Single men turning to surrogates

It's very hard to decide. Everyone acts upon certain feelings, private feeling. One maybe wants to give a child a good home, so he's adopting. Others, want their own "fesh and blood". It's much more complicated, and differ from person to person, religious beliefs and peer pressure.

I am not sure which I would want to choose. I can understand why they would want a surrogate because then the child would still genetically be part of them, but at the same time there are so many kids out there waiting to be adopted.

Hey that sounds like a great idea. Now some parents won't be after their sons to marry just to give them grandbabies. I myself would rather adopt though because as you said they are so many already made and needing love that I wouldn't be able to resist adopting one.

You pose a thout provoking discussion. It does make one think. To me I think iw ould choose adoption, as I know any child adopted woudl love to have a happy home. I would hate to see another woman carry my child. It would hurt to much after having carried three children to birth myself.

I stopped in to say one thing. How do people reason that a surrogate not providing the egg equal less attachment. Not that I have been in that situation, but in my mind you would become attached to anything that you carry around inside your body for nine months??? Maybe I am wrong, but I would have deep attachment if I were in that situation.

I would be surprised that a surrogate wouldn't become attached to the child she carried regardless as to if it is her egg or not. I'm not sure about the legalities of this issue. However, in the case of gay men having surrogates, they still need to have a biological mother out there. I don't feel it is a good, balanced, or wise thing to pretend that both sexes aren't required to bear children. Once upon a time, I had heard tell of a close family friend who was lesbian and considering having a child. She didn't want to have a one-night type of child because she didn't want any man having any claim on the child. Her partner in this endeavor was especially uneasy with having sperm donated from any of her brothers. Feeling that these Uncles might see themselves as Father of a sort. The idea was that the two women wanted to have a child without muddying the water with any possible male phallic symbol waiting in the wings to have a say and play a part. To me, that seems pathologically man-hating. Both men and women are required to have a child and manipulating circumstances to pretend the opposite gender wasn't necessary of valuable seems dangerously psycho. I would think that a lesbian couple would do well to have the father known and someone their child could meet if desired. The ideal situation would fall thusly. One woman donates an egg for the other woman to carry. The male genetic material of the woman carrying the child is used to fertilize the egg in a safe clinical setting. This results in a child that is genetically related to both women and born by one of them. The process should then be reversed for the other half of the equation. Said child would have a known genetic background and could meet their biological father if desired. If said Uncle/Father felt protective of the child or supportive, the child could not be any worse off for having three people with parental feelings. In the case of a split of the couple, there are two means of insuring that one of the 'mothers' isn't left out in the cold.. removed entirely from the life of the child. One would be the Father-Uncle and the second would be the role the woman played in carrying and giving birth to the child. In a situation where a woman is artificially inseminated by an unknown and un-contactable sperm donor, the issue is more complex. You could have the child carried by one of the partners, but it is only the genetic child of one of them and the legal issues in a split could be.. difficult. This issue is even more tenuous if the woman uses her own egg and donated sperm.. for in this case the woman who takes the role of supportive "Mother-Father" has what I must imagine are no rights at all with the "Mother-Mother" making decisions to leave and take the child. These aren't exactly the case you are referring to, but sets the stage for my thoughts. In the case of men wanting children without wanting wives, I think they should not do this. Essentially, if you can't marry and maintain a happy relationship with a wife you probably lack a healthy social and mental outlook which I feel is required to raise a child. I don't think this is a good way to bring up a child, but I admit there are worse factors to consider. For example, a husband-father might be married to a wife-mother and be an abusive drunk.. thereby a worse father than Clay Aiken, who's major flaw is that he can't pattern a healthy male-female relationship for his children. To close, the lesbian couple I referred to decided not to have a child. This, I think, works for the best. I did, however, speak with some women and they suggested that if the Uncle-Father donated sperm, he should let loose of any ownership of responsibility for the child that results. I don't know how any decent man could do such a thing, for one's genetic prodigy carries with it a debt for support both emotionally and financially. At least, that's how I see it. This is, perhaps, why I would never make a good Uncle-Father myself.