If you keep up at all with the Latter-day Saint online space, you have likely come across Charlie Bird. A gay Latter-day Saint influencer, author, and former BYU mascot, Bird has gained a significant following across social media for documenting his faith journey as a gay Latter-day Saint married to a man.
His most recent controversy came when announced that he and his husband, Ryan, have begun the process of procuring a child through in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy.
While this announcement does not come as a surprise (it is, after all, the logical conclusion of the legalization and normalization of same-sex marriage), it is a disturbing example of how women and children are treated as products in the fertility industry – and it’s revealing just how many Latter-day Saints are turning a blind eye to this reality.
The Right to a Mother
Every critique of Charlie Bird that I will explore in this article arises from the premise that children are not commodities. They are not accessories to an adult’s life. Rather, children are persons who have a fundamental right to be raised by their mother and father.
Katy Faust, children’s rights activist, author, and founder of the non-profit Them Before Us, puts it this way, “the singular child-parent relationship accords the child the right to be raised by their mother and father. Parents have a right to leave the maternity ward with their baby, and the baby has a right to leave the maternity ward with his or her parents.”
Faust’s claim is affirmed by The Family: A Proclamation to the World when it says, “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” The key here is the presence of a father and a mother.
Lest anyone doubt the relevance of this proclamation, allow me to quote Elder Ronald A. Rasband’s talk in the October 2025 General Conference.
“The proclamation on the family is, as President Hinckley stated, doctrine, my dear brothers and sisters. The principles are not out of step but perfectly in step with the ways of the Lord and His covenant path.”
Any child that Charlie Bird and his husband acquire with the help of an egg donor and a surrogate will be intentionally deprived of its mother, which is a violation of that child’s rights. Two fathers cannot do what a mother does, and no legal contract can change the fact that children produced via egg donation and surrogacy do indeed have mothers.
Their mothers are simply, tragically, missing.
I cannot imagine my life without my mother. She has been my primary source of unconditional love and comfort since my infancy. Her presence is what makes our house feel like home. This is not a coincidence.
We know that mothers literally regulate their babies’ cortisol levels when they cuddle and breastfeed them. When a woman first begins breastfeeding, the scent of her colostrum matches the scent of the amniotic fluid that the child has already become familiar with during gestation.
When severed, this deep physical and chemical connection leaves a gaping wound in a child’s psyche. How perverse is it, then, to intentionally inflict that wound?
People as Products
I have noticed that many of my fellow Latter-day Saints display a level of naiveté surrounding the topic of egg and sperm donation, so let’s get something absolutely clear:
The word “donation” in the fertility industry is a euphemistic myth.
In reality, the process of two men obtaining a child involves the buying and selling of a woman’s genetic material and the renting of a different woman’s womb. This process not only commoditizes the child, it also splits the role of mother into at least two purchasable parts. First, the biological mother, and second, the birth mother.
In a recent Instagram story, Charlie Bird’s husband, Ryan, revealed how he sees the future mother of his child when he said, “If you’re, like, healthy and pretty and want to give us an egg, just let us know.”
Was this meant to be light-hearted joke? Sure. Does it also reveal a fundamental devaluation of womanhood and motherhood? Absolutely.
Valuing a woman purely for her genetic material is as clear an example of objectification as I can think of. Charlie Bird and his husband have no interest in knowing and sharing a life with a woman. They are two gay men who see the future mother of their child as a means to an end. This reality may be harsh, but it is a reality all the same.
Lot's Daughter's: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of Scripture
You are probably familiar with the Old Testament story of Lot and his daughters. As a quick recap in case it’s been a while, Lot’s daughters get their father drunk and sleep with him after the destruction of Sodom because they mistakenly believe all other men are dead.
In a Substack article entitled “God, Is It Okay For Us To Have Children?” Charlie Bird uses this story as a justification for his decision to create a family in an unorthodox way. His mental gymnastics are astounding.
It is true that throughout history and scripture God has caused beautiful things to arise from less-than-ideal circumstances. He is, after all, a God who gives us “beauty for ashes” (Isaiah 61:3). But that does not mean that we are justified in intentionally and knowingly discarding the ideal.
In the case of Lot’s daughters, it is clear from the text that they are fearful and desperate. They make an abhorrent decision as a result, and mercifully, the Lord makes the best of it. Their circumstance, however, is fundamentally different from the deliberate decision to create a child, separate that child from its mother, and raise it with another man.
I recognize the deep, natural yearning Charlie Bird feels to be a parent. As a single woman in her mid-twenties, I can relate. But “adults need to do hard things so children don’t have to.”
Adults must sacrifice their own priorities to protect children’s rights and well-being. Charlie Bird does not have a right to be a father on his own terms. He does not have a right to deprive his future child of its mother.
And Latter-day Saints should not celebrate his attempts to do so.
