For the Queer DUers Here, I Pose a Question To You About Gay Motherhood...

[slinkerwink]

In my women's studies class, we discussed lesbian surrogacy in coparenting families. For those of you who don't know what lesbian surrogacy is, it's the artificial implantation of the other partner's fertilized egg into the woman's womb.

There were several arguments that said that lesbian surrogacy helped the lesbian birth mother lay a stronger claim to the child in terms of legality, because of the perceptions of motherhood being equated with giving birth even though the child is biologically her partner's child, not hers.

There's also those who think that lesbian surrogacy is nothing more than continuing the heterosexist pattern of establishing a lineage instead of going for adoptions. The problem is that in some states, adopting a child only gives one lesbian mother custody over that child, and the other partner can't legally co-adopt that child, pertaining to some state rules. Therefore her claim of motherhood to that child is weakened.

That's why the argument is being made that lesbian surrogacy puts forth a stronger case for the claim of motherhood being made over the child. Do you think that's true or not?

I think it's true for me, and I do desire to have lesbian surrogacy by giving birth to my partner's child. I feel like it'd help create a stronger family nucleus, with the child knowing that he or she is biologically a part of us, and that it'd establish my legal claim and motherhood over that child. After giving birth to my partner's child, I would like to give birth to my own biological child, and I think the act of giving birth itself would create a stronger family bond between the children. Do you think that's true or not?

I'm interested in hearing your opinions on this.

[slinkerwink]

1. kick

[slinkerwink]

2. yet another kick

[Red_Viking]

3. Not queer, but a mom nonetheless!

So, hopefully I'm qualified to chime in on your question.

First, I firmly believe until we have true equal rights in the US, people like you and your partner will have to find work-arounds that give you some kind of legal protection. That's truly a shame and a tragedy, but you have to work within this system for now.

Having said that, as a mother I certainly see the beauty in you carrying your partner's child. What a wonderful opportunity! Forget the legalities; what child wouldn't want to know they came from such a loving act. Pregnancy is no picnic. It's physically draining, and birth just plain sucks. But I wouldn't trade my daughter for anything. You're offering to perform an act of sacrifice out of love, to be totally connected to your partner and the baby. Go for it!! We don't have enough love in the world. Help spread some around.

Until we get some folks in power who are interested in treating humans like, well, humans, no matter what, these are the kinds of decisions we'll all face. My boyfriend and I are completely and utterly committed to each other, but we're not married. If he went into the hospital, I wouldn't be able to make medical decisions for him. I have no rights, either. So sister, we're in this together.

Good luck to you and your budding family! And remember: there are tons of kids out there looking for good homes as well. Keep us updated.

:hug:

RV

[slinkerwink]

5. thank you for that, but I'm not pregnant yet, and won't be for another

six to ten years. I'm talking about what I'd do hypothetically if given the chance with my partner. I'm only 21, ha. ;-)

[Red_Viking]

7. Holy cow!

You sound so much older. I mean, wiser. ;)

Seriously, I always read your posts because they are intelligent and insightful. I was neither at 21. So, congratulations!

This also tells me you'll make a terrific mom because you're caring and insightful.

By the way, we still have our Howard Dean sign up in the front window of our house. I can't take it down! We live in Texas and I voted for him in the primary. Glad to see he's still in the mix.

You have SOOOOO much time to have kids. Enjoy your freedom now, because once they get here, you are enslaved. In a good way. :)

:dem:

RV

[slinkerwink]

8. awww, I still have my Dean sticker up in my room, and the bumper sticker

on my door. I'll always be a Deaniac at heart! :hi:

[xchrom]

4. my parents are hetero -- but i'm adopted

and i'm gay.
i have a natural inclination towards adoption -- my experience was wonderful.
but i can also understand wanting to conceive and give birth to a child.
i'm old enough that many of my lesbian friends got pregnant in some very old fashioned ways and they've raised wonderful children.
however you do it and i understand the legal concerns -- i think it's great and the joy it will bring will be worth it no matter what you decide.
i'm not really sure you can do it better one way than another.

[slinkerwink]

6. I'm glad to hear that your adoption experience was wonderful!

:hi:

[gator_in_Ontario]

9. Jeezus slinkerwink! what a can of worms...

I love the post!
Besides the legal questions of parenthood, which are very important of course, there is a further distancing of the male in the procreative process. Kind of makes him a third of the equation rather than half, doesn't it?

I think it already irks many men that we can live without them. It will really freak those types out when we can procreate without them.

That said, I think that lesbians should be able to carry their partner's child just like any straight woman can. What a gift of love that is!

And I have to agree that your posts are always thought provoking....

[slinkerwink]

10. did you know that scientists were able to make a female mice fetus

out of two mice female eggs? there wasn't any sperm used in that, so the female mice could make more female mice, and since the y factor in sperm isn't used, it's impossible to create male fetuses between two female mice.

Imagine that if it were to happen to women! A race of Amazons would be created! It's why it hasn't made the leap from mice to humans, because it threatens human males to have that happen.

[kiahzero]

I would hope you see men as more than sperm donors

used to create more women and more sperm donors. That'd be just as wrong as the other way around.

[slinkerwink]

21. it'd depend if we knew the sperm donor, and we'd invite him

the chance to get paternally involved, but it'd be mostly likely an anonymouse sperm donor who has no wish to be paternally involved with the child.

[kiahzero]

29. Sorry, I was confused

I thought you were talking about men in general, not just this kind of way of bringing a life into the world... attribute that to me feeling like crap this week, I suppose.

[gator_in_Ontario]

20. Yes I remember that being

bantered around in college...or the idea of women/women procreating.
Quite a provocative idea!

[slinkerwink]

22. that it is!

I keep thinking about that scene in "If These Walls Could Talk 2" where Ellen tells Sharon Stone that she wishes she could knock her up, and so they spend a lot of time in bed "practicing." I thought it was really cute! ;-)

[slinkerwink]

11. that's true about the male being the third of the equation in lesbian

surrogacy, since I'd be carrying my partner's egg in me, it kind of supplants the old heterosexual tradition of carrying the male sperm, and I can see how that'd be threatening to males, since they're already reduced to nothing being sperm donors.

[slinkerwink]

12. kicking so that any DUer can respond to this if he or she wants to

[slinkerwink]

13. kick

[slinkerwink]

14. another kick to get rid of the dreaded #13th post...

[slinkerwink]

15. kickaroo!

[NewHampster]

16. a Kick for my bud Slink

now go watch the webcast of Kerry and Dean

[slinkerwink]

17. awww, thanks!

[Ysabel]

18. i don't feel that i can answer those questions...

those questions seem too personal - i think - something for you to decide for yourself - i'm posting though because - i wish you much love and happiness - and the same to any future children that you may someday have - whatever and however you decide...

[slinkerwink]

19. that's all right....

:hi:

[Cleita]

23. I'm hetero, but as a woman and I have given a lot of thought to

lineages being martrilineal rather than patrilineal. After all this is pretty much how it happens in nature among mammals who stay in groups or herds. Family groups stay with the birth mother or matriarch until she dies and then the female underlings branch off with their birth families. (This is oversimplified, I know, but elaborating is a whole other post.)

The father is unimportant. In matrilineal societies, the children take the name of their birth mother. Like lets say Sophia, daughter of Mona, or in Gaelic, it would be Sophia Ni'Mona, or if a boy, Brian O'Mona, Brian son of Mona.

In the case of lesbians, why couldn't both get pregnant and blend the families together? You could even use the same sperm donor so that the children would be related to each other. Is it because one of the partners doesn't want to be pregnant?

Just a crazy idea from a crazy old woman.

[slinkerwink]

24. yes, my partner doesn't want to get pregnant

I liked the idea of a blended family, but I'm just as happy carrying her baby, and then my own baby.

[slinkerwink]

25. kick

[slinkerwink]

26. kick

[hunter]

27. What do your parents and your mate's parents think?

If you are lucky, your kid's grandparents won't worry one second about the "biological" origins of their grandchildren. I know a few homosexual couples who have been so lucky. Something like "Lesbian Surogacy" never occured to them. They'd no sooner sleep with their mate's brother... Surprise! You really are a Grandma!

I'm not gay, so I never thought much about such things, and I'm fortunate to live in an extended family that welcomes children whatever their biological origin, or sexual "orientation" of the parents, so I'm not quite sure what to think about your question.

It's been my experience that once a baby is yours, a member of your family and your extended family, the biological origins of this child are much less important than you suppose. The stregnth of the "family bond" is not formed in the birth mother's womb.

[slinkerwink]

28. yes, but it's much more about legality

since we don't have gay marriage to protect gay families, lesbian surrogacy is one way of making a lesbian family "legal"

[hunter]

30. If gay couples have support of their extended family, legality is moot...

If not, well, that's why I strongly support "gay marriage."

"Lesbian Surogacy" seems complicated. A less complicated solution, if you have that kind of money and an aversion to sophisticated medical procedures, is to hire a lawyer with very big teeth.

If science ever gets to the point where a man could have a baby, I can picture my wife saying, "Your turn!"

It would disturb me if it was my turn to have a baby for "legal" reasons.

[slinkerwink]

33. support of extended family is nice, but we'd need the legality part

through lesbian surrogacy since we can't be legally married.

[hunter]

34. There is no legal issue if it never goes to court...

The support of your extended family -- for example all of the children's grandparents -- is what keeps the issue from going to court. A good lawyer can also do this. Court is where you end up after the train wreck.

[slinkerwink]

35. yes, but it's mainly for insurance purposes, and for hospital decisions

if my child should ever end up there.

[latebloomer]

31. very interesting!

I'm not gay, but this in many ways seems to be an elegant solution to the legal issues and a wonderful way to make both of you physically connected to the baby.

I do have one concern, though-- Would this have to be an "in vitro" fertilization? If so, I would be wary, because that involves huge doses of injected hormones, and I'd be concerned about future health issues around that.

On the other hand, if the egg could be easily implanted without all that medical intervention, I'd say it sounds fantastic!

[slinkerwink]

32. what's an in vitro fertilization?

[SoCalDem]

37. To "foster" a fertilized egg that is not your own

requires that YOU take hormones to synchonize your most fertile time, in readiness to accept the fertilized ovum.. Your partner would probably have to have treatments too, so that several eggs could be fertilized at the same time.. In vitro usually "introduces" several fertilized ovum at once, because there is a higher liklihood that "one will take"..The problem is that sometimes MULTIPLE attach and you get a "litter"..

I would seriously re-think the in vitro issue.. There was a famous publisher recently who died of cancer, and she did a lot of studying up, and was convinced that her cancer was "related to" the massive hormone treatments she had while trying to conceive..

I know the reason you want to do this, and it's wonderful, BUT...ANY child that you raise is YOURS...and the same for your partner.. The biological claim on a child does not make the bond any stronger or evel that much more legal..

When our kids were younger, we had friends who were the designated "replacements" for us, in case something happened to us, and it was perfectly legal..

Why not just do it the easy way, and save the extra money that these treatments would cost, to move somewhere that allowed legal status to your relationship :).???

[latebloomer]

38. in vitro fertilization

is a series of procedures which are done as a last resort when a woman is trying unsuccessfully to conceive. Also known as "test tube baby"-- the sperm is injected into the egg in a lab, and the woman must take a series of massive injections of hormones to up her fertility so it will "take". As SoCal said, they usually make a bunch of embryos, and often multiple births result-- which in itself means higher risk.

As I said, I'm not clear on whether you'd have to take all the hormones if you didn't have a fertility problem-- I don't know enough about it.

Bu I do fear, as SoCal also said, that this could be the type of thing, like hormone replacement therapy, where 10 or 20 years later, it's like- "Whoops! Sorry!!-- we didn't realize this was going to cause cancer!"

I don't trust anytime modern medicine wants to shoot women up with a bunch of hormones. Just ain't natural.

[dsc]

36. Interesting

Legally surrogates have rights in at least some states. Thus in those states this should make it easier for you and your partner to assert parental rights. Frankly, otherwise I see no real advantage though I am far less into genetics. I think you will make a great mom no matter what you do. Good luck no matter what you choose.