Single men turning to surrogates
“It was always something I knew, from the time I was a child.” Jeff says, “I knew I wanted to be a daddy.”
Tags: fathers
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008 at 9:22 pm and is filed under Sex & Metropolis.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 500 views |
Trackback | Print this page |
| More from Anthrope1
Stumble It!

Appears to be a dead link.
No offense, but this site’s linking could use some workk, I can hardly ever just click on a link and see the article, it seems to always be a hassle.
Link fixed. Come on guys – it’s not that bad.
It’s interesting how CNN barely refers to the “legal protections” offered by going this route, without much of any explanation as to why a would-be father needs them.
Face it CNN, in America, children = female entitlement, mostly in the form of cash but also in the form of superior rights, and any prospective father who actually expects to spend a child’s first 18 birthdays together with that child can’t read between the lines.
The $100,000 up front cost is nothing compared to the costs of raising a child, especially for a father who is forcibly separated from his child(ren) and is in fact making female entitlement payments on top of child rearing costs in exchange for having his child(ren) taken from him.
It’s a pathetically sad statement about a society when it has come to this, but any man of means who wants to raise his own child(ren) in a failed gynocentric matriarchal experiment like ours should give this option serious consideration before rolling the dice on the usual route, or subjecting his child(ren) to the whims, corruption, greed, and exploitation of children embodied in government enforced fatherlesshood.
Children do indeed need both parents, but fathering a child today by regular means, what some would call the “safe drunk driver argument”, is borderline child abuse in and of itself.
I suspect the primary reason the gynocracy hasn’t already put a stop to this approach to paternity is due to wanting to maintain the appearance that homosexual men are among their constituents. Their difficulty is finding a way to outlaw this procedure but only for heterosexual men, without actually saying so. Expect laws in the future geared towards doing just that if you are seriously considering this approach.
There is no more justification for a man doing this than there is for a woman.
Whatever the reasoning, it’s still the wrong thing to do for either gender and especially for the children involved.
This amounts to “if you can’t beat-em, join-em” and I never liked that philosophy.
Well, It is a sorry state of affairs when a man has to use a surrogate to have kids. In a warped sort of a way, it makes sense, having kids in the normal way,entails a great deal of risk for men.
Using a surrogate may be morally wrong and short the kid out of a mom, but that is the only way a man can have kids and be sure that some vindictive bitch does not steal them and the terrorist in the family courts do not make him into a visitor and finanacial support, ie heavy on the financial part and light on the visitor part.
I rather doubt if this idea will ever be very popular, but until the lopsided legal system is “rebalanced” it may well be a viable option for a lot of people, male and female.