Cruel to baby for having deaf gay couple

N

netrox

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
4,769
Reaction score
0
It's amazing how ignorant the author is.

"A gay, deaf and mute American couple, came to Mumbai to take home a baby that a surrogate had borne for them.

While the couple was able to successfully carry out the procedure and take their baby home, the question that begs to be asked is why were they allowed to do so? The poor baby has no choice in the matter. What kind of an environment can a gay, deaf and mute couple provide for a child? Nowhere else in the world will they be able to get away with this. Why are we silent spectators?"

A baby for gay, deaf, mute couple? It
 
I d like to know who are they? One guy from that pictuer look very familiar to me. I will check my facebook to see if it's him. The author needs to research on wording. god.
 
Wow. The ignorance in the article is simply *staggering*. I got to the end of the fifth paragraph before closing the tab in disgust. Having to listen to this moron blather on incessantly? It's cruel.
 
Dr Roya Rozati, fertility expert

A gay and lesbian couple from New York came to me too. They came through a Hyderabad-based broker but I refused on ethical grounds. Hospitals in Delhi and some in Hyderabad are doing this for money as ICMR guidelines permit surrogacy in India. Deaf and mute couples should not do this. There needs to be a proper debate on this issue. New guidelines and an act need to be brought in where surrogacy can be applied for specific cases only.

Mr C. Mallesh Rao, senior High Court advocate

There should be an act to regulate surrogacy in the country. Ours is a poor country with a huge rural population and if there is no law then the West will exploit us, this is happening in the case of clinical trials. Here, most people do not know their rights.”

Mr I Phillip, Director Divyadisha

Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu rank the highest in inter-country adoptions. In AP, the rate is very low. But according to the Juvenile Justice Act, even a single person can adopt a child. Marital status has very little to do with adoption now. If the child is normal and the parents have a disability, it will be a very big concern for me to allow the adoption procedure to go through because the child will not be growing up in a favourable environment.

Bhavani, manager of Plan India

There are many steps to follow before adoption can take place. One requisite is that neither parent should be disabled, as growing up in such a family could hamper the development of the child. There are two ways of adopting a child from India: one is by going through the mother and the child welfare department. The other is by the Hindu Adoption Act. This Act allows any family member or friend to give their child up for adoption in the presence of a priest. Foreigners are making use of these loopholes. It is high time for this Act to be abolished.”
 
Personally, I don't like the idea of surrogacy or creating "designer babies" anyway. There are thousands upon thousands of children all over the world languishing in orphanages or foster homes. Why couldn't these guys have looked there first?

Deaf babies and children are considered "hard to place," so they might have gone to the top of the list as potential adoptive parents. Instead they turned to the "rent a womb" option, which to me is exploitive in cases like this where there is no family or friendship connection with the mother.

Guess it's a done deal now anyway. To me, it was not the most moral way to go about it.
 
My two close gay friends tried to adopt kids here and they refuse them. They went to south american and found what they were not looking for as to they lied to them. So they decided to have surrogate through their friends and it were successful. Now they have two beautiful girls. :) I know one of them or they both are deaf. The gay couple did not expect to but obviously his gene and the lady's gene are too strong for kid to be deaf. Blame on american for not giving them a child who have no home.
 
Beach girl said:
Personally, I don't like the idea of surrogacy or creating "designer babies" anyway. There are thousands upon thousands of children all over the world languishing in orphanages or foster homes. Why couldn't these guys have looked there first?
Click to expand...

Because they want their genes passed to their next generation. I'd rather have my own biological kid than to adopt a kid that's not genetically related to me. I want to see how my own child comes out!

It's that simple.
 
I know many, possibly most, people would agree with you on that.

I don't. What do you think is so danged special about your own genes? Can you find me a parent anywhere who can say of their natural-born kids, "Oh yes, little Jimmy turned out just like we thought we would, since after all, he has our genes!"

I doubt it.

Most kids are full of surprises. Yes, it can be fun to see Uncle Stan's nose and Aunt Matilda's eyes or whatever, but you can't predict how your own kid will turn out any more than you can predict how an adopted child will turn out.

Once that child is put in your arms, be it your own natural-born child or an adopted child, his life will be a combination of genetic tendencies and the nurturing and experiences and values the parent gives him. If you can love a child your body created, you can love a child someone else's body created.

It's that simple, too.
 
Beach girl said:
Personally, I don't like the idea of surrogacy or creating "designer babies" anyway. There are thousands upon thousands of children all over the world languishing in orphanages or foster homes. Why couldn't these guys have looked there first?

Deaf babies and children are considered "hard to place," so they might have gone to the top of the list as potential adoptive parents. Instead they turned to the "rent a womb" option, which to me is exploitive in cases like this where there is no family or friendship connection with the mother.

Guess it's a done deal now anyway. To me, it was not the most moral way to go about it.
Click to expand...

Eh, I'm unsure about that.

On the one hand, yes, it's certainly selfish to want your own biological children as a child over adoption. On the other hand, the same could be said anytime a heterosexual couple naturally procreates, so unless you're willing to condemn all couples who have children rather than adopting, then your point falls flat a bit.
 
One positive note, to me, though. I posted this to my Facebook, and my mother commented, contradicting some guy who agreed with the author. I'm glad my parents aren't dumb, lol.
 
No, not really. Most people are naturally going to create their own children. I've got no quarrel with that.

I don't like the exploitive aspect of using third-world women as rent-a-wombs. I think it's ugly and, well, exploitive.

I don't feel quite the same about people who have a family member or close friend who is willing to do it for them. That can be a truly loving gesture and in the case of a family member, addresses that "my own genes" thing that seems so important to some people, because at least there's a common ancestor someplace.

That said, I'd still prefer to see adoption rather than going to all these lengths to create another life when there are children right here, right now, who are desperate for homes.
 
Beach girl said:
No, not really. Most people are naturally going to create their own children. I've got no quarrel with that.

I don't like the exploitive aspect of using third-world women as rent-a-wombs. I think it's ugly and, well, exploitive.

I don't feel quite the same about people who have a family member or close friend who is willing to do it for them. That can be a truly loving gesture and in the case of a family member, addresses that "my own genes" thing that seems so important to some people, because at least there's a common ancestor someplace.

That said, I'd still prefer to see adoption rather than going to all these lengths to create another life when there are children right here, right now, who are desperate for homes.
Click to expand...

Would you be in favor of altering the laws in this country to allow women in the US to be surrogate mothers for this couple, then?

And your last point is still repeating my point. If you're not going to give the same advice to all the other couples that are currently procreating, then that's hypocritical. If you'd recommend that every couple who wants children should adopt first, then there's nothing wrong with that. But it sounds like you're not.
 
Well, I'm a realist. People who can have their own children naturally are almost always going to do that. There is not much point in trying to talk people out of that.

But when it comes to "OK, we can't have kids and we want one, so what's next?" then I would encourage adoption.

Re the laws: it's a mish-mash, I'm not an expert on what states allow what. I'm guessing this couple could have found a doctor somewhere who would have been sympathetic to them if they presented themselves with a possible surrogate mother in mind. But that aside, I still think adoption would have been the more moral choice.
 
Beach girl said:
I don't like the exploitive aspect of using third-world women as rent-a-wombs. I think it's ugly and, well, exploitive.
Click to expand...

Huh? I know a gay couple and he inseminated a white woman who already have four children.
How is that exploitive? She wanted them to have a child.

I know one deaf woman who was a surrogate mother. No problems.
 
netrox said:
Huh? I know a gay couple and he inseminated a white woman who already have four children.
How is that exploitive? She wanted them to have a child. I know one deaf woman who was a surrogate mother. No problems.
Click to expand...

That's the kind of situation I was talking about that I said I don't feel so negative about, where there is a friendship connection.
 
Beach girl said:
Well, I'm a realist. People who can have their own children naturally are almost always going to do that. There is not much point in trying to talk people out of that.
Click to expand...

Okay, can I ask a few questions with regards to hypothetical situations?

1) A couple who is trying to conceive a child and is having issues conceiving, so they go to a fertility clinic to help. Are they being selfish, and would you suggest to them that they not do that and instead adopt?

2) A couple who is, to the best of your and their knowledge, physically able to conceive, but have no yet decided whether or not to have children. Would you recommend to them that, if they decide to have children, they should adopt rather than conceive?

3) A "normal" couple who never asks your input on a situation, and decides to conceive a child all on their own. While you've said that you wouldn't try to convince them to do any differently, would you view them (personally) still as more selfish than a couple who chooses to adopt?

Beach girl said:
That's the kind of situation I was talking about that I said I don't feel so negative about, where there is a friendship connection.
Click to expand...

So surrogation is only exploitative to you when the surrogate mother doesn't personally know the parents who want a surrogate?
 
Beach girl said:
Personally, I don't like the idea of surrogacy or creating "designer babies" anyway. There are thousands upon thousands of children all over the world languishing in orphanages or foster homes. Why couldn't these guys have looked there first?

Deaf babies and children are considered "hard to place," so they might have gone to the top of the list as potential adoptive parents. Instead they turned to the "rent a womb" option, which to me is exploitive in cases like this where there is no family or friendship connection with the mother.

Guess it's a done deal now anyway. To me, it was not the most moral way to go about it.
Click to expand...

You call yourself a realist? There are millions upon millions.
 
netrox said:
It's amazing how ignorant the author is.

"A gay, deaf and mute American couple, came to Mumbai to take home a baby that a surrogate had borne for them.

While the couple was able to successfully carry out the procedure and take their baby home, the question that begs to be asked is why were they allowed to do so? The poor baby has no choice in the matter. What kind of an environment can a gay, deaf and mute couple provide for a child? Nowhere else in the world will they be able to get away with this. Why are we silent spectators?"

A baby for gay, deaf, mute couple? It
Click to expand...

Oh, wow. :ugh3:

Well, one funny thing, most people adopt "white and prefect" babies and don't bother to adopt "disabled" babies, yet they complain about gays or disabled gays adopt those kids because they're "unfit" parents. :roll: Damn those comments! So they said I can't be good parent because I'm disabled and not so "normal" enough? Ugh... :mad: You should read those comments! They did say we should not have children or adopt kids.

SCREW THEM.

EDIT: Wait. Some comments seem to be deleted...
 
KarissaMann05 said:
Oh, wow. :ugh3:

Well, one funny thing, most people adopt "white and prefect" babies and don't bother to adopt "disabled" babies, yet they complain about gays or disabled gays adopt those kids because they're "unfit" parents. :roll: Damn those comments! So they said I can't be good parent because I'm disabled and not so "normal" enough? Ugh... :mad: You should read those comments! They did say we should not have children or adopt kids.

SCREW THEM.

EDIT: Wait. Some comments seem to be deleted...
Click to expand...

If you meant the comments on the article, a lot of them seemed to be supportive, with a few exceptions. This did spark a "Is deafness a disability or not" debate on my Facebook page, though.
 
Back
Top