patrick.net

The only benefit here of adopting is to help a child in need. This is not really that different than two parents having a child instead of adopting. The only difference, is that he is getting his genetic material combined with someone who he is less connected to than a spouse.

I think other than the challenges of being a single parent (I'd never do it), the main issue is how other children are going to act. It's hard to know what the playground is like these days for someone like myself who is far removed from it. In my childhood days, boys were much more likely to tease other boys about this, but I'm not sure that is still the case.

Do boys or girls handle it better?

I've had a few girlfriends handle it well, but also a few fumblers. Guys have a lot more experience handling it, and so that is a rather unfair comparison.

More than half of all children are being raised in households that are results of divorce or not married to begin with. So being teased for having only one parent is not going to be a problem. Gay acceptance is taking place very rapidly among the young generation nowadays, so that is not going to be a problem either.

However, in most cases, the legally non-resident parent still provides substantial time and resources for the children (despite the whinings from the "heroic single mothers"). A single parent raising a child all by him/herself without any money or time from the other parent requires the single parent to be much better prepared. If he makes less than $100k/yr, it can be quite a financial burden (as he would have no ex to call on for watching the kid when he has business commitment). If he makes substantially more than $100k/yr, raising a surrogate child of his own can be less expensive than raising a child with a wife or ex, especially if a divorce has to take place to convert the wife into an ex, always a potential event for a rich man married to a "strong and independent" woman potentially bored of domesticity; her crabby peers will always try to make her feel bad for staying with the husband; it's the same phenomenon as people spending too much time on Facebook get depressed: the grass is always greener on the other side! Is the surrogate mother overseas / entirely uninvolved in the future or a candidate that can be "bribed" into helping taking care of her own child in the first couple years after giving up her right to the child at birth? Mother's milk is immunologically and nutritionally better than any substitute we know of up to this point.

Reality says

If he makes substantially more than $100k/yr, raising a surrogate child of his own can be less expensive than raising a child with a wife or ex

He makes substantially more than $100k/year. He's pretty wealthy in his own right and comes from a rich family to boot. So, he would be pretty screwed if he ever marries and then divorces.

From a manpower standpoint, he has a large family who will be very involved.... and he plans "to hire a nanny or two."

curious2 says

public bathrooms and other facilities and events tend to be segregated male vs female, so it might help if they can both use the same without causing unwanted attention.

That is a very good point. When my son was about seven, he wouldn't want to go into the ladies room with me. We had a few little arguments about it.

turtledove says

Yes... He can pick which ones get transferred to the surrogate. That is why he asked the question he asked.

So after they are fertilized, they grow to day three, at which point they are biopsied for testing. They are then put back to continue growing to day five, at which point the PGS results are back. The ones with genetic errors are discarded. From what's left, he may decide whether to transfer one or two, as well as which sex. The chosen embryo or embryos are transferred to the surrogate on day five.

Isn't that unethical?
I mean if he can choose the sex, why not the size? The hair color? The intelligence?
Sounds like Gattaca.

turtledove says

Reality says

If he makes substantially more than $100k/yr, raising a surrogate child of his own can be less expensive than raising a child with a wife or ex

He makes substantially more than $100k/year. He's pretty wealthy in his own right and comes from a rich family to boot. So, he would be pretty screwed if he ever marries and then divorces.

From a manpower standpoint, he has a large family who will be very involved.... and he plans "to hire a nanny or two."

Then he's all set. Have a son first, then after a couple years, have a daughter. The son will learn to be an alpha male from young age and learn how to socialize with women as the "older bro" (besides socializing with and learning from the gay dad; some gay men can be very alpha red pill, and he seems to be one, at least from how he approaches the baby issue given his own circumstances), and the daughter will be free to enjoy her feminine nature under the protection of both the dad and the elder brother.

Heraclitusstudent says

I mean if he can choose the sex, why not the size? The hair color? The intelligence?

What do you think women are doing between the ages of 15 and 30? Choosing size, intelligence and other characteristics for their offspring is precisely what they do, full time! It's called her dating preference! LOL.

BTW, this is not an endorsement for gender selective abortion per se, but in his case, he will be looking at a bunch of fertilized eggs, most of which will be frozen anyway, but only 1 or 2 to be implanted into the surrogate mother. So choosing is already a given anyway.

Trick question they guy obviously doesn't give a rip. He just wants in on his 11 minutes of History.

turtledove says

I have a single, gay male patient

Well he may be technically single, but since males are by nature promiscuous there will be a stream of "uncles" in and out of his and his child's life, creating confusion, moved in within a month or two after meeting with no knowledge of criminal history or tendencies toward pedophilia, more than likely lots of fighting after the new wears off. That's how gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual ones in that the male's natural tendencies are satisfied by the female partner. In gay relationships you have two people, both of whom are promiscuous and likely to bring drama (always present in gays anyway) and danger to their affairs.

Tenpoundbass says

Trick question they guy obviously doesn't give a rip. He just wants in on his 11 minutes of History

Probably the most likely scenario of all, except I'm going to grant him 15 minutes.

P N Dr Lo R says

That's how gay relationships are....

Please, tell us all about your extensive experience in the field. Have you and Forthood been enduring some Brokeback troubles lately? I haven't seen you mention having a spouse or children, though your comments do seem to show some of the damage that religion can inflict on children.

Heraclitusstudent says

I mean if he can choose the sex, why not the size?

In America, sex selection has not caused any notable problems and thus doesn't raise issues that could seriously be considered unethical, largely because we don't have a gender imbalance at the population level. In China or India, the story might be different, as girls have reportedly been aborted (or killed after being born) and the population is becoming skewed towards males. Those countries will either (a) import many brides, (b) learn to love male homosexuality, or (c) risk the religious violence that plagues the Arab Muslim countries (where polygamy creates a similar imbalance). In those countries, exacerbating a gender imbalance might be unethical, while ameliorating it might be ethical; in America, since we don't have an imbalance, it makes no difference.

P N Dr Lo R says

Probably the most likely scenario of all, except I'm going to grant him 15 minutes.

Granted just don't make me to bake nobody a cake, I hate that.

No benefit in passing on the aids virus to a small helpless defenseless child.
Adopt.
lostand confused says

There is something about watching your own genes pass on, to see your family's characteristics in the kids. more power to the dude.

why not plant em all in that Octomom and pick from the litter at 8 weeks when you have a better idea of the various growth patterns?

Reality says

BTW, this is not an endorsement for gender selective abortion per se, but in his case, he will be looking at a bunch of fertilized eggs, most of which will be frozen anyway, but only 1 or 2 to be implanted into the surrogate mother. So choosing is already a given anyway.

I thought slavery was dead...

turtledove says

I have a single, gay male

curious2 says

Please, tell us all about your extensive experience in the field

You don't have to have experience, it's common knowledge, they flaunt it around all the time.

P N Dr Lo R says

knowledge

results from experience and reading actual data, not mythology and stereotypes. Please tell us about your experience and direct observations. Otherwise, your know-nothing doctrine substitutes ignorant stereotypes for knowledge. I intended my question seriously: I have been curious for some time about the fervent closeted commenters who have no children of their own but insist they know all about how it should be done.

Some statistical arguments may not apply in his case. He makes substantially more than double what an average husband-wife family makes, the usual perils of single parenthood due to lack of resources simply do not apply in this case. Male-female pair-bonding being statistically advantageous to children is due to resources available in such a partnership being nearly double the single parent. That statistical norm does not apply when we already have apriori knowledge about this specific case where he alone is already capable of providing for the children better than what most husband-wife teams can.

It's relatively safe to assume that kids are not going to be exposed to sex, straight or gay, at young age. Parents dating other people is becoming the majority situation as the institution of marriage is breaking down under current divorce court laws. The real unique situation in this case is the absence of mother. For a boy, never having experienced a self-sacrificing female as the first relationship with female may well be a good thing! When he grows up, he will not expect women to be self-sacrificing towards him and then get disappointed, like most young men have to live through.

Heraclitusstudent says

Isn't that unethical?

I mean if he can choose the sex, why not the size? The hair color? The intelligence?

You would not be able to choose size, hair color, or intelligence. PGS basically tells you that the chromosomes are correct in number... 46xx, 46xy. It tells you that all the books are on the shelf and that those books are in the correct order with no books stuck together. It cannot read the pages of the books.

PGD (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis), on the other hand, is where you build a probe that's looking for something specific. However, this is limited to genetic diseases (like sickle cell or tay sach's, for example). I am unaware of anyone who has built a probe for things like hair color. Perhaps it will happen in the future...

SoftShell says

No benefit in passing on the aids virus to a small helpless defenseless child.

Adopt.

First of all... that would never happen at a clinic in this country. The FDA has very specific rules about screening labs. As far as the FDA is concerned, every bit of this is treated with the same scrutiny as tissue donation. No one is accidentally going to give AIDS to anyone.

That said, even if a person is HIV positive, there are ways that the sperm is handled that keeps every party safe. Remember, there are very strict guidelines of what can be brought into the lab. Obviously, it's for the protection of the surrogate and child, but it's also for the protection of every other embryo currently in residence at that lab.

Just because a person has HIV doesn't mean he/she cannot or should not have a child. HIV is hardly the death sentence it was in past decades. If managed, their life expectancies are looking really good. There is no reason that an HIV positive person can't know the joys of parenthood.

SoftShell's comments are intended merely as bait:

SoftShell says

i just wanted to get a rise outta you, and I did.
my post was successful for it's intended purpose. hehehe...
now go ahead and feel free to bash me, i'm off to rebait my line...

What others would call trolling, SoftShell likens to fishing.

So my roommate in my senior year of college was gay. We got along really well, even took a class together, drank excessively together, and functioned well for the situation.
I never knew he was gay.
Maybe that says something about me and my absolutely BROKE gaydar.
I mean he was a male model who didn't ever seem to have a girlfriend though girls seemed to always hang around him.
But I digress... The point is that having connected with him (on Facebook yay) once again I discovered he was very very gay, had a boyfriend and everything, did the pride parades and all.
And he has a kid with a "friend" who happens to be a woman. The kid is a boy, and he seems to be an involved parent, and on good terms with his son's mother. Maybe she wasn't the marrying type either, so an arrangement with a friend to coparent a child was a preferable situation to going it alone as a single mother. Honestly, I know many single parents with divorces in their histories who have it much worse than this never-together pair of opposite sex friends. They are also co parenting, but with latent animosity and hard feelings towards their ex spouses. My roommate's kid has the benefit of two parents AND the benefit of parents who like each other , even if they're not lovers or spouses. I imagine that boy will do just fine, especially if he stays with the same male partner. I hope it works out, for the kid's sake, same as I hope my married friends can hang on to their marriages for the sake of their kids and home life.

curious2 says

I have been curious for some time

You still are.

Reality says

It's relatively safe to assume that kids are not going to be exposed to sex, straight or gay, at young age

Not a safe assumption at all. Both straight and gay single parents routinely have a parade of "aunts" and "uncles" about whom they know nothing shacking up with them, exposing their children and themselves to who knows what in this day and time--not an insignificant number of them wind up on the autopsy table.

I would rather have a gay parent than a fanatically religious parent any day.

Ceffer says

I would rather have a gay parent than a fanatically religious parent any day.

Well said.

P N Dr Lo R says

Both straight and gay single parents routinely have [...] not an insignificant number of them wind up on the autopsy table.

This comment reminded me of a news story about yet another religious family killing one of their own on behalf of their imaginary friend. Religion is fundamentally about transference: transfering the feelings that a person would normally have for a spouse or children or parents to an invisible deity, which is purportedly omnipotent but seems unable to speak without the help of a human charlatan. (The charlatan then demands payment for channeling said paradoxically inchoate omnipotence, making the business model very lucrative.)

The fundamental transference sets up a context where blame can likewise be shifted to imaginary villains. I find it hard to believe that "P N Dr Lo R" (a reference to old car transmissions) can name a significant number of single parents who "wind up on the autopsy table" due to rough trade, but religious violence claims countless lives every year. All three Abrahamic faiths extol the story of Abraham, who stood ready to murder his son due to voices in his own head; sadly many Muslim families have continued to practice child sacrifice, which they call "honor killings". Since the whole point is to reward and empower counter-factual beliefs, the believers can eagerly blame all troubles on others, and imagine that the outside world must be a frightening and dangerous place, thus keeping the flock in line.

lostand confused says

errc says

The guy knows it will be a hard experience, filled with suffering, yet he's selfish enough to go through with it anyways.

Tell that ASSHOLE to adopt!

Huh, why should he adopt. A child is a child-so it is ok for an adopted child to be filled with suffering?? When I lived in Los Angeles, there are the rabid pet adopting advocates who scream bloody murder if you try and buy a purebred pet. They scream that by doing so you have sentenced a dog in the shelter to death and the more rabid nuts will call you a murderer.

I am seeing the far lefties start mouthing the same thing about kids nowadays-there are millions of starving kids-adopt one, the world does not need one more human.

There is something about watching your own genes pass on, to see your family's characteristics in the kids. more power to the dude.

Wow, talk about apples to oranges!

I find it hard to believe that "P N Dr Lo R" (a reference to old car transmissions

------------

That had always escaped me, until now. Thanks

I'm 100 miles from the nearest body of water.....I miss it.

curious2 says

SoftShell's comments are intended merely as bait:

SoftShell says

i just wanted to get a rise outta you, and I did.

my post was successful for it's intended purpose. hehehe...

now go ahead and feel free to bash me, i'm off to rebait my line...

What others would call trolling, SoftShell likens to fishing.