Surrogacy is big news because Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban had a baby — using their own egg and sperm — carried to term by another woman.
The posh phrase for this is ‘gestational surrogacy’. It’s more popularly known as ‘rent-a-womb’.
The announcement has sparked a flurry of comment in the mainstream press.
Allegedly it devalues human life by turning children into commodities.
Worse, it means that the decision to have a child now becomes all about the needs and wants of the parents, rather than the needs and wants of the child.
Chief sinners in this regard, it seems, are same-sex couples. Look at Elton John and David Furnish! Buying a baby to enhance their lifestyle, allegedly.
But baby production via the traditional route is hardly the pure unselfish transaction these commentators want you to believe. It’s always about the parents.
We all know heterosexual couples who have a baby to rescue their failing relationship. Who hope it will bring them closer together.
And who discover that in practice it has the opposite effect, leading to separation, divorce and hardship.
Unselfish? In the best interests of the child? I don’t think so.
In many cultures people have children because they need cheap labour for the family business, and to take care of them in their old age.
People have children because grandpa wants the family name to continue, because grandma wants babies to cuddle, because they want to outdo their neighbours.
Some do it for the child benefits, the baby bonus, the tax advantages. Some do it for God.
The world is full of men who see their ability to father — especially sons — as a badge of honour, a proof of genuine masculinity. “I may not amount to much in this world, but at least I have a son.”
Loads of women want nothing more in life than to have children and raise them, because that’s what they think women are for.
Others get stuck with children they don’t really want, because contraception fails and their partner is against abortion.
And many neglect, abuse and abandon them.
Children get born for many reasons, and most of them are ‘selfish’.
How many times, over how many aeons, have men and women said, ‘I want a child’? Why is that good and noble and self-sacrificing when they’re heterosexual and wrong when they’re gay?
It’s prejudice, pure and simple. The ‘concern for the children’ is merely window-dressing.
Children need adults who love them and care for them. Adults who will indeed put the child first: how that child came to be born has nothing to do with it. And nor has sexuality.
Nice post….
[…] Quite nicely stated, despite this particular blog post isn’t newly posted. I recognize with almost all of your main details, the only thing we would probably offer is to see a few more pics. Thanks a lot. […]…
Go Doug, I agree with you lovey… I am supposed to have come from a normal Christian family; but the stuff that went on was anything but normal… SELFISH father marries SELFISH mother, and have 5 SELFISH children (definition of a family) Poor mum now needs an operation, (but won’t have one because some of her friends operations weren’t successful) because her pelvic floor has been swept away in the recent floods, no, not quiet, but she doesn’t get out much any more… which is really sad, something that surrogates should be aware of as they plough on, helping the needy, STOP, HOLD IT IN, DON’T DO IT… the world is over-populated anyway!
OMG … I actually find myself in agreeance with this ” Grumpy Old Poof “…
Congratulations Doug !!
‘Gestational carrier’ as Nicole Kidman called it.. This isn’t a new title. It’s calling us what we are. I am a surrogate. I have carried two singleton babies for friends of mine. I am about to do this for a third and final time. And though I use my own egg, and I am what is called a “traditional surrogate,” the term “gestational carrier” isn’t new nor is it offensive.
I’ve spoken with many (30+) surrogates and some intended parents over the past week about this. NOT ONE has had issue with this term.
I wrote more about this on my blog here: http://www.blessedwiththree.com/2011/01/supermarkets-surrogacy.html and here: http://www.blessedwiththree.com/2011/01/celebs-their-use-of-surrogates.html
As I said above in the first link, I’ve been called worse. And we are not rent-a-wombs either. Again, addressed on my blog.
Adoption isn’t always an option for some. It at times costs more than surrogacy, it can also mean waiting for many months or years before you know you have a child on the way. It is a wonderful option, yes, but surrogacy is another wonderful option for some as well.
And believe me, I don’t come here to preach and spread the word about how awesome surrogacy is. If anyone wants to talk to me about it, they’ll hear about my experiences – from wonderful to rather dark. And I can tell of experiences friends of mine have had, even darker things they have experienced.
If anything, doesn’t it seem parents seeking out a surrogate would end up maybe being better parents than those that just went to bed and ended up pregnant? Maybe. Maybe not. My point is, intended parents that have to go to great lengths such as surrogacy have to be pretty serious and prepared (emotionally and financially for the process).
What it boils down to is this – most animals have a biological need and desire to procreate. When we try and we fail, we seek out other ways of making this happen. It’s not about cheap labor or thinking about who is going to care for you in old age. I can tell you right now that setting aside so much per paycheck in order to pay for help when I’m older would have been a lot cheaper than having my three children. ;)