New York Bachelors seeking to Become Single Dads

I'm divided over this. On the one hand, surrogacy takes away from women the power that they now have over civilization and the human race itself, and gives some of that control to a man. Other benefits to men, less macro-oriented, are that it removes the need to pay child support to a woman who never would have used the money on the child anyway. However, the immense cost (up to $90,000) means that the surrogate will definitely be digging for gold -- not exactly a change from just finding a wife (except maybe without the shaming and nagging). This allows a man to "have it all" without having to rely on a woman (on a permanent basis) to make that possible.

The above paragraph is all about the man.

What about the child, and his or her lack of a mother? For that matter, what about the child's lack of a father, while Dad goes out and works every day? By the time he returns home, he will barely be able to provide the level of intensity and focus that a child needs without being exhausted.

Looks like women haven't cornered the market on narcissism after all.

---

John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
"Stopping False Allegations with Surveillance Technology"

It's great to hear that this is becoming, if not more readily available, at least a more visible option for single men. Women have had their sperm banks, and the opportunity to raise a child without a father; if a woman desperately wants a child but never marries, or of her partner is sterile, sperm banks are the place to go. I view this as a man's equivalent. Shouldn't men who desperately want a child be able to have one?

This is, of course, ignoring adoption, which may be considered a less extreme course to take. However, there are a lot of men and women who--for various reasons--want a child of their own body. Adoption is less attractive to them than finding a surrogate.

Also, I think you might have misread, johndias.

"The price of the process can easily reach $90,000, with $15,000 to $27,000 of that paid to the surrogate mother."

If we take the higher number--$27,000--and determine the monthly wage of this job, that's only $3,000. Clearly, this is not exactly a get-rich-quick scheme in and of itself. True, a woman might be holding another job for the majority of her pregnancy, but I still wouldn't consider that "golddigging."

You do bring up an excellent point about the motherless children, though, and the impact that a single-parent upbringing has on a child. That should always be taken into consideration before having a child. However, I'm glad that the government hasn't turned its eye on the reproductive rights of single men and women; that's a freedom I hope we don't lose.

Bear in mind that with the current cost the only men who can afford this have the means to not have to work all day, or find suitable care for the child during the hours they ARE working. The difference boils down to, a woman can become a single parent by "accident", or with little to no cost, a man can't.