Is it ethical to outsource pregnancy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Veterinarian lady you are crazy misogynist. There was no need to bring up the value of the animal going through treatment other than to imply that women who undergo fertility treatment are inferior.

I can’t believe you’re saying with a straight face that daily sex work has no harm quotient. I think sex work should be legal but there is a lot of data that sex work is not good for women. And while pregnancy can be dangerous (I almost died twice and that was after puking my guts up for 9 months and crippling SPD pain), the idea that you could say with a straight face that pregnancy is objectively more harmful than a life of sex work is patently ludicrous.

I am also very confused by why you keep bringing up India. Op did not say she was going to hire someone from India and underpay them (this would actually be very unwise when factoring in some tricky US immigration issues) and abuse them. You have inserted “surrogates are abused in India” as some random straw man that is entirely different from the conversation we’re having. No one is saying surrogates can’t be abused in countries where there are not rules and regulations to protect them.

Someone upthread said as long as it's legal then people can't be exploited. That's why I brought up India b.c it's patently not true there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Babies start to bond with their mothers in the womb. So no.

You don’t support adoption?

I did not say that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have any medical reason to do so. I just don’t want to be pregnant again, gain weight and have to try to lose it again. have my body change permanently, give birth etc.

And I can easily afford a surrogate.

Would you do it in my situation?

Is it ethical to buy sperm and eggs? I feel like buying the use of a uterus is more ethical than buying someone's genetic material. The surrogate has no genetic connection to the baby, but an egg or sperm donor DOES.

The only reason I wouldn't hire a surrogate is that you can't really control what she does while pregnant. I was a super vigilant while pregnant. There is no way you can control what a surrogate does, who they sleep with, what they ingest, or expose themselves to.

So what stops you is that you can't control your employee close enough. But yeah tell me again this is not ethically questionable and about power and money imbalances.

Ok, circle back. I’m happy to talk “business”.
Buying someone’s genetic material vs. renting out a uterus. Power? Money? Not the issue here. You are altering the very direction of the human species when eggs and sperm are commodities.

Power and money are the issues I have with surrogacy. I don't care about DNA-humans are subverting evolution at every turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veterinarian lady you are crazy misogynist. There was no need to bring up the value of the animal going through treatment other than to imply that women who undergo fertility treatment are inferior.

I can’t believe you’re saying with a straight face that daily sex work has no harm quotient. I think sex work should be legal but there is a lot of data that sex work is not good for women. And while pregnancy can be dangerous (I almost died twice and that was after puking my guts up for 9 months and crippling SPD pain), the idea that you could say with a straight face that pregnancy is objectively more harmful than a life of sex work is patently ludicrous.

I am also very confused by why you keep bringing up India. Op did not say she was going to hire someone from India and underpay them (this would actually be very unwise when factoring in some tricky US immigration issues) and abuse them. You have inserted “surrogates are abused in India” as some random straw man that is entirely different from the conversation we’re having. No one is saying surrogates can’t be abused in countries where there are not rules and regulations to protect them.

Someone upthread said as long as it's legal then people can't be exploited. That's why I brought up India b.c it's patently not true there.

I said if it is legal then it is possible to build legal safeguards to protect people and that is preferable to it being illegal and fully in the black market. I did not say that it was not possible for there to be a country where it is legal and where women are abused. Of course that is possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veterinarian lady you are crazy misogynist. There was no need to bring up the value of the animal going through treatment other than to imply that women who undergo fertility treatment are inferior.

I can’t believe you’re saying with a straight face that daily sex work has no harm quotient. I think sex work should be legal but there is a lot of data that sex work is not good for women. And while pregnancy can be dangerous (I almost died twice and that was after puking my guts up for 9 months and crippling SPD pain), the idea that you could say with a straight face that pregnancy is objectively more harmful than a life of sex work is patently ludicrous.

I am also very confused by why you keep bringing up India. Op did not say she was going to hire someone from India and underpay them (this would actually be very unwise when factoring in some tricky US immigration issues) and abuse them. You have inserted “surrogates are abused in India” as some random straw man that is entirely different from the conversation we’re having. No one is saying surrogates can’t be abused in countries where there are not rules and regulations to protect them.

Someone upthread said as long as it's legal then people can't be exploited. That's why I brought up India b.c it's patently not true there.

I said if it is legal then it is possible to build legal safeguards to protect people and that is preferable to it being illegal and fully in the black market. I did not say that it was not possible for there to be a country where it is legal and where women are abused. Of course that is possible.

I still think that if money changes hands, it's at its core exploitation to rent another probably poorer person's body and make them risk death b.c you want a baby. Other jobs that are risky are necessary on some level- Rooves and electrical lines are crucial for society.

I hate to tell you- but having your own biological babies are optional. And I say this as someone who really wanted multiple children her whole life.

And a vanity or laziness motivation is just disgusting morally.

I guess if you don't then we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have any medical reason to do so. I just don’t want to be pregnant again, gain weight and have to try to lose it again. have my body change permanently, give birth etc.

And I can easily afford a surrogate.

Would you do it in my situation?

Exploitation of poor women to the max

[Anonymous]

No. It is not ethical to rent a woman’s womb. Women are not chattel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. It is not ethical to rent a woman’s womb. Women are not chattel.

Translation: don’t give women autonomy over their bodies because we wouldn’t want them to degrade themselves with personal choices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It is not ethical to rent a woman’s womb. Women are not chattel.

Translation: don’t give women autonomy over their bodies because we wouldn’t want them to degrade themselves with personal choices

You are delusional. Just stop defending the abuse of poor women.

[Anonymous]

Nope. Gross.

[Anonymous]

Are you being paid as you go along? Seems like good money for a few months and then and abortion once you’re on your feet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. It is not ethical to rent a woman’s womb. Women are not chattel.

Since when does chattel get paid?

The essence of slavery is the lack of choice and fair compensation. Neither of those apply here, so gtfo with your (ahem) histrionics. OP isn’t talking about hiring a poor woman from a developing nation and your constant effort to argue that it’s the same thing just shows how much you infantalize women, and how incapable you think they are of making their own choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It is not ethical to rent a woman’s womb. Women are not chattel.

Since when does chattel get paid?

The essence of slavery is the lack of choice and fair compensation. Neither of those apply here, so gtfo with your (ahem) histrionics. OP isn’t talking about hiring a poor woman from a developing nation and your constant effort to argue that it’s the same thing just shows how much you infantalize women, and how incapable you think they are of making their own choices.

Since when DO chattel get paid, not does. The word is always plural.

Anyway, why on earth do you think it's one person arguing this argument? Face it, many people feel this way and many different people have posted on this thread. Oh, and this pesky lil thing called the European Court of Human Rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have any medical reason to do so. I just don’t want to be pregnant again, gain weight and have to try to lose it again. have my body change permanently, give birth etc.

And I can easily afford a surrogate.

Would you do it in my situation?

Is it ethical to buy sperm and eggs? I feel like buying the use of a uterus is more ethical than buying someone's genetic material. The surrogate has no genetic connection to the baby, but an egg or sperm donor DOES.

The only reason I wouldn't hire a surrogate is that you can't really control what she does while pregnant. I was a super vigilant while pregnant. There is no way you can control what a surrogate does, who they sleep with, what they ingest, or expose themselves to.

So what stops you is that you can't control your employee close enough. But yeah tell me again this is not ethically questionable and about power and money imbalances.

If that is the issue you are concerned with, maybe you should also be up in arms about professional football. There are MANY industries that control employees for more favorable outcomes. It’s BUSINESS. and these women volunteered to be paid for a service, or frankly, they do it because they don’t mind being pregnant and want to give someone the gift of life.

You seem to have an abundance or moral indignation that you need to unload on someone. Maybe you should check out the circumcision thread…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It is not ethical to rent a woman’s womb. Women are not chattel.

Since when does chattel get paid?

The essence of slavery is the lack of choice and fair compensation. Neither of those apply here, so gtfo with your (ahem) histrionics. OP isn’t talking about hiring a poor woman from a developing nation and your constant effort to argue that it’s the same thing just shows how much you infantalize women, and how incapable you think they are of making their own choices.

Since when DO chattel get paid, not does. The word is always plural.

Anyway, why on earth do you think it's one person arguing this argument? Face it, many people feel this way and many different people have posted on this thread. Oh, and this pesky lil thing called the European Court of Human Rights.

Sure, grammar pedantry totally bolsters a weak argument.

There’s clearly more than one person, but there’s also one person who’s been spending a whole lot of time here. You can recognize her because she has a little to offer except inchoate moral outrage, confusion about which continent we’re on, and the deep conviction that no woman knows her own mind enough to freely choose to be a surrogate.

However, you are absolutely correct that this may describe more than one person.