, that cost would get passed onto me. Gay or straight, I don't care, I'd be pissed. Have no issues with gay couples doing this if they're paying for it.

With that said, how do gay couples decide whose genes get poked into the egg. I imagine that would make for some amusing arguments...

The issue has never been that people don't want gay couples to use surrogates. There are medical insurance specifically tailored towards surrogacy. If you want an option not covered as part of you health insurance then pay for it yourself. Why should insurance that doesn't provide that kind of cover be forced to do so if the financial cost is not worth it for them.
I personally think that the surrogate should have their own insurance as they are the ones providing the service. The costs of which should not be passed on to anyone outside of them and possibly the couple using their service.

 

[RiaX]

What kind of argument is that? Why not get off your computer then and go make grunts and noises at a person in front of you like any other animal?

It's called talking. You don't do that ?

 

[rh1]

I said they cannot.

I have never seen 2 male / 2 female of humans can have a baby without technology (ie in nature). if you don't take the sperm / egg from other person, how can you have a child? anyone can answer that?

I was replying to Incipium, who claimd that New York City says they cannot as a gay couple have children, which is not the case.

Yep, no matter how they spin it, a biological woman is needed in their case.

 

[Nerfherder]

Except it's not infertility. You can cum into a cup and fertilise an egg in a lab. If your sperm is fertile, you are fertile...

"fertility issues"

Low sperm count, softcock, dud eggs... etc

The only issue I have is the economic one. If a medical aid agrees to cover a 3rd party who isn't contributing to the scheme, that cost would get passed onto me. Gay or straight, I don't care, I'd be pissed. Have no issues with gay couples doing this if they're paying for it.

and then with NHS ? Its a tough one but then we will end up paying for all sorts of things we don't agree with anyway.

With that said, how do gay couples decide whose genes get poked into the egg. I imagine that would make for some amusing arguments...

We know a dyke couple who each had a baby from the same donor so the kids are brothers with different mothers.
Men can do a similar thing or the sperm can just fight it out in the test tube.

To me its much of a muchness if a gay couple do it or a straight couple.

 

[SlinkyMike]

You were saying that by definition a gay couple is infertile. WHO defines infertility as a disease and not a condition of infertility. What dafuqs so hard to comprehend.

The point is that change is needed. Example: "WHO defines infertility as a disease " ...someone gets a hysterectomy. Is "has undergone a hysterectomy" a disease? That person is infertile, are they suffering from a disease? It's fine for things to be out of date, require nuance, etc. But making "the gays" the focus of this is fscking nonsense. The are many use cases for this kind of refactoring. Again: they all result in more of capitalism so whats the boggle?

Look, if you have an issue with same sex couples just say that. This pedantry is transparent and really a waste of both our time.

The only issue I have is the economic one. If a medical aid agrees to cover a 3rd party who isn't contributing to the scheme, that cost would get passed onto me. Gay or straight, I don't care, I'd be pissed. Have no issues with gay couples doing this if they're paying for it.

They must contribute.

With that said, how do gay couples decide whose genes get poked into the egg. I imagine that would make for some amusing arguments...

Interesting question. I think that there may options, perhaps one of them is 'lucky dip' where you put the **** in a blender first?

 

[Lucas Buck]

The point is that change is needed. Example: "WHO defines infertility as a disease " ...someone gets a hysterectomy. Is "has undergone a hysterectomy" a disease? That person is infertile, are they suffering from a disease? It's fine for things to be out of date, require nuance, etc. But making "the gays" the focus of this is fscking nonsense. The are many use cases for this kind of refactoring. Again: they all result in more of capitalism so whats the boggle?

Look, if you have an issue with same sex couples just say that. This pedantry is transparent and really a waste of both our time.


They must contribute.


Interesting question. I think that there may options, perhaps one of them is 'lucky dip' where you put the **** in a blender first?

These two guys made “the gays” the focus on this nonsense. When they claimed that there was discrimination because they’re gay. If you were to use your analogy of a woman who is sterile. Then there would be single women, single men, lesbians and heterosexual couples in the same position as them. This is not a gay issue, they made it into one.

A woman that had a hysterectomy would be considered sterile as she cannot conceive. Such a person would fall within the same category as anyone else who can’t conceive. And would have to make use of a surrogate.

You keep on speaking of capitalism as if capitalism isn’t at work here. There are companies that are providing medical insurance specifically for this service. Those that are not are not doing it for anti-gay reasons. The reason may actually be …what is that word again. Oh yes, capitalism and more capitalism.

 

[MilitantNightElf]

This 33 year old bachelor is straight and OK with not having kids. Not having children is FAR! from the worst thing that can happen to a person.

 

[konfab]

Dear MyBigotband.

You have all played to the tune of my flute. As predicted.

The satisfaction of seeing you lose your mind over gay people yet again is truly hilarious.

Keep it up and good job.

 

[G'Wobblez]

The big question is.. do you identify as a woman.
And if you do does your medical aid then cover the surrogacy?

Then its easy.
Just say you Identify as a woman.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

The big question is.. do you identify as a woman.
And if you do does your medical aid then cover the surrogacy?

Then its easy.
Just say you Identify as a woman.

No, the big question is:

Does he have XX or XY chromosomes? His chromosomes don't care what he believes and XX can't fall pregnant.
So why should his insurance pay when he can't conceive?