Sparkling Adventures in Child Neglect - "Gayby" is Born!

[August]

If I said, "I'm a gold star straight". "I've never been touched by a lesbian or even a vagina since I'm a cesarean birth" ergo my hetero pedigree is untainted I think I'd raise more than a few eyebrows.

Gay men tend to get a free pass for misogyny, I have no idea why.

[ILoveJellybeans]

I have no idea why anyone would choose a surrogate whose husband murdered their last baby a year before and has obvious mental health issues.

[treemom]

This is the kind of thread where I find myself reading one viewpoint and going wow, I think they might be right and then reading the opposite viewpoint and going wow, I think that might actually be right. So thanks for making me think guys.

[Peas n carrots]

(snip...)I really wonder what these men were thinking in choosing her. One could really come at it from the perspective that they calculatedly chose a complete mess of a woman so they would have no birth mother issues. But it is also just as likely that they were desperate, had a limited time frame, limited resources that she accommodated, or that they even think she is "cool". She may have just fit what they wanted physically. We don't know. But I really want to!

I think you got part of it there, desperation and resources. I'm sure the fact that she lives halfway around the world (and therefore, less likely to show up at their front door in the future) made her an attractive option.

Also, I seem to recall Lauren had originally been seeking out gay couples in particular. I'm sure an American/Icelandic couple made it all the more "sparkling" for her.

[Rachel333]

Lesbians use "gold star" too to refer to someone who has never slept with a man. I think it's harmless on its own, but when people take it too seriously it is alienating to those who have slept with men and it can be quite biphobic. No one says you can't be a gold star if you've changed a diaper, though, and I don't think even these guys are saying that. It sounds like Ben grew up in a homophobic environment and he's over compensating now.

[Antimony]

Lesbians use "gold star" too to refer to someone who has never slept with a man. I think it's harmless on its own, but when people take it too seriously it is alienating to those who have slept with men and it can be quite biphobic. No one says you can't be a gold star if you've changed a diaper, though, and I don't think even these guys are saying that. It sounds like Ben grew up in a homophobic environment and he's over compensating now.

This. Gold stars are a weird issue in the queer community. But I don't know anybody in my generation (18-25 years old ish) that still uses them. I read all of their comments about cesareans and diaper changing in relation to gold stars as tounge in cheek, making fun at this outdated slang term.

I believe the phrase was born out of pride as in, "I was never in the closet and played straight" but as the world grows more accepting and bisexuality is less erased, this isn't really a point of pride.

Is it absurd that they chose Lauren for the surrogate? Yeah.

Is it wrong ththat they attended the birth and are the first to hold the son that is *theirs*? Hell no.

I wonder partially if they close Lauren because how many other people would agree knowing it's illegal? On TOP on how huge surrogacy is. Laurens one in a million, that's for sure.

[nelliebelle1197]

This is the kind of thread where I find myself reading one viewpoint and going wow, I think they might be right and then reading the opposite viewpoint and going wow, I think that might actually be right. So thanks for making me think guys.

The best part is that no one is getting mean or personal. I appreciate that!

And we all have some things in common: we are all befuddle as to why anyone would choose Lauren and we are all concerned for her poor little girls :wtf:

[martian]

I really wonder what these men were thinking in choosing her. One could really come at it from the perspective that they calculatedly chose a complete mess of a woman so they would have no birth mother issues. But it is also just as likely that they were desperate, had a limited time frame, limited resources that she accommodated, or that they even think she is "cool". She may have just fit what they wanted physically. We don't know. But I really want to!

You've given me food for thought here, which I thank you for. I was pretty firmly settled on the fathers being self-absorbed, irresponsible assholes, but you're right. There are other possibilities. The resources you need for legit, through an agency, lawyers and therapists involved surrogacy are staggering, like in the neighborhood of a hundred thousand in the U.S., maybe more if you go with an egg donor and gestational surrogacy rather than traditional. It really could be a resource issue in part. And "cool" could be an actual factor. They met Lauren. I'm sure that she can be very charming, charismatic and weave an engrossing narrative out of her tragic history.

I vehemently disagree that baby Daniel is not a brother to the girls, though. Or rather, I feel that the sibling relationship is well outside the bounds of what the adults get to decide. That is entirely up to the children themselves, whether the adults work to keep them connected now or the kids take matters into their own hands later.

With everybody on board the speculation bus, is there any text to go off of? Do we know what variety of relationship the adults have agreed to?

[hoipolloi]

Is it absurd that they chose Lauren for the surrogate? Yeah.

Is it wrong that they attended the birth and are the first to hold the son that is *theirs*? Hell no.

That about sums it up.

The photos of the birthing tub bonding are sweet & are no different than what occurred when my grandchild was born to DS & DDIL. Both of them did extended skin-on-skin bonding immediately after birth for 2-3 hours. No photos but I'm sure it would look the same. In the case of little Daniel Valor, those photos gave me much more hope that at least this part of the story is well on the way to a happy ending.

Now, if something could only be done for the four girls, to give them such love & security.

[Kailash]

And just because some people want to know their biological family does not mean every one else does. I don't know why that is so hard to understand. That is all I was saying - from first hand experience- in response to the sweeping generalizations about how Daniel should not be denied his "mother" that others were making. And I never said I hated anyone - I have never met these people and have no desire to. Extrapolate much?

What YOU are missing is that this child is not Lauren's, she will not be his mother in anything other than biology and that the fathers are his parents. If they choose to have Lauren in his life, that is THEIR decision - all three of the grownups. Lauren may not want anything to do with the kid. You have no idea what their situation is.

And WTF? Where did I say I knew anything about Icelandic law? Whatever the law is, this is an open surrogacy, not adoption. That has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with the circumstance. People seem to be forgetting that this child will be living with his biological FATHER who may make different choices for him than you would. This is NOT a traditional adoption. It's a surrogacy. BTW, have they even been clear as to whether they used Lauren's actual eggs or whether she is a gestational surrogate?

In the end, it is DANIEL'S choice as an adult whether he considers Lauren and her children his family and Daniel's FATHERS' choice when he is a child. No one can judge what is right or wrong in these situations from the outside. Only the people IN the circumstance can make rational decisions. What makes your family is not your biology. It is who you choose to love and let in.There is nothing wrong with Daniel's fathers choosing not to let him have a relationship with Lauren when he is a child or Daniel choosing to ignore that part of his biology as an adult.

I really doubt these reactions would be so... judgmental and snide... towards the parents if this was a straight couple. How is the situation different than when lesbians or straight couples choose a sperm donor? Those men sell their sperm to make babies. It's a double standard and does smack of homophobia.

To the bolded: I don't understand how it's Daniel's choice to make, and not his biological half sisters' choice as well. They are all children, and none of them had a say in this. Also, I agree with the pp who mentioned medical history as an important thing to know. Down the road, one of these kids may need a kidney or something, and the best match might be a half sibling.

[nelliebelle1197]

To the bolded: I don't understand how it's Daniel's choice to make, and not his biological half sisters' choice as well. They are all children, and none of them had a say in this. Also, I agree with the pp who mentioned medical history as an important thing to know. Down the road, one of these kids may need a kidney or something, and the best match might be a half sibling.

This is where the ethical issues come in that are so difficult. I have a always viewed surrogacy as an arrangement I in which a woman is basically renting - for lack of a better word- her womb/egg to someone with no anticipation of traditional family roles being honored. This is not the same as an adoption. Friends of mine actually got eggs from a different source to mitigate the complications. So yeah, I can see where if you have this point of view that the girls have no right to see Daniel because their mom was just a vessel. I guess it depends on your world view. I can imagine a lot of people using a surrogate wanting the biological ties to the birth. I really don't know how I feel about any of this anymore

[Juniper]

This is where the ethical issues come in that are so difficult. I have a always viewed surrogacy as an arrangement I in which a woman is basically renting - for lack of a better word- her womb/egg to someone with no anticipation of traditional family roles being honored. This is not the same as an adoption. Friends of mine actually got eggs from a different source to mitigate the complications. So yeah, I can see where if you have this point of view that the girls have no right to see Daniel because their mom was just a vessel. I guess it depends on your world view. I can imagine a lot of people using a surrogate wanting the biological ties to the birth. I really don't know how I feel about any of this anymore

That's partially how I feel about it but I keep leaning on the different types of surrogacy as my mindset. I feel like in a traditional surrogacy, the way Lauren did it, I can completely understand her daughters eventually wanting a relationship with the baby.

I dated a guy who had two dads and was in sort of the same boat. His dads knew the surrogate in some form and they ended up having a traditional surrogacy. My ex was born in the US and the surrogate/his bio-mom, lives in Europe. His dads had another kid through traditional surrogacy and then adopted two more kids from foster care. The surrogate/bio-mom went on to be a traditional surrogate for another couple. My ex, as an adult, decided to seek out the other children that he was related to through the surrogate/bio-mom. He also wanted to form a relationship with the surrogate/bio-mom.

[LadyBlue]

This is where the ethical issues come in that are so difficult. I have a always viewed surrogacy as an arrangement I in which a woman is basically renting - for lack of a better word- her womb/egg to someone with no anticipation of traditional family roles being honored. This is not the same as an adoption. Friends of mine actually got eggs from a different source to mitigate the complications. So yeah, I can see where if you have this point of view that the girls have no right to see Daniel because their mom was just a vessel. I guess it depends on your world view. I can imagine a lot of people using a surrogate wanting the biological ties to the birth. I really don't know how I feel about any of this anymore

To take this view, you have to completely ignore the biological reality that for the baby, whoever gestates him/her is their mother, in every way that matters. Honestly, for infant adoption and surrogacy to even remotely be considered acceptable, you have to ignore everything we've learned in the last 50+ years about fetus' and newborns and their connections to their mother. Babies separated from their mothers undergo a kind of PTSD and a complete re-wiring of their brains to cause their stress reactions to change.

Adoptees (and I suspect children of surrogates, although as far as I'm aware there aren't any studies since the first generation are just becoming adults) are 4 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population, far more likely to be addicts, far more likely to be in psychiatric treatment, even more likely to be murderers. Being separated from your mother is a trauma on a MASSIVE scale for a baby. Are there some who are outwardly seemingly unaffected? Of course, but even they start realising that they are affected when they get together with a group of fellow adoptees or "children" of surrogacy and discover that what they thought were just personality quirks or a problem with them is actually something they all share.

We know it's harmful to take puppies and kittens from their mothers, but we completely ignore/like to pretend that human babies aren't also affected by it when it's convenient for adults. IMO, and the opinion of many of the now adults who were adopted or created through surrogacy, both are about fulfilling adult desires at the expense of children. Surrogacy should be banned and adoption should be limited to situations where there truly is no other choice (none of this adopters fighting fathers for their own children bs) and even then, the practice of falsifying birth certificates needs to stop. Children have a right to know who they come from if they want to. Birth certificates should contain factual information about whose egg and sperm the child was created from. And if we aren't banning surrogacy, those certificates should have whose egg, whose sperm and whose uterus.

I just wanted to clarify that my position has nothing to do with them being gay, I'd be equally disgusted if it were a hetero couple. I have been equally disgusted by a female adopter having "birth" pictures taken in a birth pool with a baby she adopted. It completely ignores the trauma the baby is going through.

Is it absurd that they chose Lauren for the surrogate? Yeah.

Is it wrong ththat they attended the birth and are the first to hold the son that is *theirs*? Hell no.

Hell, yes. Children are not property and babies have certain needs and biological expectations immediately after birth. Sometimes their health makes it so those expectations can't be fulfilled, but if at all possible they should be. There is a reason hospitals stopped taking babies away for hours right after birth unless absolutely necessary; they discovered it's harmful. Someone else wanting to hold the baby because it's "theirs" isn't actually a good reason, it's an incredibly adult-centric view with no regard for the child's needs.

[So Many Lies]

I have no idea why anyone would choose a surrogate whose husband murdered their last baby a year before and has obvious mental health issues.

That's an issue I can't get past.

I actually despise the comments to the the effect of "Lauren suffered a loss and now she's given new life" as if somehow this is all a big wonderful circle and those events are related, cancel each other out or is some form of bizarre ritualistic closure. Seriously WTF!

The tone of the Essential Baby article was like that...it was maddening. As are all the hippy leg jumpers who ignore the multitude of ill thought out consequences of this. And that it's quite a mentally ill thing to do: oh my baby was killed...I know I'll be a surro for a couple across the globe".

[So Many Lies]

To take this view, you have to completely ignore the biological reality that for the baby, whoever gestates him/her is their mother, in every way that matters. Honestly, for infant adoption and surrogacy to even remotely be considered acceptable, you have to ignore everything we've learned in the last 50+ years about fetus' and newborns and their connections to their mother. Babies separated from their mothers undergo a kind of PTSD and a complete re-wiring of their brains to cause their stress reactions to change.

Adoptees (and I suspect children of surrogates, although as far as I'm aware there aren't any studies since the first generation are just becoming adults) are 4 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population, far more likely to be addicts, far more likely to be in psychiatric treatment, even more likely to be murderers. Being separated from your mother is a trauma on a MASSIVE scale for a baby. Are there some who are outwardly seemingly unaffected? Of course, but even they start realising that they are affected when they get together with a group of fellow adoptees or "children" of surrogacy and discover that what they thought were just personality quirks or a problem with them is actually something they all share.

We know it's harmful to take puppies and kittens from their mothers, but we completely ignore/like to pretend that human babies aren't also affected by it when it's convenient for adults. IMO, and the opinion of many of the now adults who were adopted or created through surrogacy, both are about fulfilling adult desires at the expense of children. Surrogacy should be banned and adoption should be limited to situations where there truly is no other choice (none of this adopters fighting fathers for their own children bs) and even then, the practice of falsifying birth certificates needs to stop. Children have a right to know who they come from if they want to. Birth certificates should contain factual information about whose egg and sperm the child was created from. And if we aren't banning surrogacy, those certificates should have whose egg, whose sperm and whose uterus.

I just wanted to clarify that my position has nothing to do with them being gay, I'd be equally disgusted if it were a hetero couple. I have been equally disgusted by a female adopter having "birth" pictures taken in a birth pool with a baby she adopted. It completely ignores the trauma the baby is going through.

Hell, yes. Children are not property and babies have certain needs and biological expectations immediately after birth. Sometimes their health makes it so those expectations can't be fulfilled, but if at all possible they should be. There is a reason hospitals stopped taking babies away for hours right after birth unless absolutely necessary; they discovered it's harmful. Someone else wanting to hold the baby because it's "theirs" isn't actually a good reason, it's an incredibly adult-centric view with no regard for the child's needs.

I applaud you. It's right. This is the only moral and logical stance to take. Surrogacy is NOT right and contrary to everything we know to be right about pre birth bonding and identity.

There are many things I would like in life but I can't have them. I'm not going to use another person's body to procure them either.

[GiGi_41]

I'm not going to quote because I'm at a loss who is saying what now, but I think that in a lot of states the reason why the birth certificate is changed is because the adopters have accepted the responsibility of the child. The child is now their progeny and equally entitled to an inheritance. My daughter's birth certificate was changed, because her biological parents are no longer her legal caregivers.

I am not saying that there shouldn't be a different form, like maybe it should start out as a birth certificate and change into a certificate of live birth, but with out something that legally shows I'm responsible for her you are asking me to bring her adoption papers with me to register her for school or to get her drivers license. Maybe she doesn't want everyone to know she's adopted? It's her choice to decide to tell people that when the time comes.

And while we know that taking puppies and kittens away from their mom early can be harmful, we also know that a surrogate mom of the same species works out fine, it's when we as humans try to be surrogates that things get dicey and we get bad behaviors.

Some biological parents are incapable of raising a child(or puppies or kittens) and do more harm than good. Sometimes we have to make hard choices and hope for the best.

I also think more studies need to be done with children that know from the start that they are adopted and in more open adoptions, separating out those that have been kept in the dark and had closed adoptions, to really see what the affect is long-term.

My daughter sees her mother several times a year (her father hasn't approached me). You cannot tell me that the effect her mentally ill mother would have had over the long term in her life is less damaging than her placement in a single foster home at her time of birth, especially since I have gone out of my way to make the adoption as open as possible. BTW, I am in no way required to do this as my state does not recognize open adoptions.

ETA for spelling

[NellieBell]

This has been a truly amazing thread to read. I'm sort of blown away at the intelligent and dignified debate and am damn proud and feel very privileged to be a member here. I need a card to carry or perhaps a bumper sticker. :D

Nellie, you blow me away with your courageous, fierce intelligence. You have such spirit. You're going to change the world in some good way. Even if it's small, it will be significant.

[So Many Lies]

I dated a guy who had two dads and was in sort of the same boat. His dads knew the surrogate in some form and they ended up having a traditional surrogacy. My ex was born in the US and the surrogate/his bio-mom, lives in Europe. His dads had another kid through traditional surrogacy and then adopted two more kids from foster care. The surrogate/bio-mom went on to be a traditional surrogate for another couple. My ex, as an adult, decided to seek out the other children that he was related to through the surrogate/bio-mom. He also wanted to form a relationship with the surrogate/bio-mom.

I am pleased for him! Good on him. I hope he got the answers he needed.

[heidi]

I also think more studies need to be done with children that know from the start that they are adopted and in more open adoptions, separating out those that have been kept in the dark and had closed adoptions, to really see what the affect is long-term.

My daughter sees her mother several times a year (her father hasn't approached me). You cannot tell me that the effect her mentally ill mother would have had over the long term in her life is less damaging than her placement in a single foster home at her time of birth, especially since I have gone out of my way to make the adoption as open as possible. BTW, I am in no way required to do this as my state does not recognize open adoptions.

ETA for spelling

I have never not known that I was adopted. My (adoptive) parents have always been very open and forthcoming with the little information that they had. I received regular letters and presents from a biological aunt--but I've still gone through a process of grieving a loss. Adoption is painful for me--and I love and adore my family. If I could change anything about my life I would change it so that I had simply been born into the family I have now so that I could avoid being an adoptee. I mourned a loss I didn't understand for years. I don't think that non-adoptees (even adoptive parents) can quite understand what it's like to be adopted.

[Peas n carrots]

I'm an adoptee lite (adopted by my step father at age 6). I felt a massive hole in my life not knowing my biological origins on one side, as my mom liked to pretend my step dad was my dad and would not discuss my bio father with me.

I was reunited with my bio-father a few years ago. It answered a lot of questions in my life, and it's brought me peace being able to have a relationship with my bio dad on my own terms (which actually, is at an arm's length for a myriad of reasons).

As much of a moron as I find Lauren to be, it should be up to Daniel to decide what he wants out of a relationship with her. Some people do feel a special bond with their bio mom even after years of separation, and others do not. But that should be Daniel's decision and no one else's.

And I hate to break it to the poster who said that Daniel isn't a sibling to those girls, but genetically he is. Once again when they are all of an age of emotional maturity they should work together to build a relationship if they so wish.

I just get so frustrated with the folks who forget about the children and the bio families in the adoption triad, as if their feelings are not as important as the adoptive families.

[So Many Lies]

^

I had to call my step dad "Dad" and my mother kept insisting I tell none of her friends that I wasn't the biological child of their union. She loved it when people said there was a family resemblance.

I wasn't allowed to show dissent and I wasn't allowed to be honest.

I had to agree when she said things like, "but you turned out fine"!

I imagine a political issue like gay surrogacy the pressure is all the more to say "Yay life's great and two dad's are better than one" and all that jazz.

My question is, why can't they all have a relationship RIGHT from the start. Not wait until he's older - that just makes it all the worse.

Daniel can't be expected to believe his Dad gave birth to him. He should have an extended family relationship with ALL of them. Starting from NOW.

[LadyBlue]

I'm actually what's known as an LDA (I did an AMA ages ago) which means late discovery adoptee. In other words, I grew up not being told I was adopted. I found out as an adult. Let me just say that secrecy in adoption (& surrogacy) does not stop the issues from happening. If anything, it causes even more damage. If nothing else, Daniel should know about the girls (& vice versa) as he grows up. While many adoptees have issues with their bio mothers (and from the reading I've done many of the now adult surrogate "kids" do too), they often enjoy great, healing relationships with one or more siblings

[samithemage]

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Well, according to tsu, Lauren's insomnia is back, but otherwise she's a-ok. She's spending lots of time out of the house away from the girls. They would rather stay at home, under the care of friends. So Lauren's enjoying her freedom and going to the movies.

[ViolaSebastian]

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Well, according to tsu, Lauren's insomnia is back, but otherwise she's a-ok. She's spending lots of time out of the house away from the girls. They would rather stay at home, under the care of friends. So Lauren's enjoying her freedom and going to the movies.

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

So basically she's dumped the girls on the gold star gays, it sounds like. Glad Lauren is getting her alone time, though. :roll:

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

From her twitter: Red Gypsy Lauren · Twitter ·

When you find yourself in the deepest darkness, act as though the light has already arrived.

That does not sound good.

[Peas n carrots]

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

So basically she's dumped the girls on the gold star gays, it sounds like. Glad Lauren is getting her alone time, though. :roll:

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

From her twitter: Red Gypsy Lauren · Twitter ·

When you find yourself in the deepest darkness, act as though the light has already arrived.

That does not sound good.

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Wait, she is still in Iceland?