Surrogate Mothers to Gay Couples

[La_Chiara]

Today’s New York Times has a front page article about “surrogate mothers” who “carry” babies for gay couples. The article recognizes that:

*Most surrogates today, for heterosexual or gay couples, work as gestational carriers, meaning they bring children to term but not with their own genetic material. (Couples availing themselves of surrogacy typically get eggs from banks where donors are identified by their height, weight, College Board and I.Q. scores.) *

They are being paid to be impregnated by gay men’s sperm jor carry an embryo and selling their child to the gay couple (for $20,000). There is a picture of the “surrogate” mother with her infant daughter who she has given to two gay men to raise (one of whom is the biological father).

nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27surrogate.html?pagewanted=print

 

[Lisa_N]

I didn’t realize people were for sale in this country. Really this whole disgusting business needs to be stopped although I am sure it will go on underground. How sweet of the two homosexuals to “breed” themselves a kid that they will deny having a mother.

I shouldn’t even get started. The whole thing makes me beyond sick.

Lisa N

 

[WhiteDove]

Another sick twist to technology devoid of morality… :nope:

 

[Seliz]

What does the church say about surrogacy in general? I have a friend who had cancer which left her barren, but she wants children and has viable ovum. Her husband is healthy. Would it be a sin for someone to carry their child to term as a surrogate?

 

[Karin]

Seliz:

What does the church say about surrogacy in general? I have a friend who had cancer which left her barren, but she wants children and has viable ovum. Her husband is healthy. Would it be a sin for someone to carry their child to term as a surrogate?

From my understanding on the teaching of the Catholic Church…it is compared to IVF…if it occurs outside of the body and not because of an act of sex between a man and a woman(husband and wife) it is not allowed.

 

[kaymart]

Just got knocked down another step towards human decency. :crying:

 

[Siena]

Lisa N:

I didn’t realize people were for sale in this country. Really this whole disgusting business needs to be stopped although I am sure it will go on underground. How sweet of the two homosexuals to “breed” themselves a kid that they will deny having a mother.

I shouldn’t even get started. The whole thing makes me beyond sick.

Lisa N

One thing everyone fails to notice-
The baby does indeed have a mother. The woman who then sells the child. If an IVF baby using “doner eggs and/or sperm” is still “her” child (if SHE is the one seeking to have a baby) - these babies are still (at least for now) born of a woman - somewhere - a MOTHER. Unfortunetly, the term “surrogate” is an attempt to divorce the “mother” from “motherhood”. The same type of thing is the effort to deny the “humanity” of an unborn baby by decairing it an “embryo”- etc.

If we thought that mothers were selling their children to gay couples for $20000, we perhaps would be a little more shocked than if we think nice “surrogates” are helping a gay couple have a family, and are being duly compensated for their time and trouble. :tsktsk:

 

[Karin]

Siena:

One thing everyone fails to notice-
The baby does indeed have a mother. The woman who then sells the child. If an IVF baby using “doner eggs and/or sperm” is still “her” child (if SHE is the one seeking to have a baby) - these babies are still (at least for now) born of a woman - somewhere - a MOTHER. Unfortunetly, the term “surrogate” is an attempt to divorce the “mother” from “motherhood”. The same type of thing is the effort to deny the “humanity” of an unborn baby by decairing it an “embryo”- etc.

If we thought that mothers were selling their children to gay couples for $20000, we perhaps would be a little more shocked than if we think nice “surrogates” are helping a gay couple have a family, and are being duly compensated for their time and trouble. :tsktsk:

isnt the point of the whole thing that 1. “gay” people want to marry 2. want rights of a married couple 3. have children…(well two men/two woman can not produce a child through intercourse) 4. becuase of #3 they should not be allowed to marry since intercourse as per Catholic teaching is for marriage only for the purpose of propagation (sp?).
So how is there marriage valid? Is it valid because **they(gays) ** want what heterosexual can(children, true marriage in terms of the Church teaching) have?

 

[kaymart]

Just say, a woman sold her two month old to a gay (or any couple for that matter) for $20,000??? People would be shocked and outraged. Tell me what’s the difference??? Who going to explain to these kids especially the one’s that come from Gay homes, were no mother is present and questions will be asked such as Where is my mother? and Why did my mother sell me??? You liberals have an answer to that one???

 

[Karin]

kaymart:

Just say, a woman sold her two month old to a gay (or any couple for that matter) for $20,000??? People would be shocked and outraged. Tell me what’s the difference??? Who going to explain to these kids especially the one’s that come from Gay homes, were no mother is present and questions will be asked such as Where is my mother? and Why did my mother sell me??? You liberals have an answer to that one???

I think you perhaps confused what I was asking and saying. I totally do not agree with this for gays or straight people…just remember “baby M” and the fiasco that was!

 

[kaymart]

Karin:

I think you perhaps confused what I was asking and saying. I totally do not agree with this for gays or straight people…just remember “baby M” and the fiasco that was!

Karin, I’m sorry, I was just making a statement not attacking you.I truly did want to upset anyone. Please accept apology. I just never like the idea since Baby M (I live in the area where the Whiteheads lived plus it was in local newspapers daily) nearly 20 years later it still sends chills up my spine whenever I hear about it. Sorry again Kay

 

[Karin]

kaymart:

Karin, I’m sorry, I was just making a statement not attacking you.I truly did want to upset anyone. Please accept apology. I just never like the idea since Baby M (I live in the area where the Whiteheads lived plus it was in local newspapers daily) nearly 20 years later it still sends chills up my spine whenever I hear about it. Sorry again Kay

Kay-

No offense taken. I had thought perhaps you miss understood what I was asking or perhaps I did not state my points very well. No need for an apology Kay. Yes, it is sad. Even after all of these years the outcome or the situation of Baby M and the likes of them are still being felt…can you imagine what will happen with effects of gay marriage 20 years down the line?

-Karin

 

[Lisa_N]

Homosexuals procuring children by whatever means is child abuse. This should be stopped. It is incredibly disgusting and lowers the procreation of a child to an animal breeding operation. THis is how I breed livestock, with artificial isemination, an egg donor and a ‘rent a womb.’ How does someone explain to a child “I bought you!” Next thing you know women will be offering eggs and womb time on ebay.

Lisa N

 

[Jeffrey]

Thats too bad – the homo agenda reduces the value of life once again.
La Chiara:

Today’s New York Times has a front page article about “surrogate mothers” who “carry” babies for gay couples. The article recognizes that:

*Most surrogates today, for heterosexual or gay couples, work as gestational carriers, meaning they bring children to term but not with their own genetic material. (Couples availing themselves of surrogacy typically get eggs from banks where donors are identified by their height, weight, College Board and I.Q. scores.) *

They are being paid to be impregnated by gay men’s sperm jor carry an embryo and selling their child to the gay couple (for $20,000). There is a picture of the “surrogate” mother with her infant daughter who she has given to two gay men to raise (one of whom is the biological father).

nytimes.com/2005/05/27/national/27surrogate.html?pagewanted=print

 

[Karin]

Here is a link to another post regarding surrogates for heterosexual couples and the churches view…would think it still applies here…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=63055

 

[Elizabeth_B]

Karin:

isnt the point of the whole thing that 1. “gay” people want to marry 2. want rights of a married couple 3. have children…(well two men/two woman can not produce a child through intercourse) 4. becuase of #3 they should not be allowed to marry since intercourse as per Catholic teaching is for marriage only for the purpose of propagation (sp?).
So how is there marriage valid? Is it valid because **they(gays) ** want what heterosexual can(children, true marriage in terms of the Church teaching) have?

I recommend Christopher West’s book Theology of the Body for Beginners.

It is a common misunderstanding that the only purpose of intercourse is for propagation. Intercourse involves the true and complete spiritual and physical union of a man and a woman that involves total giving of self. It is the consummation of the covenant. The natural result of this is the miraculous creation of new life. Anything that separates the act of intercourse and the possibility of new life is contrary to God’s Law.

While propagation is a natural result of intercourse, it is not necessarily the purpose.

The desire for children does not constitute a marriage. A marriage is sacramentally valid from the start and remains so even if it is not blessed with children.

Homosexual marriage is a misnomer because marriage is the covenant between a man and a woman that naturally results in a new life. Homosexual activities do not result in new life and God expressly prohibits them.

 

[Karin]

Elizabeth B.:

I recommend Christopher West’s book Theology of the Body for Beginners.

It is a common misunderstanding that the only purpose of intercourse is for propagation. Intercourse involves the true and complete spiritual and physical union of a man and a woman that involves total giving of self. It is the consummation of the covenant. The natural result of this is the miraculous creation of new life. Anything that separates the act of intercourse and the possibility of new life is contrary to God’s Law.

While propagation is a natural result of intercourse, it is not necessarily the purpose.

The desire for children does not constitute a marriage. A marriage is sacramentally valid from the start and remains so even if it is not blessed with children.

Homosexual marriage is a misnomer because marriage is the covenant between a man and a woman that naturally results in a new life. Homosexual activities do not result in new life and God expressly prohibits them.

Thank you! I knew it…my post was supposed to be sarcastic …it failed though!

 

[Elizabeth_B]

Karin:

Thank you! I knew it…my post was supposed to be sarcastic …it failed though!

OHHHH. My mistake Today, I’ve been running around like a chicken with my head cut off …I just signed on to take a break for a few minutes. I should know better than to be a hit-and-run poster!

 

[Karin]

Elizabeth B.:

OHHHH. My mistake Today, I’ve been running around like a chicken with my head cut off …I just signed on to take a break for a few minutes. I should know better than to be a hit-and-run poster!

Not a problem…like I said I seem to be off in making my point but you did a GREAT job of it for me…thank you!

 

[Giannawannabe]

Lisa N:

I didn’t realize people were for sale in this country. Really this whole disgusting business needs to be stopped although I am sure it will go on underground. How sweet of the two homosexuals to “breed” themselves a kid that they will deny having a mother.

I shouldn’t even get started. The whole thing makes me beyond sick.

Lisa N

Couldn’t have said it any better myself Lisa N.