if you are gay, will you use the surrogacy/donor option??
 

after reading comments from UKT and Black Dagger about gay men being able to have children via surrogacy etc on another thread, I was wondering if TiBB's gay members men or women, are planning to use this as an 'option' in the future?

discuss

I would like to think that it would be an option readily accepted in the future.

I do plan on adopting when I am finally in a happy relationship and I doubt I will worry about the consequences of 'he/she will get bullied' children are ruthless, and of course I'd want them to be happy, but at the end of the day they would have two Dad's who love them to bits... as long as I protected them I'd know I'd do the right thing.

Im not gay but I think two gay fathers>a chavvy mother who spends all the welfare on drink

Adopting probably, if I settled down with a guy :laugh:

Any child is lucky to have two parents who love them....other kids are cruel and it could be something they get teased for....but so could having red hair, glasses or not the right pair of trainers....love is the most important. A friend of mines sister and her wife have just had a baby and everyone has been very supportive....

yeah this is something I want to do

but I'd also love to adopt.

Yes, I will be very happy with a child in 50 years time.

Sorry for trolling but someone had to say it lol.

I'd adopt, most probably.

I'd definitely adopt. I find the whole idea of needing to spread your genes perverse.

I hope that in the future all children are made in labs by the government, and only qualified responsible people are allowed to raise children. There would be a whole program. And only people that have no history of violence, have the proper means to support children, and took at least 2 years of child care training would be allowed to adopt.

I don't think having children is a human right.

Thats nothing short of insanity are you really that far gone that you believe that or are you just playing devils advocate?

I prefer to think its the latter if not enjoy your eugenics the Nazi's loved the idea.

You are such a silly sometimes alex :joker:

Flaw in your rationale here: without the need for others to 'spread their genes'.... there would be no children to adopt - for anyone.

As for the lab comments..... I've read some whacky ideas on here - but this beats them all.

I do agree that having a child should not be a human right. I also think that yes, 2 parents (regardless of gender/sexuality) is better than one ideally but one parent - gay or not - can be as good (if not better) a parent as any other out there.

Beats the hell out of me why there are those in society who are so against gays adopting/surrogating a child - some people do want to care, love and nurture and give a good home and family life to those so very less fortunate: and it should matter not a jot if they are gay.

Think about it this way, how many years of school is required for someone to be a dentist? someone who just works on your teeth. How many years of training are required to be a parent? the most important job on the planet.

There's something wrong in that equation.

I think that at puberty all children should have eggs or sperm extracted and put on freeze. Then the government would choose the best donors genetically, and then surrogates would be used to cary the children, then once the child is born, the child would go to an appropriate couple to be adopted. There would only be children created for the number of qualified parents available. No parents would ever raise their own biological children.

i think that would be a good system. Eventually I think science will advance to the point where we don't even need surrogates, we will be able to develop the embryo's in synthetic wombs.

I'm not entirely clear what ''how many years training does it take to become a parent'' has to do with, "If you are gay, will you use the surrogacy / donor option" - which is what the thread is about.:conf:

I'm talking about adopting period. sexuality is irrelevant. I'm looking at the bigger picture. Adoption, surrogacy, procreation in general. The conversation has obviously evolved. Do try to keep up.

Talking of keeping up... and of procreation - without which there would be no adoptions etc.

How do you propose that adoptees are made available if people don't want to spread their genes (even via test tubes....you still need the raw material).

Sexuality is VERY relevant given the nature of the thread. ;)

like i said, if there was an agency that had samples of sperm and eggs from everyone, that agency could then choose the best combinations, with no thought put into who those sample came from. procreation is just as possible without any kind of sex. You do realize that sex has nothing to do with procreation anymore right? It won't be long before IVF is more common than sexual conception in the western world.

There is nothing special about heterosexual sex. IVF has nothing to do with sexual intercourse gay or straight at all.

That's the thing about 'if'..... they don't always produce the results.

Hetrosexual sex ...nothing special about the sexual act perhaps if comparing the actual act itself ....but there most definitely is something special in respect of the results - without which, there would be no children to adopt.

You've not thought this one out at all really. But of course....you know that. ;)

children from IVF would be just as adoptable, so i don't know what you are talking about.

i said, at puberty, sperm and eggs would be taken from everyone, i think i forgot to then mention that everyone would then be sterilized after that. Everyone would be sterilized in the same way we all get polio vaccines. So everyone would be adopting. It would be impossible for anyone to procreate through sex. That was probably an important detail i left out.

But yea, all people would be incapable of having children through intercourse, and everyone would have to APPLY to adopt through that government agency, and only the most qualified people would be allowed to raise the next generation of children. The WHOLE POINT being that only qualified capable parents would be raising children.

[QUOTE=lostalex;5498959]children from IVF would be just as adoptable, so i don't know what you are talking about.

i said, at puberty, sperm and eggs would be taken from everyone, i think i forgot to then mention that everyone would then be sterilized after that. Everyone would be sterilized in the same way we all get polio vaccines. So everyone would be adopting. It would be impossible for anyone to procreate through sex. That was probably an important detail i left out.

But yea, all people would be incapable of having children through intercourse, and everyone would have to APPLY to adopt through that government agency, and only the most qualified people would be allowed to raise the next generation of children. The WHOLE POINT being that only qualified capable parents would be



Nothing gives anyone the right to take away a person's right to bear children....especially the government - who would deem that people are qualified enough? This is life - not a film.....

The problem with the IVF procedures and advancements is that Mother Nature is very advanced in determining viable pregnancies and IVF procedures do not recognise this therefore increasing birth defects, women would have to have hormone treatments to produce eggs as we only produce one a month naturally (these hormone drugs increase the risks of numerous cancers) plus who would foot the expense of all these IVF cycles. IVF also has a massive failure rate.

Also what about diseases etc that require certain treatments that can be sourced from immediate family members - bone marrow etc? If no-one carries their biological children this makes finding donors much harder

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/privat...8_Eugenics.jpg
You do realise the idea behind this kind of thing was to breed the gay out of the population as well as the colour.
Alex you are a strange breed

I said that EVERYONE would be sterilized,. so OBVIOUSLY there is no discrimination! so it's nothing like the Nazi's at all. The Nazis were trying to eradicate people based on discrimination. MY system has no discrimination based on race, or religion, or ethnicity, or sexuality, or anything else. So how is it like the Nazis? It's not.

Eugenics alex style :joker: a new world..
How sensible

people should be able to shag and have kids, none of this lab nonsense

you guys just don't see the bigger picture.

I'm not sure I agree with the 'having a child is not a right' argument. It's not like a particular child, born into a difficult family environment ever had a chance to be born in a good environment to different parents in a different relationship!

We cannot pick and chose who create us, we are either created or not. The question is, is despite being born in an awful family without love or caring, would those that found themselves in that position still choose life, or would they choose never to have existed at all. Those are the only two possibilities that can ever have existed.

Back on topic, I personally think it's blooming marvellous that these days homosexual couples can adopt or even create children (given surrogacy). Good on them and may the force be with them as far as I'm concerned.

So you want others to be forced to give their sperm and eggs.... dear god.

Adopt your own child - or be forced to accept the genes of others....... has to be one of the most laughable ideas I've heard - but you've fair made me smile on this thread - I'll give you that! :D

For those who that the thread applies to and who are saying they'd like to go down the surrogacy route: would you prefer a person 'unknown' or would you prefer for it to be someone that you know and trust?

why are you asking people obviously i've designed the system to avoid all of the selfishness, and tribalism that is inherent in people's small minded opinions. the genetics would be above the individuals.


we would choose the genetics that most benefit our world, not just people's small minded preferences, people's pathetic need to feel like they matter.

We should all have a vested interest in what's best for our SPECIES> not just what pacifies our own fragile egos.

You do know this is never going to happen don't you?

Its just far too wrong to contemplate

PMSL.... 'I've designed the system to avoid all the selfishness and tribalism'...... you don't think not allowing others a choice isn't small minded. Okaaaay .......

I don't have a fragile ego, I don't have to be concerned about pacifiying it. I'm more concerned with allowing people a choice in whether they want their genes & DNA used and given to persons unknown - without the fear of someone wanting to know 20 years later "Who IS my real dad / mum"...... let me go hunt them down and screw their lives up because they were forced to give their eggs/sperm.

Of course it's never going to happen...and he knows it too..... but it passes a non eventful Friday afternoon and that can never be a bad thing!:joker:

True enough :joker:

you'd be asking "who's my REAL DAD?" no. what does that mean? would you rather let people with no parental skills at all have children, then you'll be asking "why was my REAL DAD raping me and no body helped me?" "why was my real mom selling me to strangers for drugs?"

I'd not be asking anything. I know who my parents were and both of them were willing participants in creating a new life.

they way you put it over - it's as though incest is a normal every day part of family life in the main ..... hate to break it to you: It's not.

All of which is side tracking from the thread though........

All this money might be better spent in improving the social welfare system, increasing social workers for children and making and enforcing stricter rules when it comes to children in homes where they're not being taken care of properly. Sterilising the human race is unnatural and frankly quite barbaric

actually it is. the statistics are that 1 out of every 4 children have been sexually assaulted by the age of 18, and the vast majority of those assaults are from within the house.

1 out of 4 is A LOT.

the human race is barbaric. my solution is not. My solution is fighting fire with water.

There are some very bad parents out there definitely but there are also some amazing parents. I don't think punishing every parent or potential parent is the answer though and is very unfair. It would be like putting everyone in prison to prevent crime.

1 out of 4 is not 'in the main;, it is not a majority - it's still remains a low percentage...it means that 75% are free of such things and lead happy, fruitful, loving, caring lives and who will no doubt pass those good attributes onto their own children should they wish to have any.

That still does not mean that a surrogate parent / child, deemed to be the perfect parent as per your description - doesn't mean they will not do the same thing. Pretending that IVF/test tube babies and 'parents being chosen' will maketh the perfect human race is as crazy as anything I've ever heard. they may as well just make clones.

That might be so but why do you think getting people to adopt lab made children would stop that? It's not as if people are going to write on their application form Paedophilia and rape as one of their hobbies