Congratulations To Elton & David !

[Lonan3]

I think its absolutely disgraceful!

Can you imagine the shame and the humiliation that the poor lad will feel when schoolfriends discover that his father used to be the chairman of Watford football club!

[oldmanxfella]

Yes, Elton John is getting on and it does seem a little selfish to have a child at that age with a strong possibility that he might die within the next 15 years. But then in the next decade the child may be brought up in a very loving environment, which is very different to many children being brough up by very young parents. And David Furnish is only fifty.

 

As I read it the point initially wasn't that they are gay, but that they have bought a baby and that further they see nothi8ng wrong with buying a baby and then pretending to be proud parents. There are enough children in this world given up for adoption. They were told they were too old to adopt so just paid someone to create a baby for them instead. It is selfish in my book and riddled with a certain degree of egotism. They are rich people who simply got what they wanted by buying it. I wonder what will happen when Elton gets bored with it because it poo's on his carpet or if its a bit ugly when it gets older and it ruins his pictures in Hello.

[censorship]

There is certainly an argument that at least one of this couple is, perhaps, a bit old to be having a child, but why are we singling them out?

What about Michael Gambon? Where was the thread full of righteous indignation then?

What about the hundreds of young people who have babies while society considers them 'too young'? Age is a factor there too.

Why are we obsessing about them 'buying' a baby? They have used a surrogate - that's precisely all we know. The sperm may have come from either man, she may not have been paid, the egg may have come from another donor for free. Their situation is not that different to any other couple where one of the partners suffers fertility problems who choose to go down the surrogate route. It is quite normal for a fee to be paid in these circumstances, or at least expenses.

There's barely anything interesting about this - a couple who can't have a baby in the 'traditional' way have used a route thousands of others the world over use, and suddenly we're outraged and pretending it is because one of them is in their 60s.

It isn't. Some people are outraged simply because they are a famous gay couple. Some people are bigots and try to hide thier true feelings behind other concerns, like age.

I claim my £5.

[oldmanxfella]

It isn't. Some people are outraged simply because they are a famous gay couple. Some people are bigots and try to hide thier true feelings behind other concerns, like age.

I claim my £5.

 

I couldn't care if they are gay but presenting surrogacy as a new 'norm' to me is just wrong whether you are gay or straight. It is buying a baby. That is all you are doing. Your paying someone else to have a baby that you can't have. As I said there are enough wonderful children in the world seeking adoption and who already exist without people going off and cooking up their own kid with no history. I certainly wonder what the world will be like in a couple of decades as none of these kids know their real genetic history.

 

I'm sorry but this is treating children as commodities and ignoring the emotional aspects of bringing a child up. Everybody wants to know where they came from and what traits they may have inherited from their parents. In the future we are risking creating a very lost generation of kids who are detached from the history of who they really are. Its all very Brave New World to me and I do think that intellectually its distinctly unpleasant that all these people can see is their current need to fill a void in their empty lives rather than the long term psychological effects of their choice on their designer child.

[censorship]

presenting surrogacy as a new 'norm' to me is just wrong whether you are gay or straight. It is buying a baby.

There's nothing 'new' about surrogacy. It is a widely available option for couples with fertility problems. The use of a surrogate does not presume you have no biological connection to the child, just that you don't have your own fully functioning womb. It is normally the case that the surrogate is impregnated with an already fertilised egg and acts as 'baby cooker', if you will. If the sperm is from one those men why the fuck does it matter to you or anyone else what method was used to turn that DNA material into a baby?

You're very angry about this idea of 'buying' a baby, which I'm sure won't upset any parents who were unable to conceive in the 'natural' way and used another option. Where do you get the 'buying' thing from? Where does it say anyone paid anyone anything to do anything? For all you know, the egg was donated by a friend and the surrogate did it for free.

Presumably you have an issue with people paying for IVF as well, after all do it privately and you are paying for a baby.

Why does anyone bother concieving their own biological child when there are all these others needing adoption?

[oldmanxfella]

presenting surrogacy as a new 'norm' to me is just wrong whether you are gay or straight. It is buying a baby.

There's nothing 'new' about surrogacy. It is a widely available option for couples with fertility problems. The use of a surrogate does not presume you have no biological connection to the child, just that you don't have your own fully functioning womb. It is normally the case that the surrogate is impregnated with an already fertilised egg and acts as 'baby cooker', if you will. If the sperm is from one those men why the fuck does it matter to you or anyone else what method was used to turn that DNA material into a baby?

You're very angry about this idea of 'buying' a baby, which I'm sure won't upset any parents who were unable to conceive in the 'natural' way and used another option. Where do you get the 'buying' thing from? Where does it say anyone paid anyone anything to do anything? For all you know, the egg was donated by a friend and the surrogate did it for free.

Presumably you have an issue with people paying for IVF as well, after all do it privately and you are paying for a baby.

Why does anyone bother concieving their own biological child when there are all these others needing adoption?

 

I'm not angry about anything and I really don't think that there is any anger in either of my posts. As for where does it say they paid - the original link at the start of this thread went through to the Telegraph which says it cost them over a hundred grand to do the deal. That's where I got that wild notion that they actually paid for it from. I'm sorry but I do have a problem when you get to paying people to perform biological functions that you can't perform yourself as I think that fundamentally it is wrong and that with children it does not take into account the psychological effects on that purchased designer commodity at some future time. So yes I do object to people using money to play God as you have no idea where its going to end and what the impact on society will be at some future point in time.

[John Wright]

There are not enough babies for adoption. There are many older children with emotional, psychological, physical or other problems that make them, in effect, unadoptable. They deserve to be adopted and to be given a chance. Elton and David could really have shown a lead here.

[oldmanxfella]

There are not enough babies for adoption. There are many older children with emotional, psychological, physical or other problems that make them, in effect, unadoptable. They deserve to be adopted and to be given a chance. Elton and David could really have shown a lead here.

 

They could have. That really is my point - that sort of child would not suit their lifestyle and could possibly have created uncomfortable tabloid headlines for them if it went off the rails. It might also be a challenge for them personally when they are so busy attending parties around the world and deciding what hats they like to wear so they went for the media and lifestyle safe option - they bought a baby.

[Evil Goblin]

Why does anyone bother concieving their own biological child when there are all these others needing adoption?

You must have a genetic abnormality to be seriously asking this question.

[Mr. Sausages]

Why does anyone bother concieving their own biological child when there are all these others needing adoption?

You must have a genetic abnormality to be seriously asking this question.

 

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It isn't. Some people are outraged simply because they are a famous gay couple. Some people are bigots and try to hide thier true feelings behind other concerns, like age.

I claim my £5.

 

I couldn't care if they are gay but presenting surrogacy as a new 'norm' to me is just wrong whether you are gay or straight. It is buying a baby. That is all you are doing. Your paying someone else to have a baby that you can't have. As I said there are enough wonderful children in the world seeking adoption and who already exist without people going off and cooking up their own kid with no history. I certainly wonder what the world will be like in a couple of decades as none of these kids know their real genetic history.

 

I'm sorry but this is treating children as commodities and ignoring the emotional aspects of bringing a child up. Everybody wants to know where they came from and what traits they may have inherited from their parents. In the future we are risking creating a very lost generation of kids who are detached from the history of who they really are. Its all very Brave New World to me and I do think that intellectually its distinctly unpleasant that all these people can see is their current need to fill a void in their empty lives rather than the long term psychological effects of their choice on their designer child.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I just don't understand that the very fact that someone compensates another for the trouble of carrying the child means that you think the child is treated like a commodity. The fact is that there is no other way for them have a child. As for 'emotional aspects' what exactly are you talking about?

 

Well I suppose that many do find it important to know what they have inherited from their parents. More significantly, more children want to know who their parents are. That's what matters most. Not what bloody 'traits' (do you mean physical) they have!

 

No, there isn't going to be some lost generation - some mass spawning, but maybe more kids who just come from surrogate parents. They will know who they are. A person doesn't need to know who their forebears are to know who THEY are. People can quite readily form their personalities and social relations without getting hold of their family tree or having some genetic testing done. Besides, who's to say that the surrogate remains anonymous?

 

And I am starting to pick up on some whiff of homophobia here. This is a couple who have made a decision to have a child that they cannot have through sex. Why the assumption that they have an empty void? If they have such empty lives then exactly the same can be said about all couples.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

There are not enough babies for adoption. There are many older children with emotional, psychological, physical or other problems that make them, in effect, unadoptable. They deserve to be adopted and to be given a chance. Elton and David could really have shown a lead here.

They COULD, but the expectations placed on them for doing so are no different for any other couple who has to adopt or find a surrogate to have a child. It has to be asked why such children are unadoptable. It isn't all about the matter of finding a child to love unfortunately. Parents want their child to be mentally and physically healthy. Again unfortunately, although it is understandable, it is dissuasive when it is known that there have been or are problems with a prospective adoptive child.

[bellyup]

When the kid is 16, wanting to be running around a field playing football with his dad, his younger father will be 64.

 

What 16 year old wants to play football with his Dad?

 

Make it 14 and 62 if it makes you happy. Or 12 and 60. The point is, he's too old to properly raise a kid with all the interaction that a father + son would normally enjoy.

 

That said, kid will be rich as fuck and can just buy somebody to play football with.

 

Absolute bollox.

There are more things in life than running after a football.

[bellyup]

There are not enough babies for adoption. There are many older children with emotional, psychological, physical or other problems that make them, in effect, unadoptable. They deserve to be adopted and to be given a chance. Elton and David could really have shown a lead here.

They COULD, but the expectations placed on them for doing so are no different for any other couple who has to adopt or find a surrogate to have a child. It has to be asked why such children are unadoptable. It isn't all about the matter of finding a child to love unfortunately. Parents want their child to be mentally and physically healthy. Again unfortunately, although it is understandable, it is dissuasive when it is known that there have been or are problems with a prospective adoptive child.

 

Elton John and his partner tried to adopt an HIV positive child and his brother from an East European orphanage but they were turned down ( they still however support the orphanage )

[Matt Bawden]

Yes, Elton John is getting on and it does seem a little selfish to have a child at that age with a strong possibility that he might die within the next 15 years. But then in the next decade the child may be brought up in a very loving environment, which is very different to many children being brough up by very young parents. And David Furnish is only fifty.

 

48

 

Anyone might die within the next 15 years , 15 months or even 15 days . Fortunately we do not know the future.

 

Firstly - anyone who opposes Elton John having a child (despite giving a reason unrelated to his sexual preference) is a homophobe? Ok.

Secondly - there's a little thing called probability. Elton John is more likely to die in the next 15 years than a young, healthy person is. It's the reason they were refused the first time.

As for his partner, 48 is also pretty old to have a kid. When the kid is 16, wanting to be running around a field playing football with his dad, his younger father will be 64.

 

But ehhhh. Nothing I can do about it, and I don't really care enough to post a longer response about it. As long as the kid has a happy life I really don't give a fuck.

 

What 16 year old wants to play football with his dad? Surely they'll either be kicking a ball about with their mates or part of an actual football team, what planet do you live on.

 

BTW I couldn't give a fig about Elton John or his boyfriend and know that this isn't anybody's business but theirs and the soocial services and sure as hell shouldn't be newsworthy.