Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Why is Surrogacy Illegal in Most of the World?

[quote]The infertility and surrogacy multi-billion-dollar industries, those who benefit from it, and others, too often attempt to out-shout any criticism of surrogacy by conflating surrogacy with LGBTQ+ rights and labeling all opposition to surrogacy as homophobic.

[quote]Yet, the LGBTQ+ community includes those who are opposed to surrogacy and anonymous designer contract conception, aka assisted reproductive technology (ART).

[quote]Opposition to surrogacy has nothing to do with the sexual preference, sexual orientation, gender identification or marital status of those who use anonymous gamete and/or hire a surrogate. It is contractual anonymous conception and surrogacy which is at question, regardless of who contracts for such services.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 292December 22, 2020 4:45 PM

It's gross.

by Anonymousreply 1July 15, 2020 8:14 AM

It's Handmaid's Tale bullshit. It should be illegal everywhere.

by Anonymousreply 2July 15, 2020 8:19 AM

Because it is trafficking in women and children, that's why.

by Anonymousreply 3July 15, 2020 8:58 AM

It exploits poor women globally. Very selfish and stupid thing to do, especially when there are millions of children rotting away in orphanages.

by Anonymousreply 4July 15, 2020 9:06 AM

Martine Rothblatt wants to turn all real women into broodmares why he and his AGP billionaire pals claim the identity of womanhood for themselves.

by Anonymousreply 5July 15, 2020 9:47 AM

"Because it is trafficking in women and children, that's why. "

!!!!!

The anti-surrogate backlash isn't directed at gay men specifically, it's more aimed at the rich who want to offload the inconveniences and risks of pregnancy onto the poor. It's just another way for the 1% to exploit and dehumanize the rest of us.

by Anonymousreply 6July 15, 2020 10:07 AM

[quote]It's just another way for the 1% to exploit and dehumanize the rest of us.

R6 Exactly like you dehumanize others using the pejorative "the 1%".

by Anonymousreply 7July 15, 2020 10:10 AM

I'm about to give you my general impressions of the matter... not that they're necessarily my own beliefs.

I think many find it to be unnatural. This is especially the case wherein in vitro fertilisation takes place, and the zygote is [italic] implanted [/italic]. The mere practise of injecting sperm into ovum via syringe seems violent, damaging, and somewhat haphazard.

Others who also may believe it to be unnatural, question if it is against the natural order of things. One doesn't necessarily need to be religious to question such a thing. I think it is especially true when in rare instances, surrogate is egg donor as well. Many cannot think of a mother giving up all rights to her child, or question if it is good for the child to never know his mother. These scenarios are often tricky, and more complicated than adoption in certain places. Some children are not allowed to know the identity or medical history of both sperm donors, and egg donors.

Some believe a child should simply happen the old-fashioned way, and all the extraneous attempts, resources, and risks to health involved with hormones to be antithetical to ideas about health, and ideas about the sanctity of human life.

Others believe there are too many souls on this earth, especially unwanted children, and they will encourage adoption instead.

by Anonymousreply 8July 15, 2020 10:35 AM

r8 I don't think anyone should be able rent a woman's body. Women are people, not objects.

by Anonymousreply 9July 15, 2020 10:37 AM

R9 Clearly that is another perspective as well. I just personally haven't seen it through that lens, as the only surrogates I've known in real life did it for family members.

I'm sure some countries see it from your point of view as well, and perhaps that is why they rule on it that way. To be sure, in countries with much poverty, or a large underclass, women could most definitely be exploited in such a manner.

Generally I'm uncomfortable with the matter, but don't like to judge others. I have enough trouble judging my own behaviour at times.

by Anonymousreply 10July 15, 2020 10:44 AM

Probably because people who CAN'T have babies, SHOULDN'T have babies.

by Anonymousreply 11July 15, 2020 10:49 AM

r10, women have been horribly abused through surrogacy. Look at the surrogacy farms in India. The same will be happening in NY soon, with the bill Cuomo passed.

I don't understand how people can find it abhorrent for there to be a black market of organs for sale, but be fine with sexual slavery, the purchase of women as property, the purchase of babies as property, using women as incubators. But selling a kidney is a step too far.

by Anonymousreply 12July 15, 2020 10:53 AM

R11, devil’s advocate, plenty of people who CAN, shouldn’t.

But I know what you mean. I was adjacent to a group of women who were intentionally single mothers. They wanted to be moms but hadn’t met anyone to marry and settle down with, their biological clocks were ticking, and either they adopted or used sperm donors. Most of them were... disordered individuals. I came away thinking that if you can’t compromise and be emotionally functional enough to partner with another adult, you’re not emotionally functional enough to be a parent. (Not that all people who partner and become parents are functional, but you know what I mean.)

by Anonymousreply 13July 15, 2020 11:05 AM

A gay acquaintance of mine had his surrogate birth three children (twins + a single) in under two years.

I’ve heard him make a few insensitive comments in private about the physical changes resulting from her two back-to-back pregnancies and vaginal births, and it has made wonder how many other parents hold dismissive / cavalier attitudes toward their surrogate, viewing her only as a vessel for their use.

I also side eye the medical professionals involved for agreeing to get her pregnant again so fast, but money talks.

by Anonymousreply 14July 15, 2020 11:10 AM

R12 Sadly in India many are exploited. I haven't heard of such farms, yet your post doesn't at all surprise me in the least. Many Indian people are able to make out on a very meagre existence, but have a life like few outsiders can even imagine. I'm not aware of any Cuomo backed law, and no longer live in NY. You should post more details of the law....

I've always had many reservations and downright squeamish feelings about it generally, as I've said. For many reasons in my own life, I prefer simple choices. There certainly isn't anything simple about a surrogacy situation. It's hard for me to imagine being a woman, but in these matters, I do often ask how a woman can donate an egg, and never wonder about that child that may have resulted, as it still is her biological offspring. I also think if the surrogate is both biological mother, and carries to term, how she doesn't become attached. I also think even if I were a woman with fertility issues, I wouldn't want to have a child in this manner.

by Anonymousreply 15July 15, 2020 11:11 AM

The NY law is mentioned in the article with a link about it. Search for Gloria Steinem's name on the page.

by Anonymousreply 16July 15, 2020 11:14 AM

R16 I read the article, then skimmed over again, but found no link to Cuomo and a new law for NY... I must say the article is definitely written oddly at times. In one sentence the phrase "to produce more eggs" is used. As a former science writer, I know that to be an ignorant statement, as women are born with all the eggs they shall ever have. The number varies widely, yet woman do not [italic] produce [/italic] eggs, but rather [italic] release [/italic] them.

Very good points however in the article as regards bonds, boundaries, stateless children, much to consider really.

by Anonymousreply 17July 15, 2020 11:41 AM

[quote]Feminists do not take an opposing position on surrogacy easily, inasmuch as many women – alone or with a partner – are consumers of surrogacy services. It is thus all the more notable that women’s rights scholars such as Phyllis Chesler and Gloria Steinem opposed a NY bill (which passed in May, 2020) to legalize paid surrogacy saying it “turns women’s bodies into commodities and is coercive to poor women given the sizable payments it can bring.”

There are hyperlinks in that section that give more background info. It's in the article.

by Anonymousreply 18July 15, 2020 11:48 AM

We don’t need more people on this planet. Isn’t it funny how states would rather ban plastic bags than ban practices (surrogacy, IVF) that result in more carbon footprint-expanding humans. And now more than ever, in our social media-obsessed world, most people haven’t the vaguest idea of what it takes to be a good parent. (I don’t either, but at least I’m willing to admit it and have chosen not to spawn children).

by Anonymousreply 19July 15, 2020 12:05 PM

There's so much to be against with surrogacy, it's difficult to know where to start. Most cases use a 3rd party egg and we're only now seeing the tip of the iceberg with health consequences to the surrogates and eventual babies. Go figure that putting completely foreign DNA would create problems.

It's the buying and selling of human beings, at the expense of women in lower classes. The US maternal fatality rate is abhorrent as it is (I believe 46 in the world), because no surprise, even many regular pregnancies are tough to get through. Egg donation alone has left many young women with severe health consequences.

If it wasn't exploitative, we'd see laws that protect the surrogate more so, not the couples. It's the legalization of owning a women's body for 9 months, then purchasing a human being, as if it's a product. Couples get all sorts of crazy, demanding abortions, restricting what doctors a surrogate uses, and so on. Many to use the courts to make major medical decisions about another human being -- what's next? Lawsuits over what she ate, did, or her decisions, that caused side effects to the "product"?

It's something a surrogate can't predict either until it's too late. We can all say we'd feel this or that, but when it comes down to it, feelings can change. There's no take backs. This shouldn't be seen as LGBTQ rights either. It's just as much of a problem with heterosexual couples doing it.

NYS had opposition, yet passed legislation making surrogacy commercialized even more during the virus pandemic. They also dismissed it as a womans issue and framed it as "gay rights". I would hope critical thinkers can see the problem with that manipulation.

by Anonymousreply 20July 15, 2020 12:11 PM

R19 how true. I should've added that issue in above. We're at a point where IVF is responsible for something like 3% of global births, while being strained as it is. I don't understand why it's seen as a human right, when it's restricted to mostly the upper class. That should spell out everything you need to know.

by Anonymousreply 21July 15, 2020 12:13 PM

R20 The trouble is that there are very few of us around... those of us with critical thinking skills that is.

by Anonymousreply 22July 15, 2020 12:17 PM

It’s not like we’re suffering from a people shortage on this planet or anything

by Anonymousreply 23July 15, 2020 12:18 PM

For those asking about India, surrogacy was so exploitive, even they finally decided it needed to be outlawed completely. Before they did that, there were agencies basically chaining women to beds until they gave birth. A lot of the money ends up with these agencies, that might as well be relabeled pregnancy pimps. For every sweet surrogacy story, there's a dozen that are not, and anyone that understands issues by class, should see why this would lead to more exploitation than not.

by Anonymousreply 24July 15, 2020 12:20 PM

R22 isn't that the truth. I see it as just another step to more elitism and libertarianism overall. Protecting people by class is still necessary.

by Anonymousreply 25July 15, 2020 12:22 PM

Because it’s exploitation and fucking disgusting?

by Anonymousreply 26July 15, 2020 12:28 PM

This may be a bit of an aside, however I feel it's relevant considering most surrogates have IVF...and conception isn't occuring naturally. I recall discussing this with a Christian friend once, and was curious if his way of thinking on the matter was much different to mine, being Jewish. To my surprise he didn't much share any familiar ideas or reservations as some Catholic friends I've discussed the subject with.

He said something rather interesting that I hadn't considered before. He wondered if all the extreme measures of outside help could possibly result in a weaker gene pool for future generations. He had spent some early years on a farm, bred horses, and his current wife breeds dogs.... He said perhaps some things don't happen for some couples because the genes are not a good match.... It's like we're defying natural selection or something. Forcing it a bit much. I think there could definitely be some merit in that cautious thinking.

by Anonymousreply 27July 15, 2020 12:28 PM

The BBC has good news, r23:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 28July 15, 2020 12:40 PM

R27, I think that’s a valid theory. As an atheist, I wouldn’t think it had anything to do with God’s design, but just plain old genetics.

by Anonymousreply 29July 15, 2020 12:46 PM

R29 Obviously my friend is liberal enough to have me, a gay Jewish man for a friend without trying to convert me to either heterosexuality, or Christianity. Whether we choose to believe or not doesn't change the fact that different upbringings often have different lasting effects on our ways of thinking.

In the Jewish tradition, I believe we incorporate more agnostics and atheists than most other traditions. Another feature of our worldview is that whether we believe or not, we should always live as if there is a G-d. For me, that would definitely include being sensitive to anyone who was being exploited, or enslaved. We're also taught to believe there exists a natural order of things, independent from any divine interaction. Some Jews believe otherwise, but they're a minority really. Therefore any responsibility for safeguarding our destiny, as in the genetic strength of future generations is definitely all ours.

by Anonymousreply 30July 15, 2020 1:01 PM

It's a mostly acceptable form of exploitation and it reduces women to parts they rent out. It's terribly sad to think that the best income you can generate is by gestating a human for people who don't want to adopt. I know adoption is not easy, but it shouldn't be. It's like saying, "Well I HAD to cheat on that exam; it's so hard!"

by Anonymousreply 31July 15, 2020 1:14 PM

Oh, please, you harpies. Stop telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies, for fuck’s sake.

by Anonymousreply 32July 15, 2020 1:18 PM

R30 those are good points about genetics. They are finally starting to notice a pattern of health problems with the use of IVF, so it wouldn't be surprising if weaker genetics result. We're also on track to hit 20 billion people in the next decade. I rather see science working on better quality of existing life, than making new lives just because.

by Anonymousreply 33July 15, 2020 1:18 PM

R32 great argument 🙄 Also ironic when you consider that it's laws allowing other people legal control over womens bodies. I wouldn't want you to think too hard though, it's tough on the noggin.

by Anonymousreply 34July 15, 2020 1:21 PM

R34 M, you’re a moron. It’s nobody’s business what women choose to do with their bodies. Enough nannying people. Prostitution should also be legal. You should want porn banned because it supposedly exploits poor women. Enough already. You want to help poor women - give them other opportunities. It’s not your business to dictate to people what they can and can’t do with their bodies.

by Anonymousreply 35July 15, 2020 1:24 PM

R33 I think my friend made that observation from a strict "animal husbandry" POV... They often artificially inseminate and now even IVF for horses. He really got me thinking of so many not deemed infertile, yet incapable of conceiving with a given partner. Many of these people I've known were able to with a different partner. He said his wife observed the same thing with Malamutes.

by Anonymousreply 36July 15, 2020 1:25 PM

[quote] Also ironic when you consider that it's laws allowing other people legal control over womens bodies

Huh??!! It’s the same legal agreement as adoption. No one is putting a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to do anything. You’re a fucking fascist and a misogynist. Drop dead, freak.

by Anonymousreply 37July 15, 2020 1:26 PM

[quote] I came away thinking that if you can’t compromise and be emotionally functional enough to partner with another adult, you’re not emotionally functional enough to be a parent. (Not that all people who partner and become parents are functional, but you know what I mean.)

But is it okay when Andy Cohen does it?

by Anonymousreply 38July 15, 2020 1:26 PM

Surrogacy is legal in the US. End of story. The rest of the world doesn’t even have free speech laws and wants everyone to be babysat.

by Anonymousreply 39July 15, 2020 1:28 PM

As technology marches on it won't matter in the long run. You do know that scientists have invented an artificial womb right? Who needs the surrogate? And traffic in women when you don't even need the woman. Hmm.

by Anonymousreply 40July 15, 2020 1:29 PM

I've always had the sneaking, nagging, persistent suspicion that just because we CAN do something, doesn't necessarily mean we should.

by Anonymousreply 41July 15, 2020 1:31 PM

R37 defending poor women from misogyny and exploitation is being a freak. You're so progressive, aren't you? With your screeching about "fascism" while trying to shut down conversations. Kiss my ass hypocrite. You're another libertarian posing as a leftist, when you wouldn't understand class analysis if it bit you on the ass.

by Anonymousreply 42July 15, 2020 1:44 PM

I'm sick of corporate liberals like R37, that think they're progressive for wanting healthcare and free college, but are willing to throw class analysis out the window as soon as it's convenient. Pick up a dictionary for once and learn the words you are using to define yourself and others. "Fascism" isn't what you think it is -- it's not any conversation you don't happen to like.

by Anonymousreply 43July 15, 2020 1:48 PM

R37 here's a head start:

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

Name calling ✔ Trying to shut up alternative opinions ✔ supporting economically exploitative practices ✔

by Anonymousreply 44July 15, 2020 1:51 PM

[quote] You do know that scientists have invented an artificial womb right?

No. The Dutch prototype is still a decade away— at least— from being developed. And it is not meant for all stages of fetal development but rather for premature babies.

by Anonymousreply 45July 15, 2020 1:57 PM

Because women control the world, OP.

by Anonymousreply 46July 15, 2020 2:01 PM

Dyke at R2.

by Anonymousreply 47July 15, 2020 2:02 PM

R45 That's too bad. It seems like it could solve a plethora of problems.

by Anonymousreply 48July 15, 2020 2:24 PM

R45 That's too bad. It seems like it could solve a plethora of problems.

by Anonymousreply 49July 15, 2020 2:25 PM

Yes, and it would end surrogacy but women will still complain about it.

by Anonymousreply 50July 15, 2020 2:25 PM

Because only in the West do we trivialize the value of life by allowing it to be sold and murdered before it's born.

by Anonymousreply 51July 15, 2020 2:31 PM

Because it's exploitative. Anyone who is being honest can see that.

by Anonymousreply 52July 15, 2020 2:33 PM

Homophobic straight woman at R52.

by Anonymousreply 53July 15, 2020 2:34 PM

In the long run, women are the ones most negatively impacted by having children. It’s a career killer, and negatively impacts her earning power, whether companies will admit it or not (and I believe that’s one of the reasons why conservatives are so gung-ho on large families). If daddy bails, she’s the one on the hook for all caretaking. And god forbid she drop the ball on that. Then she’s a bad parent.

I know a relatively young upper middle class couple who spent $$$$ on fertility treatments. They had twins. Dad bailed when the kids were a few months old. Now mom has to work full time and raise two children aided by her elderly parents (she’s lucky they’re able to help). Dad just sends his monthly child support payments and enjoys his social life like nothing happened.

If you’re having kids because you want someone to take care of you in your old age, you’re better off putting away the small fortune you’d spend on a kid to save up for a really high-end nursing home. Because it’s likely you’ll be taken care of strangers, anyway.

by Anonymousreply 54July 15, 2020 2:36 PM

^^by^^

by Anonymousreply 55July 15, 2020 2:38 PM

^^by^^

by Anonymousreply 56July 15, 2020 2:38 PM

Do what you want, but I'm glad I had normal parents, not an egg donor. WTF?

by Anonymousreply 57July 15, 2020 2:41 PM

Surrogacy mostly seems to involve rich couples taking advantage of poor women.

by Anonymousreply 58July 15, 2020 2:41 PM

[quote]In the long run, women are the ones most negatively impacted by having children.

They could support artificial wombs -- yet don't.

Or just dump the kids off to be adopted.

by Anonymousreply 59July 15, 2020 2:41 PM

[quote] I'm glad I had normal parents

I'm not. I'd have much preferred to be raised by two fathers.

by Anonymousreply 60July 15, 2020 2:42 PM

I'd be surprised if same-sex couples were the main beneficiaries of surrogacy. I suspect that older heterosexual couples hold that title.

by Anonymousreply 61July 15, 2020 2:46 PM

The urge to procreate is a biological imperative. Nature seeks balance.

by Anonymousreply 62July 15, 2020 2:49 PM

[quote] I'd be surprised if same-sex couples were the main beneficiaries of surrogacy. I suspect that older heterosexual couples hold that title.

Correct. But the most virulent anti-surrogacy hatemongers always focus on gay men.

by Anonymousreply 63July 15, 2020 2:51 PM

[quote] I'm not. I'd have much preferred to be raised by two fathers.

You wouldn't have two fathers. Or did you forget how genetics work? Considering how imperative biology is to you, you think you would know that.

by Anonymousreply 64July 15, 2020 3:02 PM

You're a straight woman, R64. Get off this website.

by Anonymousreply 65July 15, 2020 3:05 PM

What pisses me off about it is the refusal to allow women to control it. If I were going to be a surrogate mother I'd want at least $100,000 for bearing someone else's child. And for Anderson Cooper the price would be $1 million!

Going through a surrogate pregnancy is a physical and psychological endurance test that should be rewarded by at least a decent fraction of what football players make. You want it, you pay for it.

I have become convinced that we don't at all think of the child born of these arrangements and their rights and psychological well being apart from the well being of the surrogate. There are psychological consequences for orphans and those who lost a parent as well as for children put up for adoption. While those instances of "abandonment" of the child aren't deliberately planned, they still can leave a psychological effect on the "abandoned" child. Why would we want to deliberately use a process to acquire a child (and that's essentially what it is) that we know may cause future harm in the child? I'm beginning to think of it as a nothing more than a selfish act.

Maybe it should be banned except for those who do it for family members.

by Anonymousreply 66July 15, 2020 3:05 PM

[quote]What pisses me off about it is the refusal to allow women to control it. If I were going to be a surrogate mother I'd want at least $100,000 for bearing someone else's child. And for Anderson Cooper the price would be $1 million!

Then no one would do it.

by Anonymousreply 67July 15, 2020 3:07 PM

A lot of women think about egg donation and then decide against it when they learn of the health risks, including future infertility.

by Anonymousreply 68July 15, 2020 3:14 PM

Cause it’s against nature, and every time we fuck with nature bad things happen, see Kelly Preston thread.

by Anonymousreply 69July 15, 2020 3:22 PM

Fuck all these adults who want to buy or sell children. For any reason. If you want a child, plenty of them need homes. If you're not willing to adopt a healthy child, you're not fit to be a parent.

My concern lies with the child who becomes a piece of chattel whose fate is controlled by a fucking contract. NO WAY should that ever be allowed to happen. When discussing surrogacy, most people approach it as if there are two parties to this contract. They leave out the child or children being born from this... transaction.

Each of us gets one set of chromosomes from a male and one set from a female. Those are our biological parents. A wealthy person's vanity and control issues should not ever cut a child off from its biological parents. Not ever. The identities of the biological parents should always be available to any child. Very little about surrogacy is for the benefit of the child, when ALL of it should be about the child.

by Anonymousreply 70July 15, 2020 3:22 PM

Egg donor/surrogacy users didn't think about another issue. Your kid could grow up and fuck their own sibling. Yes, that's happened with siblings raised apart before. It's not unheard of.

by Anonymousreply 71July 15, 2020 3:29 PM

[quote]Egg donor/surrogacy users didn't think about another issue. Your kid could grow up and fuck their own sibling. Yes, that's happened with siblings raised apart before. It's not unheard of.

That could be any argument against all non-traditional family structures.

by Anonymousreply 72July 15, 2020 3:36 PM

If the kids are told the facts and given the identity of their donor, then they have the info needed not go fucking siblings. This information has not been shared in the past because of the demands of the market. The parents seeking the donor, the clinic, even the donor, frequently want to go through with this transaction, but only if it is anonymous. Because money is changing hands, that anonymity happens. And then the kids never get vital information that they need and deserve to have as a basic human right.

by Anonymousreply 73July 15, 2020 3:42 PM

Oh yes, I know everyone asks hook ups about their parents. Besides, lots of egg donors don't want to be contacted and that's their right.

by Anonymousreply 74July 15, 2020 3:54 PM

[quote] That could be any argument against all non-traditional family structures.

Yeah, which is why societies have traditionally tried to limit this from happening. And even in most non-traditional family situations, people know their immediate relatives, they just don't live with them. In the situation of an egg donor, you have an entire side of your family that are complete strangers. I wouldn't want that for myself.

by Anonymousreply 75July 15, 2020 3:58 PM

[quote]...lots of egg donors don't want to be contacted and that's their right.

No. It's not. Nor should such a travesty be normalized.

You are going to participate in creating a human being. Put your fucking name on your actions.

by Anonymousreply 76July 15, 2020 4:02 PM

If the mens can’t get it up or they are shooting blanks, they should do what the lady in the “All I Wanna Do Is Make Love to You” Heart video and find a hot hitchhiker and fuck his brains out in a cheap motel.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 77July 15, 2020 4:05 PM

[quote]It’s nobody’s business what women choose to do with their bodies.

This is laughably reductive and stupid. You act like women "choose" to become surrogates out of sheer whim, like getting a pedicure or a new hairstyle, or that this is an "empowerment" stance, like being pro-kink or fat-positive. Oh, I know you're trying to tie this to being "pro choice," but it's a completely disingenuous argument that ignores the ACTUAL reasons women "chose" to turn their bodies over to wealthy elites who insist that their genetic material, by whatever means, must continue on this earth: they do it because of economic necessity, a constant scarcity of wealth and resources, and a lack of services to address that massive wealth inequality. They do it to pay for their education or housing, or to feed their own kids. Not because any woman wants to be impregnated like a farm animal and give the child she nourished and carried for 9 months away to greedy strangers.

You're a fucking slime ball masquerading as a "liberal."

by Anonymousreply 78July 15, 2020 4:06 PM

[quote] You are going to participate in creating a human being. Put your fucking name on your actions.

lol @ someone participating in egg donation (either as a buyer or seller) getting on a high horse about morality. All parties involved, except possibly the child, are clearly only about money and their selfish wants.

by Anonymousreply 79July 15, 2020 4:10 PM

It's utter stupidity when people complain surrogacy exploits women globally--EVERYTHING the West does exploits poorer people.

Heck the entire military is made up of poorer people who are basically forced to join because they don't have money.

Surrogacy is a contract between two consenting adults, PERIOD

by Anonymousreply 80July 15, 2020 4:19 PM

[quote] Egg donor/surrogacy users didn't think about another issue. Your kid could grow up and fuck their own sibling. Yes, that's happened with siblings raised apart before. It's not unheard of.

SO could you, with a sibling your dad never knew he created

by Anonymousreply 81July 15, 2020 4:20 PM

The same is true of 99% of jobs in the world. People do them for money. Ciswomen who become surrogates do so because they find it preferable to cleaning out the toilets in McDonalds.

by Anonymousreply 82July 15, 2020 4:27 PM

Yes, because the only two options for women are cleaning out toilets or becoming a broodmare for another couple. Actually, in your world, you would probably like it if those were the only options for women.

by Anonymousreply 83July 15, 2020 4:39 PM

[quote]Surrogacy is a contract between two consenting adults, PERIOD.

Proves the point. The children and their interests are constantly not considered.

That shall not continue.

by Anonymousreply 84July 15, 2020 4:43 PM

Well, we all watched Little Fires Everywhere and look how that turned out!

by Anonymousreply 85July 15, 2020 4:43 PM

Wow, love how the egg donor/surrogacy proponent always comes up with the worst possible scenarios in order to make the egg donor/surrogacy look normal and preferable. Women forced to clean toilets or be broodmares. Men being deadbeats who knock up women left and right and not caring for their children. Like that's the normal and desirable situation for most people. Although, I'm sure in your sick world, it is.

by Anonymousreply 86July 15, 2020 4:45 PM

R82 How much do you think surrogates are paid? You do know it’s usually between $25-50,000 in the US, far less in third world countries. Maybe that’ll help you scrape by for a year, but it certainly won’t make you rich. You’ll still be cleaning toilets after you’re done.

by Anonymousreply 87July 15, 2020 4:54 PM

Wasn’t there some TV movie of the week with Andrew Rannells about this?

by Anonymousreply 88July 15, 2020 4:55 PM

What R87 said. Also, why are the choices "cleaning toilets at McDonalds" or "rent your womb?" Says a lot about the speaker; classist, demeaning, lacking empathy....

by Anonymousreply 89July 15, 2020 4:57 PM

To those who argue in good faith for good contracts entered into freely, good pay, and that it's legal, etc ... none of that sways me at all. I still find it creepy, and unnatural.

I wouldn't judge a neighbour, or a friend who chose it, but I would strongly counsel a woman down on her luck doing it only for money that surely there may be other solutions to her financial problems. If it were a close friend or family member, I would offer a loan instead.

by Anonymousreply 90July 15, 2020 5:05 PM

You're a straight woman, R86. Get off this website.

by Anonymousreply 91July 15, 2020 5:06 PM

[quote]You do know it’s usually between $25-50,000 in the US

Pretty good for nine months of lounging around.

by Anonymousreply 92July 15, 2020 5:06 PM

They're not "lounging around", dumbass.

by Anonymousreply 93July 15, 2020 5:10 PM

R93 Yes, yes Lamaze classes are so stressful.

by Anonymousreply 94July 15, 2020 5:12 PM

Do you deny being a straight woman, R93?

by Anonymousreply 95July 15, 2020 5:12 PM

Lots of women have stressful pregnancies. Look it up. These guys are obviously desperate for biological child, so they should pay more. An adopted child is not good enough for them, so they should pay more.

by Anonymousreply 96July 15, 2020 5:15 PM

Why are we imagining these women "lounging around???"

God god, the misogyny is off the charts for some of you here. Classism, too. It's disgusting. I hope you're as old and decrepit as your views make you sound because these ideas and the folks who repeat them dying off soon would be the best thing for all of us.

by Anonymousreply 97July 15, 2020 5:15 PM

You're a straight woman, R96. You don't know what actual stress is. That involves having to work.

And you know nothing about the motives of those who give birth through carriers.

by Anonymousreply 98July 15, 2020 5:18 PM

R98 is a very easy block. Good lord.

by Anonymousreply 99July 15, 2020 5:18 PM

[quote] The children and their interests are constantly not considered.

How often are children and their interests considered when straight people have kids the "natural" way? How about when couples are having the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th kids they cant afford? Heck, I know a few families with over 3 kids--there's NO parenting going on.

In fact, those who use surrogates are usually older because they had to have earned the thousands of dollars to hire a surrogate, and they have spent hours and hours thinking about nearly every detail of having kids.

by Anonymousreply 100July 15, 2020 5:18 PM

Ciswomen have attempted to meme pregnancy into being the most difficult thing in the world.

Surrogates wouldn't last a minute down a coal mine.

by Anonymousreply 101July 15, 2020 5:21 PM

[quote]...those who use surrogates are usually older....

That doesn't make your argument stronger. That just lays bare that the kid is likely to have buried its parents by the time it graduates from college. And if that kid has any kids... those kids will never, ever, know their grandparents.

by Anonymousreply 102July 15, 2020 5:21 PM

This must be the decision of the surrogate and the prospective parents. PERIOD.

By making this illegal, we are infantilizing these women as if they can't make any of the right moves for their own lives.

I know a gay couple who used a surrogate--They are very connected to their surrogate, whom I"ve met. She's seems very intelligent and thoughtful. She has always had gay friends and felt she had to do something to help them. She also loves being pregnant, and has two kids of her own. She chose surrogacy as the vehicle. She "made" $25,000 per pregnancy which basically doubled her income.

by Anonymousreply 103July 15, 2020 5:23 PM

So many people shouldn't be having children.

Sterilize all women over thirty-five.

by Anonymousreply 104July 15, 2020 5:23 PM

[quote] Surrogates wouldn't last a minute down a coal mine.

Hahahaha!! This is your argument? Keep "lounging around" in your mother's basement, honey. Anything else is too much for you.

by Anonymousreply 105July 15, 2020 5:26 PM

[quote] Ciswomen have attempted to meme pregnancy into being the most difficult thing in the world.

Oh, and fuck you for thinking you can call anyone cis.

by Anonymousreply 106July 15, 2020 5:27 PM

You smell fishy, R105/R106.

by Anonymousreply 107July 15, 2020 5:29 PM

[quote] By making this illegal, we are infantilizing these women as if they can't make any of the right moves for their own lives.

Yeah, I'm sure you're really so concerned about women. This is about the users of the surrogate and their wants, period.

by Anonymousreply 108July 15, 2020 5:29 PM

[quote] That doesn't make your argument stronger. That just lays bare that the kid is likely to have buried its parents by the time it graduates from college. And if that kid has any kids... those kids will never, ever, know their grandparents.

"Older" doesn't always mean 50 and older. It could absolutely mean 30's. Heck, even if it a parent is 50, most will be in their 70's when the kids graduate from college--hardly at death's door. Plus, should we then stop straight men from having kids at 50?

I never knew my grandparents because they had all died before I was born--and my parents were only in their 30's.

by Anonymousreply 109July 15, 2020 5:32 PM

But you, R108, hate surrogates because you hate gay men.

And no gay man would ever pick your ugly, fat cis ass to be their carrier.

Now get off this board and go stick your fish-hole in acid.

by Anonymousreply 110July 15, 2020 5:33 PM

Governments need to stop trying to make use of our bodies illegal.

Sex work and surrogacy are just fine if done between consenting adults.

by Anonymousreply 111July 15, 2020 5:34 PM

Also, how great is this for the offspring? As someone who grew up not seeing or knowing anyone related to me biologically, it’s far from ideal. The legal parents tend to constantly assert their legitimacy and may be deeply threatened by challenges.

by Anonymousreply 112July 15, 2020 5:34 PM

[quote] Wow, love how the egg donor/surrogacy proponent always comes up with the worst possible scenarios in order to make the egg donor/surrogacy look normal and preferable.

Yet, you want to make it look abnormal..just because you think it is.

by Anonymousreply 113July 15, 2020 5:35 PM

[quote] Also, how great is this for the offspring? As someone who grew up not seeing or knowing anyone related to me biologically, it’s far from ideal. The legal parents tend to constantly assert their legitimacy and may be deeply threatened by challenges.

Far more kids are adopted than come from surrogacy. Should we kill them instead because of the issue you bring up?

by Anonymousreply 114July 15, 2020 5:36 PM

[quote] Also, how great is this for the offspring? As someone who grew up not seeing or knowing anyone related to me biologically, it’s far from ideal. The legal parents tend to constantly assert their legitimacy and may be deeply threatened by challenges.

Um, do you understand surrogacy at all?

The offspring, at the least, is related to one of the parents biologically. When straight couples use surrogates, it is often to carry a fertilized egg, so the child is actually related to both parents

by Anonymousreply 115July 15, 2020 5:37 PM

R114, No, we should do like other countries do, which is to try to support the mother and, if she is unable to raise the child, support the larger family. Most countries find this separation horrific.

R115, I am well aware of how surrogacy works. There are obviously multiple ways, some which involve biological relations, some which don’t. The main relationship - with the mother who actually carries the child - is typically seen as the most important because of the emotional, physical, and chemical bonding that takes place. Do what you want, I’m not having kids.

by Anonymousreply 116July 15, 2020 5:43 PM

You smell older than dirt, R107. You must be at least 80.

by Anonymousreply 117July 15, 2020 5:57 PM

To the person above who asked how could a woman donate eggs and not wonder how they turned out...do you feel the same way about male sperm donors?

I saw a video where a young woman (in her 20s), who had been conceived through sperm donation, had arranged to meet her bio dad. She was running through the airport, and then she ran into his arms, sobbing. I thought it would be cruel to intentionally put a child in the situation where they didn't know half of their parentage...just because the parent wanted something to post about on social media, or someone to keep them company or take care of them when they're old.

I'm a lesbian. Nature specifically designed me so that I would not seek out sperm/fertilization. Maybe I don't have the right genes for the next generation...or ten generations into the future. I believe in evolution.

by Anonymousreply 118July 15, 2020 6:04 PM

[quote] Nature specifically designed me so that I would not seek out sperm/fertilization. Maybe I don't have the right genes for the next generation...or ten generations into the future. I believe in evolution.

You're confusing evolution with intelligent design.

by Anonymousreply 119July 15, 2020 6:11 PM

I don't think nature creates gay people so they won't reproduce. Besides not believing that "nature" is sentient and makes decisions that way, nor believing that gay people are inherently inferior for some reason, the fact that gay people have reproduced throughout history is pretty clear evidence that it's not a sound "evolutionary theory."

Besides, gay adoption and blended families with gay parents/step-parents have proven that as a group, we're just as capable of parenting as anyone else.

Gay people can reproduce the old fashioned way, and I don't just mean heterosexual sex, though that is an option. I know plenty of lesbians who made good use of a turkey baster and a willing male donor.

by Anonymousreply 120July 15, 2020 6:14 PM

A few studies have show that children raised by gay parents actually have better self esteem and do well in school

by Anonymousreply 121July 15, 2020 6:19 PM

[quote]I saw a video where a young woman (in her 20s), who had been conceived through sperm donation, had arranged to meet her bio dad. She was running through the airport, and then she ran into his arms, sobbing. I thought it would be cruel to intentionally put a child in the situation where they didn't know half of their parentage...just because the parent wanted something to post about on social media, or someone to keep them company or take care of them when they're old.

There are millions of kids who don't know one or more of their parents; Orphaned, one parent dead, estranged parents, divorced parent, and on and on and on and on and on.

There are a multitude of "cruel" things in this world. This doesn't even make the top 50

by Anonymousreply 122July 15, 2020 6:21 PM

"Probably because people who CAN'T have babies, SHOULDN'T have babies."

So adoption should be illegal, too?

by Anonymousreply 123July 15, 2020 6:22 PM

[quote] The main relationship - with the mother who actually carries the child - is typically seen as the most important because of the emotional, physical, and chemical bonding that takes place.

Sure, it's wonderful to have a mom who carried you but literally millions of people in the world live wonderful lives without ever knowing that mother. Do you think their lives are worthless and somehow damaged by this?

At the same time I can name many people, like Trump and his family, who knew their biological mothers and still turned out pricks

by Anonymousreply 124July 15, 2020 6:24 PM

Very rarely does anyone come from the "perfect" family that surrogacy naysayers keep referring to here.

Somehow, according to them, lives are irrepairably damaged unless you were raised by a father and mother, who gave birth to you.

There are so many types of families in the world and so many of them work quite well. Studies show children with two parents seem to do better (mainly because it takes two to deal well with all the issues of child-rearing), but that doesn't mean one parent families must be prevented at all cost. The children of gay parents also do better.

All in all, you just need to be in a family where people love and respect you. You can get to that family through child birth, adoption, surrogacy, whatever.

by Anonymousreply 125July 15, 2020 6:58 PM

[quote] There are millions of kids who don't know one or more of their parents; Orphaned, one parent dead, estranged parents, divorced parent, and on and on and on and on and on.

And that's very sad. But it is not by design. See the difference?

by Anonymousreply 126July 15, 2020 9:07 PM

Most of them are intentional or preventable, R126. They're caused by women's unlimited narcissism.

by Anonymousreply 127July 15, 2020 9:13 PM

All fertility aids should be banned by law.

The world is too overpopulated to go around encouraging reproduction, or using public or group funds to produce more human beings. Humanity doesn't need more breeding, and it doesn't need anybody's offspring in particular.

So if you can't have children, live with it. Make yourself valuable by contributing to society in other ways - adopt children that need homes, mentor children that need guidance, teach, grow, counsel, heal, serve, take a thankless public office, create, and, of course, adopt.

by Anonymousreply 128July 15, 2020 9:31 PM

R128, what if your parents had been against breeding?

by Anonymousreply 129July 15, 2020 9:32 PM

I don't care what my parents think about breeding.

Now, breeding and my father's brother.... I could care a lot about that.

by Anonymousreply 130July 15, 2020 9:35 PM

What kind of future lies ahead for any child born in the U.S. today? Decent-paying jobs are becoming increasingly scarce thanks to technology. A good college education is becoming even more out of reach for all but the wealthy. And the entire planet is on a collision course with climate change.

As the media distracts and divides us over identity politics, the Jeff Bezoses of the world continue to amass and consolidate even more wealth and power for themselves. More likely than not, most kids born today are going to end up in Amazon warehouse-type jobs where they’ll be paid slave wages and zero benefits while having to piss in a bottle because they don’t have permission to use the restroom during their 12-hour shift. (Even STEM graduates will face the same issues). WHY would anyone want to subject a kid to this?

by Anonymousreply 131July 15, 2020 9:48 PM

R129, I suspect if R128’s parents were against breeding, he’d be blissfully unaware of it.

Like all the zillions of kids who were never born because their parents used birth control.

by Anonymousreply 132July 15, 2020 9:53 PM

R131, I wouldn't want to subject my kids who use idiotic "identity politics" talking points borrowed from Tucker Carlson

by Anonymousreply 133July 15, 2020 9:55 PM

R133, yes, because the most important thing a parent can do for a child is protect him from WORDS!

by Anonymousreply 134July 15, 2020 9:58 PM

Just kill yourself, r127. You're worthless.

by Anonymousreply 135July 15, 2020 9:58 PM

I'm surprised to see so many people on a gay board against surrogacy. It means gay couples can never have biological children

by Anonymousreply 136July 15, 2020 10:00 PM

[quote] It means gay couples can never have biological children

Even with surrogacy, gay couples cannot have biological children. It's basic biology.

by Anonymousreply 137July 15, 2020 10:03 PM

[quote] Very rarely does anyone come from the "perfect" family that surrogacy naysayers keep referring to here.

No one said anything about a perfect family. My family was not perfect, but I was happy to know who my parents were and that an entire half of my family weren't total strangers. Don't you find it ironic that the same people who will settle for no less than biological children, thinks the same thing doesn't apply to their own child? I mean, unless you think of children as property, you should find something very wrong with that.

by Anonymousreply 138July 15, 2020 10:07 PM

One of them can R137

by Anonymousreply 139July 15, 2020 10:08 PM

r134, the people who bitch about "identity politics" are the ones who are afraid of words. Remember how the term "gay marriage" freaked them out? I hate all the Breitbart assholes here

by Anonymousreply 140July 15, 2020 10:28 PM

"It means gay couples can never have biological children "

Yes, gay men want biological children like most other people do, but that doesn't mean that their desire means that all the ethical concerns outlined in this thread don't exist, or should be overridden.

I mean, I have an overwhelming desire for millions of dollars, having millions in secure assets would be incredibly fulfilling and do wonders for my quality of life, but that doesn't mean that it's okay for me to do absolutely anything that would get me my millions, including stuff that's banned in most civilized countries.

by Anonymousreply 141July 15, 2020 10:34 PM

Surrogacy is a disgusting abuse of power. It should not be legal for anyone. People like Kim K are vile pieces of shit who prey upon poor women, this reduces them to nothing more than brood mares. Gays are equally ridiculous in demanding biological children. It’s misogyny.

by Anonymousreply 142July 15, 2020 10:42 PM

r142, none of those women are forced to be surrogates

by Anonymousreply 143July 15, 2020 11:00 PM

R142 is correct. If there's a backlash against surrogacy it's directed more at rich bastards like the Kardashian and Beyoncé than gay men.

They want to spare themselves the risks and inconveniences of pregnancy, by throwing some pocket change at a poor woman. Women still die in childbirth, or have horrific complications, and if they have a C-section, they have to go through all the misery of recovering from major surgery and a painful incision, even with no complications. Would you spend a month recovering from a physical trauma for 25K or 50K? Probably not. Would you put in nine months of inconveniences and discomfort, plus risking your life and your health, plus an emotional trauma, for 25K or 50K? No, you might do that for millions, if at all.

by Anonymousreply 144July 15, 2020 11:34 PM

The fact that adoption agencies are allowed to discriminate against gays makes adoption harder for gay people than straights

by Anonymousreply 145July 15, 2020 11:45 PM

There's no evidence that Beyonce used a surrogate. Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true. I don't know about the Kardashian. Rich gay men overwhelmingly have male babies. Way more than would happen by accident.

by Anonymousreply 146July 15, 2020 11:58 PM

[quote]It means gay couples can never have biological children

So? Why do you feel entitled to that? Trans women can’t carry a child in a womb. Many people are just infertile. No one has an inherent right to play god and make a human life embedded with their genetic material.

I’m gay and I find the practice revolting. Besides, 99% of the gay people I know could never afford it. It’s a privilege for the rich, not some great equilizer for “gay people.” Stop casting this as a gay rights issue. It’s a privilege only wealth affords.

by Anonymousreply 147July 16, 2020 12:22 AM

R147 sounds resentful and jealous

by Anonymousreply 148July 16, 2020 12:23 AM

I didn't say anyone is entitled to it I'm just surprised gay men would be against it since it's one of the few ways they can have biological children.

by Anonymousreply 149July 16, 2020 12:24 AM

You sound stupid, r148.

by Anonymousreply 150July 16, 2020 12:24 AM

Well I don’t know a lot of gay men who want biological children. I know several who’ve happily adopted, though.

I’ve also never heard an argument against surrogacy that singled out gay parents, but every one i have heard has noted the vast wealth inequality between surrogates and the couples who hire them.

by Anonymousreply 151July 16, 2020 12:27 AM

R118 I think I'm the poster you had asked if I felt similiarly about sperm being donated.... That I do... for ME. I still wonder how some men can be mentally divorced from the idea they are their children biologically. Perhaps I should have stated that more clearly, so as to avoid the assumption I would hold women to a different or higher standard.

I would want to know the child, and be involved on some level. I wouldn't try to make every scenario illegal, yet I don't feel comfortable with any of it being completely anonymous, solely a commercial or contractual obligation, etc...I'm also uncomfortable with privacy concerns which prevent offspring conceived in such a manner to know their biological parents' identities, their ancestry, their family medical history, etc.

I certainly am not at all comfortable with a fertility clinic arranging for surrogates, or treating them as temporary workers at a staffing agency (i.e. "pimping them out, taking a cut). There are more than a few scenarios I can think of in addition to the classic "lesbian uses turkey baster" agreement with a male friend (possibly a gay man who also would like to help and be in the child's life) Maybe there is a brother or a male cousin who would be willing to donate sperm to the family member's female partner?

I mentioned upthread I don't like to judge, or make decisions for others, and I have known two family members of a friend, and a business colleague "step up" and be a surrogate. One woman was a very young mother when she had my friend (sixteen) and she carried my friend's daughter, and son for her. My frien's eggs were fine, it was just something with either her uterus or cervix. My old colleague's sister was a surrogate for her, and used her eggs with her BIL's sperm. I didn't ask if it was IVF, or turkey baster.

There are varying degrees I could be comfortable with any of the close relationships I've mentioned. I suppose I'm not necessarily objecting because I'm conservative, as my exceptions are clearly unorthodox. I'm also like you in the respect that I never wanted to be a parent, and do not feel it is a biological imperative for me. If it were a drive, or the ultimate dream, I would probably ask one of my close female friends if they would be interested in co-parenting with me. I feel it would be more ideal if it were a lesbian friend. I appreciate and respect your remarks; It's obvious to me you have thought much on the matter. I think some posters were not fair in assuming your remarks meant something other than what you shared.

by Anonymousreply 152July 16, 2020 12:41 AM

Why is it that fertility problems only seem to affect whites? Blacks, browns and Asians can shit out babies like nobody's business.

by Anonymousreply 153July 16, 2020 1:02 AM

R153: Age

by Anonymousreply 154July 16, 2020 1:03 AM

I’m going to only address two points. I don’t believe an “egg” is a child. I don’t believe a fetus is either. A woman is not “giving away” a child because she donates an egg.

The average woman is born with 1-2 million eggs. By the time she reaches puberty she will have between 300,000 and 500,000.

At each menstrual cycle at least one egg is released. Needless to say (but I’m going to) most eggs will not be fertilized and result in a live birth but instead will pass out of the female’s body during menstruation.

Calling an egg “a child” is ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 155July 16, 2020 1:36 AM

R155, you do realize that the woman gives birth to a child, yes? She doesn’t lay an egg like a chicken.

by Anonymousreply 156July 16, 2020 2:00 AM

Yes, they get the egg from the woman's cloaca.

by Anonymousreply 157July 16, 2020 2:03 AM

R155 Your technique in arguing by way of twisted semantics is disingenuous. No one here called an egg a child, nor did anyone equate an embryo or a zygote to a fully fledged human being with the same rights as a grown living person. If they did, please reference their number if I had them blocked, and I shall take them to task.

You canot be so reductionist with human blood relations, and human feelings of responsibility. Many feel their gametes once joined with another's is their blood relations, or descendants. You ought not to trivialise a mother's emotions, or a father's emotions in this regard. This is exactly the commercialisation many of us object to here. You simply believe those gametes to be bought and sold, and no association or attachment should remain after you draw up legal documents. Some of us do not feel it's as tidy as you would like us to believe.

I think it's karma of the highest undertaking to decide to bring a child into this world. If I give my sperm, that does not absolve me in my conscience of any duties, obligations, and responsibilities. It was a creation of life not possible without my sperm. I probably wouldn't do it in the first place, yet to abide by your boundaries is completely unnatural to my way of thinking.

by Anonymousreply 158July 16, 2020 2:25 AM

R155 More succinctly, a human ovum once fertilised [italic] becomes [/italic] a child, when all goes well. A human ovum does not become a [italic] Pterodactyl [/italic].

by Anonymousreply 159July 16, 2020 2:32 AM

[Quote] And that's very sad. But it is not by design. See the difference?

Actually it’s not particular to not have one biological parent. It is what it is. And usually giving up kids for adoption is by design. Divorce too is by design

by Anonymousreply 160July 16, 2020 3:03 AM

[Quote] Surrogacy is a disgusting abuse of power. It should not be legal for anyone. People like Kim K are vile pieces of shit who prey upon poor women, this reduces them to nothing more than brood mares.

Oh my, Don’t you realize that all women are reduced to brood mares?

by Anonymousreply 161July 16, 2020 3:05 AM

R160 Healthy or healthiest modalities in adoption and divorce do not cut ties with biological parents, but rather give a child all the advantages of having several parental figures or possible influences in their lives.

The child may gain a Stepmother or Father, or become quite close with Dad's new live-in girlfriend, or mum's new live-in girlfriend pist-divorce. The scenarios you present are false analogies, not even distant analogies. No one of credible background and training still supports completely closed or private adoptions.

Do your homework.

by Anonymousreply 162July 16, 2020 3:09 AM

Let’s stop infantalizing women and think they cant make decisions about surrogacy for themselves.

Kids too do just fine when they are delivered through surrogacy.

There is no evidence whatsoever that ANYONE in the arrangement is worse off at the end.

Just because some people may be against surrogacy for some weird reason doesn’t make that reason real. We have tons and tons of kids by surrogacy at this point. I don’t see any psychological and intellectual deficits among them

by Anonymousreply 163July 16, 2020 3:09 AM

[Quote] Healthy or healthiest modalities in adoption and divorce do not cut ties with biological parents, but rather give a child all the advantages of having several parental figures or possible influences in their lives.

And rainbows and sparkles make everything nice.

How many healthy divorces and adoptions do you know? The very basis of both is unhealthy

by Anonymousreply 164July 16, 2020 3:11 AM

[Quote] The child may gain a Stepmother or Father, or become quite close with Dad's new live-in girlfriend, or mum's new live-in girlfriend pist-divorce.

And a kid delivered via surrogacy may get her as a third parent.

Not sure what point your trying to make...up

by Anonymousreply 165July 16, 2020 3:12 AM

[Quote] The scenarios you present are false analogies, not even distant analogies.

And the ones you present are from fantasy land

by Anonymousreply 166July 16, 2020 3:13 AM

Parents who use surrogacy tend to have thought deeply about parenthood because surrogacy is usually the last resort. They tend to be well off financially and more educated—all these things are better for kids.

by Anonymousreply 167July 16, 2020 3:16 AM

[Quote] And that's very sad. But it is not by design. See the difference?

Why is having a single parent particularly sad?

by Anonymousreply 168July 16, 2020 3:17 AM

R164 Please don't cherry pick portions of my post to make your false point. The fact remains that ties to biological mother and father are not generally cut off. Every possible effort is made to maintain such ties.

Is your situation so flawed that you must be reduced to compare surrogacy to a bad divorce? After all, it is you who make such an analogy, as well as the false premise that all cases of divorce have an unhealthy outcome. I know several blended families who thrived in their new relationships.

You're really overreaching with this.

by Anonymousreply 169July 16, 2020 3:17 AM

There are rarely “perfect families” and you can’t determine the family you will be born into.

Anti-surrogacy folks pretend that everyone has the benefit of childhood where everything is without problem— and “without problem” is usually something made up in their heads as causing a healthy upbringing—two parents, both biologically related, and apparently not much else.

How many people do you know with those characteristics who didn’t turn out so well, who didn’t feel love growing up, who felt alone and sad? LOTS

by Anonymousreply 170July 16, 2020 3:20 AM

[quote]The fact remains that ties to biological mother and father are not generally cut off.

The fact remains that they should not be cut off at all. Adults should not be permitted to enter into a contract that causes a minor child to be cut off from either of its biological parents. It's not a suitable decision for a contract. And it's not something the named parties to the contract should be permitted to do at all.

by Anonymousreply 171July 16, 2020 3:22 AM

[Quote] Please don't cherry pick portions of my post to make your false point. The fact remains that ties to biological mother and father are not generally cut off. Every possible effort is made to maintain such ties.

That’s what so ironic— I’m not cherry picking your posts. Everything is so full of huge holes that they are easy to pick apart.

Do you actually know divorced couples? They tend to dislike each other. Kids are shuttled from household to household—and then get ignored the second their parents find new partners and, sometimes, have other children.

Really is that such healthy environment?

by Anonymousreply 172July 16, 2020 3:23 AM

We may find many of your ideas weird, or fantasy land scenarios, as you say. We however have defended our position without resorting to any ad hominem attacks. I objected to your premise, as well as your putting words in others' mouths is all. You like to twist what some of what I have shared, and what the lesbian above has shared.

You shouldn't need to fall back on a defence that rich people make better or ideal parents either. You undermine your very pisition in doing so. Rich patents can also adopt, and do. Money does not solve the inadequacies of the surrogate situation wherein one has purchased either ovum or sperm as commodities, leaving the other biological parent out of the picture. That is what you continue to skirt about.

by Anonymousreply 173July 16, 2020 3:24 AM

[Quote] Adults should not be permitted to enter into a contract that causes a minor child to be cut off from either of its biological parents. It's not a suitable decision for a contract.

Says who?

Should no one be able to adopt an abandoned child because not being connected to his biological parent is worse than death?

by Anonymousreply 174July 16, 2020 3:25 AM

[Quote] Money does not solve the inadequacies of the surrogate situation wherein one has purchased either ovum or sperm as commodities, leaving the other biological parent out of the picture.

Biology does not define good parenthood.

by Anonymousreply 175July 16, 2020 3:26 AM

Being better off prevents kids from starving and usually gets them into better schools. Their friends and influences tend to be better educated.

Being rich does not mean you’ll be a better parent but it certainly means the kids will have more resources

by Anonymousreply 176July 16, 2020 3:28 AM

There are numerous cases of biological parents beating their kids, abandoning them, starving them, sexually abusing them, etc.

Biology will not assure a good parent. The parents have to want the child and be able to afford raising him to prevent resenting the child

by Anonymousreply 177July 16, 2020 3:30 AM

Even NY state this year overturned its ban on surrogacy because it realized the arguments against it (women are being exploited! A child must be raised by both biological parents!) are specious.

by Anonymousreply 178July 16, 2020 3:31 AM

[quote] And usually giving up kids for adoption is by design. Divorce too is by design

Oh yeah, so many women can't wait to get knocked up so they can give their baby up. And so many couples get married in hopes that someday they will get divorced.

by Anonymousreply 179July 16, 2020 3:34 AM

Every year Provincetown hosts Family Week in the Summer. Hundreds of gay parents and their kids —through adoption, surrogacy, etc— descend on the place. It’s the most joyous time because there’s so much love in the air.

The parents went through huge hurdles to raise children and give parenthood their all because they know everyone in the situation is part of something special.

It’s a sight to behold and just wonderful to feel that energy

by Anonymousreply 180July 16, 2020 3:34 AM

Gay people are still being banned from adopting in much of the world (yes including in the US) so surrogacy is the only option. I don’t get why on a gay forum people want to block gay people’s only option.

by Anonymousreply 181July 16, 2020 3:35 AM

[Quote] Oh yeah, so many women can't wait to get knocked up so they can give their baby up. And so many couples get married in hopes that someday they will get divorced.

Or doesn’t matter what their initial hopes were; we all know what will happen. And when it does, it’s usually horrible. Yet, according to you, because their original hopes were suitable for the child, the subsequent tragedies are just fine

by Anonymousreply 182July 16, 2020 3:36 AM

Surrogacy is illegal in many place because they want to control women and what they can or can’t do.

No one gives a shit about the kids so stop pretending you or anyone else does either

by Anonymousreply 183July 16, 2020 3:38 AM

You're welcome to your own special definitions. You Can repeat them all you like, however when we feel as a biological parent should, that there exists a blood tie for us, or that we could only fathom participation with a relationship with the offsspring, that is our right to decide not to participate in your scheme, you cannot force anyone.

You seem obstinate, and entitled to keep denying any valid connection for every person who "donates" ovum or sperm. You're not a fucking charity.

Sperm and ovum to many of us are a sacred part of us, and become our offspring. I'm sorry that bothers you so very much. Why don't you focus on legislation, rather than try to convert us here on DL. My sperm is fifty-one years old, trust me you or anyone else probably shouldn't have it for procreative purposes at this point.

I also have never been want for money, and retired a few years ago. My sperm was never available to an individual with your reckless and inhuman ideas about biological parents, even when it was still fresh. I'm sure you'll ignore all of this, and revert back to the argument about infantilising females. In your cloudy sense of right and wrong, coupled with your extreme arrogance, you'll deny my feelings as a man as perhaps sentimental, religious, whatever it is you reply to people when you refuse to [italic] hear [/italic] them.

by Anonymousreply 184July 16, 2020 3:42 AM

Interestingly, I rarely see that traditional family where mom and dad and the kids are doing their Leave it to Beaver thing. And when I do, I also see an alcoholic mom and a dad who’s fucking the secretary.

I see so many varied families and situations, it’s amazing to me. To say that only one kind of family is best and all the others is somehow less than is ridiculous. I can’t even say the traditional family is even optimal. I know a lot of broken people who were raised in traditional families

by Anonymousreply 185July 16, 2020 3:43 AM

[Quote] Sperm and ovum to many of us are a sacred part of us, and become our offspring.

So happy for you. Don’t use a surrogate. Stop pushing what you think is sacred on everyone else.

Problem solved

by Anonymousreply 186July 16, 2020 3:44 AM

I have zero parental drive and will never use a surrogate. That being said, be careful with adoption. I have a couple of straight acquaintances who adopted a cherubic infant who turned into a borderline personality disordered head case who ruined everyone's lives. Genes? Prenatal exposure to something? Who knows. But she's a charming, pretty young woman who is quite deft at making most people who first meet her believe that she's the victim.

by Anonymousreply 187July 16, 2020 3:45 AM

[Quote] you cannot force anyone.

That’s EXACTLY the point. No one in a surrogacy relationship is being forced to do anything

by Anonymousreply 188July 16, 2020 3:45 AM

[Quote] My sperm was never available to an individual with your reckless and inhuman ideas about biological parents,

I’m pretty sure no one wants your sperm

by Anonymousreply 189July 16, 2020 3:46 AM

[Quote] In your cloudy sense of right and wrong, coupled with your extreme arrogance, you'll deny my feelings as a man as perhaps sentimental, religious, whatever it is you reply to people when you refuse to hear them.

Interesting that you’ve figure out for the world what’s right and wrong but I’m cloudy about it. I’m not denying your feeling but showing that your logic is full of holes to drive a truck through.

You can keep your feeling and never come near surrogacy. But don’t force your value system on ten rest of the world. We all have values that came from our experiences in the world. We know clearly that when someone says “My way is the only way and everyone must follow that,” that the person should be ignored.

by Anonymousreply 190July 16, 2020 3:49 AM

[Quote] My sperm is fifty-one years old, trust me you or anyone else probably shouldn't have it for procreative purposes at this point.

Thankfully your genetics will end with you. Goodbye

by Anonymousreply 191July 16, 2020 3:50 AM

Everything we do is under attack. Don’t think otherwise. They hate gay people adopting. They hate gay surrogacy. They hate us.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 192July 16, 2020 3:52 AM

These arguments are very similar to what we would hear when people would say being gay is wrong.

They have a way they saw the world and anything that went astray from that fantasy world couldn’t possibly be good and healthy.

by Anonymousreply 193July 16, 2020 3:53 AM

[quote] Biology does not define good parenthood.

LOL. Oh, the irony. If you're going through the trouble and expense of egg donation/surrogacy, obviously you think biology defines parenthood, period.

by Anonymousreply 194July 16, 2020 3:55 AM

R186 I have already stated what I do support. You and possibly a few other headstrong individuals continue to object to our criticism for the anonymous situations.

It's obvious you feel that way, stating biological parents aren't parents... Well, I've got news for you Yank, you're not a parent either until you can source an egg and a surrogate. Good luck with that objective, considering your off-putting and condescending tone.

You don't go into arguments such as this with heavy jack boots... You tread lightly, and respect your respectful opponents. Of which, I am, or was... I never did say I would wish to make all forms of surrogacy illegal, only that I could only countenance certain more personal and familial arrangements I deem healthier, and more natural. I also previously stated I don't wish to judge others. If younwete my neighbour, I would not treat you any differently for choosing such an arrangement. I wouldn't treat your children as less than either.

Everyone shouldn't have to agree with you, approve of you spiritually, or ethically to get on with you in a respectful manner. (I dare say you would be a perfectly awful neighbour however) By merely arguing the same points repeatedly doesn't change others opinions or values. You drive everyone off with such zeal. You do the opposite of gaining sympathy or understanding. No one refusing to participate is stifling your rights whatsoever.

You're NEVER going to make all of us comfortable with the idea, as YOU have set forth here. It's rather extreme in my estimation when you maintain there is no place in the child's life for the donors or surrogate. It's cold and unfeeling, and disrespectful to the natural order of things.

This isn't about gay people raising children either. It's so beyond that really.

by Anonymousreply 195July 16, 2020 4:04 AM

R190 Did you take the meds today you were prescribed? Go back and re-read my posts. I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Au contraire, it is you who keep trying to suggest I must agree to it, and am against you having your way.

I'm merely sharing with other like minded posters here, and you've attacked my personal choices, and reasons for not participating. I'm not any obstacle to you, or your goal. Yet you continue to attempt convincing me, the lesbian, and at least one other poster how we're wrong for our decisions and beliefs on the matter.

The insults are a bit over the top as well. I've stressed several times, for ME, in MY estimation, how I could not live without thinking I had a child out there, and wondered how others could. Stop trying to bully people into believing as YOU do. Again, never did I say I aim to curtail your freedoms. Do as you please. I'm not even an American, I just happen to own property here, and live here. Nothing I can vote on could possibly ever affect you! That's how silly your zeal comes across on an anonymous forum.

You'll have much better luck in the future if you remain respectful, try injecting a bit of humour, and best to leave the money out of the equation altogether. When you bring money into the forefront, and try to deny any attachment or responsibility, or desire to know the child, you seal your own fate. People shall only see you as an advocate for treating ovum and sperm as commodities.

by Anonymousreply 196July 16, 2020 4:25 AM

Gay men do not exist to be straight women's support humans.

Gay men did not make orphanages overcrowded.

Gay men have a right to biological children.

by Anonymousreply 197July 16, 2020 10:16 AM

I’m sure all you anti-surrogacy folks must detest the whole idea of having pets—you know, ripping them away from their biological parents and all....

by Anonymousreply 198July 16, 2020 11:31 AM

Basic anti-surrogacy complaint:

Without any data or proof, I think surrogacy is immoral. Thus, it should be illegal for everyone.

by Anonymousreply 199July 16, 2020 11:33 AM

[Quote] I'm merely sharing with other like minded posters here, and you've attacked my personal choices, and reasons for not participating. I'm not any obstacle to you, or your goal.

Interesting how you’ve been shown to be wrong over and over again, that suddenly it’s a “personal choice,” not something that everyone should abide by.

by Anonymousreply 200July 16, 2020 11:35 AM

If I want to raise a child and a woman is willing to carry that child for me, how is it anyone else’s business? Society doesn’t suffer in the least. In fact it gets children who are actually wanted and loved that way.

by Anonymousreply 201July 16, 2020 11:37 AM

I don't mind if surrogacy is outlawed everywhere. We need more adoption. There are so many kids out there needing a loving home. No one's sperm is so special that they must reproduce their own DNA.

by Anonymousreply 202July 16, 2020 12:04 PM

[quote]No one's sperm is so special that they must reproduce their own DNA.

Tell that to straights, not us.

by Anonymousreply 203July 16, 2020 12:05 PM

[quote] In fact it gets children who are actually wanted and loved that way.

And what child wants to be the accessory of some bitter old man like you, with more money than sense? Do they get a say in this?

by Anonymousreply 204July 16, 2020 12:38 PM

R200 No, it hasn't been "proven" my beliefs, values, and choices are wrong. They're mine. They're personal virtues, options, decisions, etc. You don't get to declare some arbiter for my beliefs.

This is why the lot of you here are coming off as tossers. Some of you sincerely seem much too immature to become parents in the near future. (Especially the poster wishing me to die soon, and revelling in the fact my "DNA" won't live on. ) BTW, it does anyhow regardless of my personal reproductive choices, as my siblings and cousins have ALL chosen to "multiply". I'm from a large, and somewhat well known family on one side. The reproduction has been downright prolific, with several members choosing to adopt, I'm proud to share, in addition to that endeavour. I don't see our genetics as being some special or rare heirloom tomato seeds either.

Analogies to kittens, and pets further demonstrate a grasp on the matter philosophically, and intellectually. My thinking would dictate those advocating for a biological mother's input, or a surrogate's place in the child's life as anything but an opponent. It's funny when some of you cannot effectively convince others of the transactional set-up, you must make enemies of us. That's a very spoilt child who grew up to become you. "I only want the spunk or the eggs" "Go away now please".... This is how you sound to my soul

Whatever happened to "It takes a village to raise a child" or there's nothing like a Mother's love? I'll stay in my hippy commune on my island, where this is the status quo.

I think some of the strangest posters on this thread come off as immature and narcissistic, rich prats.

by Anonymousreply 205July 16, 2020 3:22 PM

^ demonstrates a failure to grasp

by Anonymousreply 206July 16, 2020 3:47 PM

Is R155 confusing surrogacy with simple egg donation? What a bizarre post.

by Anonymousreply 207July 16, 2020 4:13 PM

[quote]Gay men do not exist to be straight women's support humans.

Okay. No idea what you're talking about, but sure.

[quote]Gay men did not make orphanages overcrowded.

Have orphanages existed in 50 years? What are you talking about?

[quote]Gay men have a right to biological children.

No. No one does. If you can make one, have at it, but renting a human being is disgusting.

Did your parents not love you?

by Anonymousreply 208July 16, 2020 4:16 PM

Anti-surrogacy people are usually just anti-gay-surrogacy people.

The arguments they keep coming up with — that gay men should be obliged to adopt unwanted children created by straights, but do not have a right to create their own — reveals their view that gay men do not have a right to opt out of straight society.

by Anonymousreply 209July 16, 2020 5:03 PM

What the hell are you babbling about, r209? No one has said anything like that.

by Anonymousreply 210July 16, 2020 5:07 PM

There have been recent anti-surrogacy threads if tou want to check them out.

That’s always how they go. Women on them telling gay men that surrogacy is bad.

The question to be answered is: if a gay couple wants to start a family how should they do it?

by Anonymousreply 211July 16, 2020 5:16 PM

R210 This entire thread is loaded with dimwitted posters constantly putting words in others' mouths. They continue to put forth statements no one in fact ever made, then subsequently go on about providing a rebuttal to the fake statement. It's seriously tiring.

by Anonymousreply 212July 16, 2020 5:19 PM

[quote]The question to be answered is: if a gay couple wants to start a family how should they do it?

By accepting that gay couples do not create pregnancies. That's often a benefit, but it can go both ways.

If you and your partner, gay or straight, lack the full complement of baby-making plumbing, then adopt.

by Anonymousreply 213July 16, 2020 5:20 PM

[quote]By accepting that gay couples do not create pregnancies. That's often a benefit, but it can go both ways.

Nor do many straight couples. But do gay people have right to have a family?

[quote]If you and your partner, gay or straight, lack the full complement of baby-making plumbing, then adopt.

Since that precludes a gay couple ever having a child they have a biological link to, do you not believe gay people have that right?

by Anonymousreply 214July 16, 2020 5:25 PM

If you are infertile, have issues carrying to term or in a same sex relationship do the world a favor and adopt.

You are not entitled to rent a womb. Children should not be created in exchange for money. I honestly don’t know understand how people fail to understand this.

by Anonymousreply 215July 16, 2020 5:25 PM

[quote] Adults should not be permitted to enter into a contract that causes a minor child to be cut off from either of its biological parents. It's not a suitable decision for a contract. And it's not something the named parties to the contract should be permitted to do at all.

I don't know how such a contract would be enforceable in the US. That right to know belongs to the child, not to the "parents" to be signed away. The biological parent may later in life discover an inheritable gene or whatever and need to inform the child(ren). No court would stop that biological parent from so informing their spawn.

by Anonymousreply 216July 16, 2020 5:28 PM

[quote] You are not entitled to rent a womb. Children should not be created in exchange for money. I honestly don’t know understand how people fail to understand this.

You haven’t explained why.

Or dealt with the fact that it would hurt gay men in a unique way.

by Anonymousreply 217July 16, 2020 5:29 PM

[quote]Since that precludes a gay couple ever having a child they have a biological link to, do you not believe gay people have that right?

i don't believe you can turn this into a gay rights issue. It is not. And never will be. It is misguided, at best, to try to spin it as one.

Any time a child is involved, the overriding concern is the best interests of the child. That comes first, always. And only when those concerns are met do you go further. Never, ever, cut the child out of consideration. Not at any point or in any way. The child's interests come first.

If there is a surrogacy law that ensures in every case that the child will always and unquestionably have full access to the two people who gave it all of its DNA, then that is a surrogacy law that might be worth considering. But if that law does not meet that bedrock requirement and with no exceptions, the discussion ends. Period. NO ONE should be legally barred from knowing their own ancestry. There is no acceptable reason for doing that. Egg donor or sperm donor. Put your name on that donation and know that any child created has access to you.

If there is a surrogacy law that additionally ensures that the gestational mother is not abused in the process, not ever, then that is a surrogacy law worth considering. But that will be complex and difficult to do. Perhaps eliminate the fee paid and any other kind of compensation. That should eliminate a lot of abuse. Any woman participating would be doing so voluntarily.

If a woman cannot carry a child to term and her sister or her mother or a trusted friend steps up and does that in her place, that's a beautiful, wonderful, thing for all involved. But if the gestational mother is induced to perform a service for the compensation offered by a paying client, the terms which deal are memorialized in a contract, then no. Absolutely no. No matter how long you argue this, not every woman survives child birth. That risk cannot be compensated by throwing an extra ten grand in, up front. This is not a activity that should ever be offered for sale or purchased by a third party.

So, if you can resolve both of those immense issues, then I have no objection. But right now, R214, you do not impress me as even open to considering the problems.

by Anonymousreply 218July 16, 2020 5:42 PM

[quote]I don't know how such a contract would be enforceable in the US.

R216, that has long been the standard in adoptions. Many, many, people have pushed and fought and advocated for it to change. There has been some progress, but not nearly enough. That this would happen to a child created through surrogacy is absolutely a foreseeable risk.

by Anonymousreply 219July 16, 2020 5:44 PM

[quote] If a woman cannot carry a child to term and her sister or her mother or a trusted friend steps up and does that in her place, that's a beautiful, wonderful, thing for all involved.

Oh, yeah, you just sound like a rad fem.

Tell me, are you a woman?

by Anonymousreply 220July 16, 2020 5:49 PM

No, R220. I'm a big cocksucking fag. But I understand that children should be protected.

by Anonymousreply 221July 16, 2020 5:52 PM

We're never going to be okay with you buying an egg from one woman and putting it into another woman. Do you think women are gumball machines, you freak? Gross.

by Anonymousreply 222July 16, 2020 5:55 PM

I guess the problem could be solved when we can just have artificial wombs.

But I’m going to guess you’re opposed to that too.

by Anonymousreply 223July 16, 2020 5:57 PM

R223... there has to be DNA from TWO separate people. A man and a woman. 46 unique pairs of chromosomes. That DNA will be invested in one small child who has the basic human right of know who its two parents are.

Deal with that.

by Anonymousreply 224July 16, 2020 6:05 PM

Okay. The child has a right to know.

Do gay men have a right to have a child?

by Anonymousreply 225July 16, 2020 6:09 PM

NO ONE has a right to a child. They are not commodities that can be parced out to satisfy someone else's demands.

by Anonymousreply 226July 16, 2020 6:23 PM

Do you believe then that we should be able to prevent straights who could produce one from having one, if we have reasonable grounds?

by Anonymousreply 227July 16, 2020 6:26 PM

R215, women absolutely have the right to "rent" their wombs if they feel like it

by Anonymousreply 228July 16, 2020 6:34 PM

[quote] NO ONE has a right to a child. They are not commodities that can be parced out to satisfy someone else's demands.

Nor does anyone have the right to stop someone from having a child. People cannot demand that everyone follow their rules about what makes the proper childhood.

by Anonymousreply 229July 16, 2020 6:36 PM

[quote] I understand that children should be protected.

Protected from what?

by Anonymousreply 230July 16, 2020 6:37 PM

[quote] We're never going to be okay with you buying an egg from one woman and putting it into another woman.

Why not? Why is it your business what people do with their own bodies?

by Anonymousreply 231July 16, 2020 6:38 PM

I wish posters to this thread would sign their bloody posts. With all the question, and back and forth conversations, it sure would make it easier to follow those questions and responses. I have signed each post, that's especially why I don't appreciate the putting words in my particular mouth.

It would appear there exists more than a few varied, or nuanced points of view here that all share certain objections, or criticism for the typical anonymous, or commercial and transactional set-up. It would make sense to direct rebuttals and questions to specific posters.

by Anonymousreply 232July 16, 2020 6:39 PM

[quote] If there is a surrogacy law that additionally ensures that the gestational mother is not abused in the process, not ever, then that is a surrogacy law worth considering. But that will be complex and difficult to do.

Why would that be difficult? How do you expect gestational mothers are somehow abused? Most often, the gestational carriers and the prospective parents live in completely different states, usually joined together via a surrogacy agency. The agency usually is staffed with tons of social workers and much to specifically assure the gestational carriers' needs are met

by Anonymousreply 233July 16, 2020 6:41 PM

In most countries, including developing nations, it's illegal as to avoid exploitation of poor women and pimping of their eggs by rich people.

by Anonymousreply 234July 16, 2020 6:43 PM

[quote] If a woman cannot carry a child to term and her sister or her mother or a trusted friend steps up and does that in her place, that's a beautiful, wonderful, thing for all involved. But if the gestational mother is induced to perform a service for the compensation offered by a paying client, the terms which deal are memorialized in a contract, then no. Absolutely no. No matter how long you argue this, not every woman survives child birth. That risk cannot be compensated by throwing an extra ten grand in, up front. This is not a activity that should ever be offered for sale or purchased by a third party.

Um, excuse me--but who the fuck are you and why does your opinion about this matter.

by Anonymousreply 235July 16, 2020 6:43 PM

[quote] In most countries, including developing nations, it's illegal as to avoid exploitation of poor women and pimping of their eggs by rich people.

Interestly, this is changing rapidly.

While some countries are putting limits on people from outside countries using surrogates, they are allowing natives of the country to use surrogacy. India and China are big examples of this. Israel now allows surrogacy (just not for gays, as Bibi originally promised the law would allow). New York has started allowing surrogacy this year (The US has a patchwork--with some states allowing and others not). South American pretty much allows it now.

by Anonymousreply 236July 16, 2020 6:46 PM

[quote] You are not entitled to rent a womb. Children should not be created in exchange for money. I honestly don’t know understand how people fail to understand this.

Poor thing, what do you think straight women do for straight men all the time. Men have to sow their seed and women need protection for themselves and their children. Women tend to choose the men who will support them, yes, financially.

by Anonymousreply 237July 16, 2020 6:47 PM

In some countries with cutting edge technology but still not developed in terms of equality, like Brazil, surrogacy is legal but you can't sell it or make money off it. So you can do it, but you can't make a profit off it.

by Anonymousreply 238July 16, 2020 6:48 PM

[quote] But do gay people have right to have a family?

We have NEVER said straight couples cannot have a family. Even straights who are infertile can use adoption, surrogacy, whatever.

So, why shouldn't gay couples also have that right? Certainly they have to prove they can--and they go through the same psychological and social examinations that straights so, especially when adoption

The key, however, is that the cat is out of the bag. There are at least 2 million gay parented families in the US and growing. No one will suddenly say no, you cannot raise children. Sure the religious right has tried and has even made SCOTUS say religious adoption agencies and deny adoption to gays--but overall, the trend will continue upward

by Anonymousreply 239July 16, 2020 6:52 PM

[quote] In some countries with cutting edge technology but still not developed in terms of equality, like Brazil, surrogacy is legal but you can't sell it or make money off it. So you can do it, but you can't make a profit off it.

It is actually the same in the US. The money given to surrogates in the US is for "living expenses" such.

by Anonymousreply 240July 16, 2020 6:53 PM

While many countries make surrogacy illegal, not one denies a child born by surrogacy in another country.

This is precisely why infertile couples from Europe flock to the US and India to have their babies.

by Anonymousreply 241July 16, 2020 6:55 PM

[quote] By accepting that gay couples do not create pregnancies. That's often a benefit, but it can go both ways. If you and your partner, gay or straight, lack the full complement of baby-making plumbing, then adopt.

Lets see you even suggest this as a rule that straight couples must follow. A riot would follow.

I know tons of straight couples that use variations of surrogacy. My closest friend kept losing her pregnancies. She and her husband took the egg of a donor (who looked very much like my friend), had it extracted in a doctor's office, fertilized in the lab, and then the embryo implanted into my friend, who carried it to term.

Another acquaintance and her husband used a surrogate for the whole process.

That's only one of the many situations I have first hand knowledge among straight people. Most of the time, straight couples keep this stuff secret but they tell me because I'm gay (and apparently nonjudgmental).

by Anonymousreply 242July 16, 2020 7:01 PM

[quote] If you and your partner, gay or straight, lack the full complement of baby-making plumbing, then adopt.

Why must anyone be forced to accept the rejects of the world? Often the parents have real mental and physical problems. I'm a big believer that genetics plays a major role in what ends up being born--so no, I wont adopt the progeny of shit

by Anonymousreply 243July 16, 2020 7:03 PM

[quote] I wish posters to this thread would sign their bloody posts.

You mean bloody like a woman's period?

by Anonymousreply 244July 16, 2020 7:04 PM

Just because countries ban surrogacy has little to do with whether it's right or wrong.

The world over, tons of countries still ban gay marriage. Heck the US even banned it until 5 years ago.

Banning surrogacy is about "protecting" women just like banning abortion, and banning women from driving or walking alone without a male, or not owning a credit card unless approved by your husband, and on and on and on.

by Anonymousreply 245July 16, 2020 7:12 PM

"Do gay men have a right to have a child? "

Not an inalienable, unquestionable, human right, no. They don't.

Nobody has an intrinsic right to breed, some people are infertile or just can't get anyone to agree to breed with them, and quite a lot of people can't be trusted with children. Wanting a child and being unable to have one is a normal part of the human condition, there's no intrinsic right to use other people's bodies to satisfy your personal desires, even if you think that desire is noble and selfless.

by Anonymousreply 246July 17, 2020 12:09 AM

Where does this "right to have a child" come from? Since when is that a "right?" No one should take an existing child away from you without good reason, but you don't actually have a right to claim a womb to impregnate. This isn't the Republic of Gilead.

by Anonymousreply 247July 17, 2020 12:13 AM

Gay men can have a child the same way straight men do. Have sex with a woman they don't particularly like.

I keed. I keed.

by Anonymousreply 248July 17, 2020 1:04 AM

[quote] Why must anyone be forced to accept the rejects of the world? Often the parents have real mental and physical problems. I'm a big believer that genetics plays a major role in what ends up being born--so no, I wont adopt the progeny of shit

Oh, please. Your kid will probably grow up to be like every other American brat. Hit you up for money when they need it and ignore you the rest of the time.

by Anonymousreply 249July 17, 2020 1:29 AM

R243, true, you wouldn’t want to accidentally adopt the next Steve Jobs. That would be wrong.

by Anonymousreply 250July 17, 2020 1:39 AM

I am a straight woman. Just getting that out of the way.

I happened to be watching CNN the night Anderson came back on and announced his baby's birth. I was so happy for him. He was so happy. He said that when he was a kid he thought he would never be able to have a child, but now he can. It was beautiful. Yes, Anderson Cooper is rich beyond rich, but life isn't fair. I think surrogacy should be allowed.

I don't know what would have happened if I hadn't been able to carry a pregnancy. I have a pretty crazy pre existing condition but it all went well, I'm very lucky. I imagine my husband and I would have gone through a lot of difficult conversations but then what? We don't have much money. I did HATE being pregnant and would have loved just to put my developing kids in tanks and watching them grow. Someday soon that will be possible. But I was so worried about everything I ate and drank and did. I'm sure I wouldn't trust a surrogate eiher.

Yes it is exploiting poor women, but I don't think they're forced into it. Some people enjoy being pregnant, or just don't mind it at all. They can carry on like normal while they're pregnant. Also some people don't form strong attachments. They can sell their eggs or sperm or bodies and not think about it. Most of the people on this board are more strongly feeling than that (look at the way we discuss this and the way we discuss our cats! We have feelings! Tons of feelings.). Surrogacy is not ideal, but it improves a lot of lives.

I know someone who couldn't get pregnant due to age. She did donor eggs ($$) and carried them herself. Husband's sperm. She had read somewhere that if you carry the baby then it picks up some of your DNA or whatever. Probably not true but it could be.

I know a lot of you put people down who want their own biological kids but that is the way most humans are programmed. We want our children to be better versions of ourselves. We want some bit of ourselves to carry on into the future, so it won't be as if we never existed when we die. Those are not unnatural feelings.

by Anonymousreply 251July 17, 2020 1:39 AM

[quote] Not an inalienable, unquestionable, human right, no. They don't. Nobody has an intrinsic right to breed

Cool. Then do you support efforts to limit straights who shouldn't have children from having children?

by Anonymousreply 252July 17, 2020 1:30 PM

R235 Not the poster you quoted, but everyone has a right to his opinion, and this is a public forum. The burden would be on you to prove why we shouldn't be posting to this thread.

I'm curious why you think your opinion matters more, or is more valuable.

by Anonymousreply 253July 17, 2020 2:12 PM

R244 You're either mentally ill, or very immature with a budding mental disorder. Just to clarify, it's a slang expletive or filler adjective we Brits are fond of using.... nothing whatsoever to do with women, or their cycle. Bloody hell!

by Anonymousreply 254July 17, 2020 2:26 PM

Again: surrogacy is no "gay rights" issue. Few gay people could afford it. I guarantee you every person demanding the "right" to leverage their wealth to buy a womb for rent is also against Medicare 4 All. This is a rich person's privilege, not a "right."

by Anonymousreply 255July 17, 2020 2:38 PM

"Not an inalienable, unquestionable, human right, no. They don't. Nobody has an intrinsic right to breed"

"Cool. Then do you support efforts to limit straights who shouldn't have children from having children? "

Straights don't have an intrinsic right to breed either, they've got to have all the right parts and the ability to convince someone else to cooperate in the breeding process, they aren't guaranteed fertility or a co-parent any more than gays are, although of course their odds are better. And they have to deal with the trade-off that comes with natural fertility, which is unintended breeding and all the ills associated with it.

And the issue of who "shouldn't be having children" is a different issue, the capacity to breed has nothing to do with the capacity to responsibly raise children.

by Anonymousreply 256July 17, 2020 4:07 PM

I'm wondering if all the gay men demanding a right to breed would also defend the right of trans women and trans men to breed however they choose.

by Anonymousreply 257July 17, 2020 4:14 PM

[quote] No. No one does. If you can make one, have at it, but renting a human being is disgusting.

Being gay is disgusting to some too, but personal "disgust" isn't something policies and laws should be based on

by Anonymousreply 258July 17, 2020 4:17 PM

[quote] I'm wondering if all the gay men demanding a right to breed would also defend the right of trans women and trans men to breed however they choose.

Gay men arent demanding a right to breed. They are using existing laws to adopt or use surrogacy. And transwomen and men CAN breed as they choose.

Not sure what your point is

by Anonymousreply 259July 17, 2020 4:19 PM

[quote] Again: surrogacy is no "gay rights" issue. Few gay people could afford it. I guarantee you every person demanding the "right" to leverage their wealth to buy a womb for rent is also against Medicare 4 All. This is a rich person's privilege, not a "right."

No one is claiming it's a right. The laws already allow it.

I believe surrogacy is fine AND believe Medicare for ALL is a necessity.

You're entire theory is shot

by Anonymousreply 260July 17, 2020 4:20 PM

If you believe that there is no right to children.

And also claim that Earth is overpopulated.

Then should also support sterilizing women.

Unless you really just believe that gay men have no right to children.

by Anonymousreply 261July 17, 2020 4:21 PM

[quote] Yes it is exploiting poor women

Please name any job where exploitation of some sort doesn't occur. Any job

by Anonymousreply 262July 17, 2020 4:21 PM

R262, that's not an argument. Some forms of on-the-job exploitation are, and should be, illegal -- quid pro quo sexual harassment, the confiscation of worker tips, compelled overtime, that sort of thing. All governments are free to make policy decisions as to what is and is not acceptable. You may not like the outcome in every case, but that's how it is.

by Anonymousreply 263July 17, 2020 4:32 PM

The ancestry sites have made it easier for adoptees and children sired by sperm donors to identify their biological relatives. I recently read a story about a man who donated sperm in the 1990s. He sent in his DNA to one of those ancestry websites, and he has had more than 10 adult kids reach out to him through the website. The funny part is that he only donated twice. But doctors used his two samples at least ten times, and there could be more kids out there. He now has casual relationships with all the kids, and he and the kids have held "family reunions" where the kids see him in person and meet their half-siblings.

by Anonymousreply 264July 17, 2020 6:34 PM

"If you believe that there is no right to children. And also claim that Earth is overpopulated. Then should also support sterilizing women. "

Sentence #3 has nothing to do with sentences #1 and #2.

And women can get sterilized if they want to, so can men. Vasectomies and tubal ligations are common enough.

by Anonymousreply 265July 17, 2020 10:20 PM

These are all common things that are said by rad fems on these surrogacy threads!

Why don’t gay men adopt?! Earth has too many people! Nobody has a right to breed!

When you break it down they just don’t like gay men having children.

by Anonymousreply 266July 17, 2020 10:23 PM

Question: why don’t turkey basting lesbians adopt?

by Anonymousreply 267July 17, 2020 10:24 PM

[Quote] that's not an argument.

Actually understanding that every job involves exploiting negates the main argument against surrogacy, that it exploits.

The military is a huge exploiter of the poor but we laid anyone who joins.

by Anonymousreply 268July 18, 2020 12:15 PM

[Quote] Question: why don’t turkey basting lesbians adopt?

Way cheaper and fewer hoops to jump through to get inseminated and give birth than to adopt

by Anonymousreply 269July 18, 2020 12:17 PM

"Actually understanding that every job involves exploiting negates the main argument against surrogacy, that it exploits. "

There should be a limit to exploitation, the "main argument" is that while it's okay for employers to exchange money for labor, doing things as horrifically personal as controlling everything about your body during employment, impregnating people, or taking the children away is too too much.

And yes, if the mother uses her own egg, that means the mothers are selling their own children for money, and I can't believe that's legal.

by Anonymousreply 270July 18, 2020 9:08 PM

Woman at R270.

by Anonymousreply 271July 18, 2020 9:48 PM

So, R270, you think calling someone "woman" invalidates their argument?

Well, that explains a lot about the pro-surrogacy nutters here who won't shut up.

by Anonymousreply 272July 18, 2020 11:33 PM

[Quote] There should be a limit to exploitation, the "main argument" is that while it's okay for employers to exchange money for labor, doing things as horrifically personal as controlling everything about your body during employment, impregnating people, or taking the children away is too too much.

The list of things you claimed “horrific” twists what’s happening in surrogacy. First, no one is controlling your body as a surrogate. You are controlling your own body. Usually, a fertilized egg from someone else is put in a surrogate, so who’s child exactly are you “taking away”?

Every surrogate is controlling her own destiny and Erving for herself what she will do with her own body.

It’s the exact opposite of “horrific.”

by Anonymousreply 273July 19, 2020 12:51 PM

How often have we heard that gays are horrific and gay sex is horrific and the idea of gay marriage is horrific?

People just choose what they themselves don’t like and claim it should be banned because it’s a crime against humanity.

by Anonymousreply 274July 19, 2020 12:53 PM

[quote]When you take a huge rhetorical leap you can twist this around and cast yourself as a victim by saying they just don’t like gay men having children.

Fixed that for you, R266.

by Anonymousreply 275July 20, 2020 2:18 PM

There was a previous thread about how travel restrictions were stopping parents collecting their children from the carriers in Ukraine. Rad fems were bemoaning surrogacy as usual. They asked why gay men don't adopt. Adoption by gay men is illegal in Ukraine. I asked what had they done to make it easier for gay men to adopt. Then they switched to 'if you can't have a child, nature didn't want it'.

The rad fems on these threads are as opposed to gay men having children through adoption as through surrogacy.

by Anonymousreply 276July 20, 2020 3:41 PM

Still waiting for the supposed gay surrogacy advocates to explain how this is a gay right issue and not a privilege that only wealth afford, and whether any of these supposed gay surrogacy advocates who conflate womb renting with "gay rights" also favor universal healthcare coverage for everyone funded through wealth redistribution. For a lot of poor and working class gay folks, freedom from healthcare costs and debt, and general economic parity, are a far more immediate need for them than some abstract notion of breeding their biological seed, let alone some "right" associated with hundreds of thousand of dollars of out of pocket costs that they could never afford.

by Anonymousreply 277July 20, 2020 3:58 PM

"Rad fems" = 😂😂😂

You probably use "the regressive left," too.

by Anonymousreply 278July 20, 2020 3:59 PM

[quote]Still waiting for the supposed gay surrogacy advocates to explain how this is a gay right issue and not a privilege that only wealth afford

Banning surrogacy bans any chance of gay men having children they have a biological link to.

[quote] and whether any of these supposed gay surrogacy advocates who conflate womb renting with "gay rights" also favor universal healthcare coverage for everyone funded through wealth redistribution.

Sure. I believe surrogacy for gay men should be available on the NHS in Britain and funded by a Medicare 4 All program in the US.

by Anonymousreply 279July 20, 2020 4:01 PM

[quote] ...explain how this is a gay right issue and not a privilege that only wealth afford....

It's neither of those things. It's child abuse. It reduces children to chattel, ordered from a clinic, just as if they could be ordered from Pottery Barn.

by Anonymousreply 280July 20, 2020 4:34 PM

If only. In reality it's very difficult and the law always protects the carrier not the parents.

by Anonymousreply 281July 20, 2020 4:53 PM

Heterosexuality effectively became obsolete when they discovered the test tube baby.

by Anonymousreply 282July 20, 2020 5:24 PM

Heterosexuality is an abomination.

I look further to the day when science advances to the point where it's no longer necessary.

by Anonymousreply 283July 20, 2020 5:26 PM

Pity the poor heterosexuals who are drawn to one another, but doomed to never understanding their most intimate partners in life. Women will never understand men. Men can never understand women. They are consigned to a life of intrigue and manipulation, all in an effort to get their most basic desires satisfied. And once they have satisfied their desires, at least their desires du jour, then they are stuck with each other. Alone in a couple and never understanding why.

by Anonymousreply 284July 20, 2020 5:35 PM

[quote] Sure. I believe surrogacy for gay men should be available on the NHS in Britain and funded by a Medicare 4 All program in the US.

Fuck that shit. You want a biological child that badly, pay for it yourself 100%. In fact, you should be paying even more.

by Anonymousreply 285July 20, 2020 5:54 PM

It's not surprising some people don't believe in gay men having rights.

We've paid so much more for birthing through taxes than we've ever taken out. And we don't even have children!

by Anonymousreply 286July 20, 2020 5:58 PM

R286, those birthed people are going to pay for our social security one day.

by Anonymousreply 287July 21, 2020 3:26 AM

[quote]It's neither of those things. It's child abuse. It reduces children to chattel, ordered from a clinic, just as if they could be ordered from Pottery Barn.

Exactly as straight people do

by Anonymousreply 288July 22, 2020 3:26 AM

Many, many people exist because their straight parents were horny and possibly drunk.

by Anonymousreply 289July 22, 2020 2:14 PM

Up to 1,000 babies born to surrogate mothers stranded in Russia...

The average income in Russia is about $6,500 per year. And there are currently 1,000 babies born to Russian surrogate mothers stuck there because of Coronavirus travel restrictions. It's a big country, but 1,000 at just one disrete moment in history seems a large number. And the annual income seems a small number.

Just sayin'.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 290July 29, 2020 3:14 PM

Bump

by Anonymousreply 291July 29, 2020 4:05 PM

....

by Anonymousreply 292December 22, 2020 4:45 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!