Aug 152012
 

In the past I have written about artificial wombs and places like the Rotunda Clinic in India where anyone can go get a surrogate mother to have a child.  It has come up in the past whether single men would really have children by themselves or not.  We now have an answer to that question.  I saw this commercial last night on TV.

While this commercial talks about surrogacy for “couples and singles”, it clearly features a single man getting a child via surrogacy.  Don’t forget that I saw this commercial on TV last night.  If there wasn’t a potential market for surrogate mothers for single men (even if it’s small), then there wouldn’t be commercials about it featuring what clearly is a single man on TV.

This is what I thought was the case, but I didn’t expect to see evidence of it such as a commercial like this so soon.

  13 Responses to “Surrogacy Abroad Commercial”

  1. Ah, the foolishness of fatherhood. “There ain’t no reward in it at all,” wrote Cormac McCarthy, “you just raisin’ up enemies in your own house to grow up an cuss ya…”

    Then again, the more options available for men, the better. This might take off among certain subsets of the population. I’m thinking wealthy dudes with no time to jump through the usual female hoops.

  2. A person worth giving exposure to is Toban Morrison :

    http://photogallery.thestar.com/1038282

    He is a 28-year-old Canadian man who decided to bypass women and hire a surrogate in India.

    He does not overtly say that the unsuitability of modern women is the reason. But as a man who is only 28, he clearly had plenty of time to contemplate marriage. He chose not to.

  3. PMAFT,

    Here are some comments I made, that you may like :

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/08/14/ny-times-defends-single-motherhood/#comment-164424

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/08/14/ny-times-defends-single-motherhood/#comment-164515

    The androsphere might be the earliest stages of something even bigger than we think.

    • You are absolutely right. It is impossible to run a technologically expanding civilization by having those developing technology, namely men, under constant attack. One way or another a shift is coming, and women are not going to fare well.

      • Oh, it is even more than that.

        For the first 99% of human existence, funneling all resources to women (and the fact that women have evolved to have an extreme talent for extracting these resources) made sense since this correlated to the direct survival of children.

        Now that women have gone down to using just 10-20% of their reproductive capacity, on top of the prosperity level we have now, this old paradigm is a *huge* misallocation. And this misallocation will correct.

        Think of the housing bubble, times 1000.

  4. this is just the start.

  5. THERES EVEN MOREEXCITING NEW DEVELOPMENTS , IN A FEW YEARS THERE WILL BE TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL ENABLE MAN TO REPRODUCE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF WOMAN AT ALL ! !
    ADD TO THAT SEXY HUMAN LIKE ROBOTS BEING DEVELOPED IN JAPAN ! IT WILL COMPLETELY NULLIFY THE SEXUAL POWER WOMEN HAVE OVER MEN AND LIBERATE MEN FROM DEPENDENCY ON WOMEN FOR SEX , IN A NUTSHELL IT WILL MAKE WOMEN VERY VERY LESS IMPORTANT AND LESS IN DEMAND FROM WHAT THEY CURRENTLY ARE

  6. I saw a documentary on TV a few years ago about an English man who had a child by surrogacy. He had to go to America to do it because it was not possible to do in the UK. There was some kind of legal issue about a single man using a surrogate in the UK. So this has been going on for a while, but I’m sure it’s cheaper in India than America.

    • Hi guys – I’m not too sure what this website is about, I just stumbled over it. I did this surrogacy thing. You don’t have to be rich to do this, I’m not, you probably need 50K though. Most men and women are very positive about it. Some women hate it because they can see there’s been a power shift because with surrogacy there’s no unspoken threat of divorce, loss of custody, and loss of house over your head. They’d love to see the child taken from you, but ultimately the courts aren’t going to do that – and I just keep a thorough file in case someone wants to have a shot with a frivolous complaint about my parenting.

      I had a child care worker I couldn’t stand looking out to make a problem for me. One day she rang me to complain that my daughter had a wet patch on her jumpsuit leg (it was where I cleaned food off them with a few wet-wipes, I told her this wasn’t a problem and I wasn’t interested in it) – later that day, when I came to pick her up, she told me my daughter had a bruise on the face and asked me how it happened. I told her I couldn’t see what she could, but just to make sure I’d take a large number of photographs and have them put into an Affidavit the same day. She backed off then. I went to a QC who’s a semi-friend, and he swore that she had no bruise, and we put in about 15 photos from every angle just to hold strong evidence. I told everyone in his office what was going on, and the middle-aged women support staff in the office doted over my daughter while we completed the Affidavit.

      Unsurprisingly, my daughter never went back to that child care centre, although I’ve had similar problems in another one. I’m just not going to be told how I must say goodbye to my daughter, when I should give her drinks, and how I should be raising her in my own home. In the second case, a controlling acting manager demanded I put her in touch with my child and maternal health nurse so she could make sure I was understanding that nurse’s advice properly, and made various threats to make reports if I didn’t. I wasn’t interested in her threats, so I told all the women – who were great at caring for my daughter – that I was removing her, and why. I thanked them each of them and left on the spot with my child.

      Another search for a new child care centre for us, then:)

      A small minority of men are often more vocably against this than women, but I think for them it’s sort of an ignorant ‘that’s different, it must be sick and wrong’ sort of thinking, whereas the small minority of women who oppose understand what’s really at play.

      To whoever talked about artificial, as in machine, wombs – what pipe-dream rubbish, there’s no such technology anywhere near development.

      End of the day, of the women I’ve met a few have been absolutely awesome – yeah you L – most are fine. It’s just that the law in Western countries gives way too much free rain to the tiny minority who are psychologically messed up people with the energy and motivation to cause trouble.

      As for having a child. Here’s my formula. 1. Happy marriage between good reasonable man and good reasonable women (5-20% of population) 2. Divorce (40% of population) 3. Unhappy marriage of some degree or other, of some description or other (40% of population).

      By my calculation, being a single father is less good than 1, but better than 2, 3 and 4, which is actually where most men will end up.

  7. [...] least not tied down to women.  This is not the first commercial like this.  We have already seen commercials that target single men for surrogacy services in India.  With a growing population of men either going their own way or at the very least not getting [...]

  8. Surrogacy Abroad – Surrogacy Abroad in India with Low Cost Surrogacy Clinics by Surrogacy Specialists experienced in IVF Surrogacy abroad. surrogacy abroad,cost surrogacy abroad,surrogacy abroad India,gay surrogacy abroad,surrogacy abroad UK

  9. On the issue of surrogacy/artificial wombs and sperm banks (or even sexbots/porn for that matter) becoming replacements for relationships between men and women:

    The inevitable result of this, if it’s taken up in large measure, is a growing divide between males and females.

    This is fine as far as adults go, but where does this lead us as a species? I know that people using “think of the children” arguments to push their agendas have worn them out, but that does not eliminate the fact that we do need to think about children if we are going to think about the future, because children are the future.

    Adults can take care of and be responsible for themselves, but children cannot.

    It has been shown (from one of Warren Ferrel’s works, if I remember correctly) that single mothers are the worst for children, single fathers are better, and two-parent homes are the best.

    By depriving children of mothers or fathers, we’re depriving them of the environment which has proven to be the best for their development: with two biological parents. This does not have to mean a traditional marriage, but at some point, children are going to need both of their parents.
    All artificial wombs, surrogacy, and sperm banks will do is perpetuate the epidemic of single parenthood, which is essentially sacrificing the well-being of future generations for the convenience of adults, just because men and women can’t find a way to get along with each other. That is not right.

    I have not seen any viable alternative to the traditional family unit that benefits children to an equal or greater degree than the traditional family unit does. Generations raised by 2 parents are what got our civilization to this advanced point in terms of technology and innovation in the first place. The moment single parenthood set in, the youth went wayward and now the U.S. is falling behind other nations in almost everything. Single parenthood simply has NOT proven itself the best. Can anyone provide evidence that single parenthood is better for children than two parents are?

    So, to sum it up, the problem with the whole sexbots/porn/prostitution/artificial womb/sperm banks/surrogacy issue is that none of them are realistic long-term solutions for our species, because they’re all disasters for children. So talking about them is a waste of time and distracts people from working on real solutions.

    If we continue down this road of single parenthood, which is correlated with juvenile delinquency and a host of other psychological problems in children, we’ll do nothing but continue to have mayhem from these fatherless/motherless children. This is why artificial wombs/surrogacy/sperm banks are not realistic long-term options for society as a whole.

    And it’s obvious why porn and sexbots are not good long-term solutions. If every man did that and didn’t engage in any actual reproduction, it still wouldn’t matter because the women would just use sperm banks and we’d end up in the same situation: with a generation of single-parent children.

    Instead of wasting time with things that cannot work as long-term solutions for the species as a whole (reference everything above to see why), it is more productive to dedicate thought and time to something that can.

  10. I saw a documentary on TV about a man from the UK who had a surrogate child. He had to go to America to do that and have his surrogate artificially inseminated with an embryo that was created with his sperm and a donor egg (not from the surrogate) to make sure he would be the legal parent of the child because of the legal rights women have to children they carried in pregnancy (in the UK) or are genetically related to (in the US). It is difficult to do, but it is possible if you have enough money.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

%d bloggers like this: