Surrogacy abroad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, know that most people are not wackadoodle enough to actually think that surrogacy is “purchasing a human being” (wtaf). As you can tell, like adoption, this is an issue that triggers a lot of people’s personal baggage.

A non-anonymous board may be a better resource for you, since anonymous boards really encourage people to let their crazy/vicious flags fly.

I am sure you are intelligent enough to know that there are unethical surrogacies, and a decent enough person to want to avoid that. I wish you luck in finding a better corner of the Internet for actual discussion of what ethical surrogacy can look like, and if it can be ethical to do it across borders (I think it absolutely can be).

Best of luck to you.

+1000

What kills me the most about this thread is the venomous Marxists. They’re ranting about exploitation of poor people when really they’re just ranting against capitalism and trying to pretend they’re being altruistic.

Well, I ask you Marxists, what about firefighters? Should they not be paid? Should rescuing people be done on a volunteer basis, to ensure that no one gets exploited? I mean firefighters put their bodies on the line to go into burning buildings for money, sometimes to rescue much richer people. Look how many died rescuing rich bankers on September 11. That’s as clear an imbalance of power as it gets.

To keep it fair, should they work on a volunteer basis only? In their own neighborhoods? For people of the same ethnicity as they are? (Otherwise, it’s clearly racist.)

Under your line of reasoning, firefighters are being PAID to use their BODIES to rescue other people that should just rescue themselves or deal with their predicament. (I mean sometimes in life you just have to accept your fate. We don’t get everything we want.) It’s appalling, unethical and unconscionable to ask someone else to be paid to use their body to rescue YOU . They’re clearly being unfairly exploited with their paychecks and benefits.

Should people, especially rich people, figure out their own volunteer system of saving themselves from a fire? So as not to expose these working class, mostly White men to the many serious potentially fatal dangers they face in trying to rescue them? It’s not fair to have this sort of imbalance of power.
Firefighters are forced to run into burning buildings FOR MONEY!!!!

You all are nuts and incredibly judgmental. I hope one day you are forced to eat your words in a very personal way.

Same as the crazy thread not-my-child for joining the military. We literally use poor people and trade them college, money or citizenship to go to war zones and die. But yeah surrogacy is the evil threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, know that most people are not wackadoodle enough to actually think that surrogacy is “purchasing a human being” (wtaf). As you can tell, like adoption, this is an issue that triggers a lot of people’s personal baggage.

A non-anonymous board may be a better resource for you, since anonymous boards really encourage people to let their crazy/vicious flags fly.

I am sure you are intelligent enough to know that there are unethical surrogacies, and a decent enough person to want to avoid that. I wish you luck in finding a better corner of the Internet for actual discussion of what ethical surrogacy can look like, and if it can be ethical to do it across borders (I think it absolutely can be).

Best of luck to you.

+1000

What kills me the most about this thread is the venomous Marxists. They’re ranting about exploitation of poor people when really they’re just ranting against capitalism and trying to pretend they’re being altruistic.

Well, I ask you Marxists, what about firefighters? Should they not be paid? Should rescuing people be done on a volunteer basis, to ensure that no one gets exploited? I mean firefighters put their bodies on the line to go into burning buildings for money, sometimes to rescue much richer people. Look how many died rescuing rich bankers on September 11. That’s as clear an imbalance of power as it gets.

To keep it fair, should they work on a volunteer basis only? In their own neighborhoods? For people of the same ethnicity as they are? (Otherwise, it’s clearly racist.)

Under your line of reasoning, firefighters are being PAID to use their BODIES to rescue other people that should just rescue themselves or deal with their predicament. (I mean sometimes in life you just have to accept your fate. We don’t get everything we want.) It’s appalling, unethical and unconscionable to ask someone else to be paid to use their body to rescue YOU . They’re clearly being unfairly exploited with their paychecks and benefits.

Should people, especially rich people, figure out their own volunteer system of saving themselves from a fire? So as not to expose these working class, mostly White men to the many serious potentially fatal dangers they face in trying to rescue them? It’s not fair to have this sort of imbalance of power.
Firefighters are forced to run into burning buildings FOR MONEY!!!!

You all are nuts and incredibly judgmental. I hope one day you are forced to eat your words in a very personal way.

TLDR: More whataboutism! What about firefighters? What about avocados? Firefighters and avocados don't have anything to do with surrogacy. Whataboutism is a logical fallacy, and an example of a common propaganda tactic. You're failing your logic 101 course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes in this life you just don't get what you want. I understand that for people experiencing infertility, the lack of a child is like a gaping chest wound, but that doesn't make it right to exploit others for your personal benefit. Having a child is not actually a human right.

Unless you've been there you really don't understand.

Unless what? Unless you've had a miscarriage? Unless you havent been able to bear any child? Unless you havent been able to bear the # of children you want? Unless you havent been able to get a certain sex? Where is "there" and how does it justify the purchase of a human being? (not an avocado, just to be clear, a human child)

By your logic adoption and all other forms of parenting including IVF are purchasing children. How about this, no one has to purchase children but every woman in the US now has mandatory civic duty to have 2 children. They choose whether it's their own or someone else's. There, no longer money involved.

[Anonymous]

If we start asking how we can pay fire fighters 75% less and the answer is "poor people" then sure, maybe I'd bother reading this long diatribe. But that's not even close to a similar situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes in this life you just don't get what you want. I understand that for people experiencing infertility, the lack of a child is like a gaping chest wound, but that doesn't make it right to exploit others for your personal benefit. Having a child is not actually a human right.

Unless you've been there you really don't understand.

Unless what? Unless you've had a miscarriage? Unless you havent been able to bear any child? Unless you havent been able to bear the # of children you want? Unless you havent been able to get a certain sex? Where is "there" and how does it justify the purchase of a human being? (not an avocado, just to be clear, a human child)

By your logic adoption and all other forms of parenting including IVF are purchasing children. How about this, no one has to purchase children but every woman in the US now has mandatory civic duty to have 2 children. They choose whether it's their own or someone else's. There, no longer money involved.

Err the forced birthers really taking it to the next level here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we start asking how we can pay fire fighters 75% less and the answer is "poor people" then sure, maybe I'd bother reading this long diatribe. But that's not even close to a similar situation.

You ignored the racial and sex issues here. You shouldn’t force an Irish firefighter to rescue a Puerto Rican women because that’s racist and sexist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we start asking how we can pay fire fighters 75% less and the answer is "poor people" then sure, maybe I'd bother reading this long diatribe. But that's not even close to a similar situation.

You ignored the racial and sex issues here. You shouldn’t force an Irish firefighter to rescue a Puerto Rican women because that’s racist and sexist.

And how does this relate to avocados again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we start asking how we can pay fire fighters 75% less and the answer is "poor people" then sure, maybe I'd bother reading this long diatribe. But that's not even close to a similar situation.

You ignored the racial and sex issues here. You shouldn’t force an Irish firefighter to rescue a Puerto Rican women because that’s racist and sexist.

And how does this relate to avocados again?

But what about lead poisoning? By your line of reasoning, it's okay to consume heavy metals in avocados because white people. Also, who does your laundry? Are they eating avocados? /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we start asking how we can pay fire fighters 75% less and the answer is "poor people" then sure, maybe I'd bother reading this long diatribe. But that's not even close to a similar situation.

You ignored the racial and sex issues here. You shouldn’t force an Irish firefighter to rescue a Puerto Rican women because that’s racist and sexist.

And how does this relate to avocados again?

But what about lead poisoning? By your line of reasoning, it's okay to consume heavy metals in avocados because white people. Also, who does your laundry? Are they eating avocados? /s

I have to do my own fcking laundry like a chump! No avocados for me 😔

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes in this life you just don't get what you want. I understand that for people experiencing infertility, the lack of a child is like a gaping chest wound, but that doesn't make it right to exploit others for your personal benefit. Having a child is not actually a human right.

You would be the first to change your tune if it happens to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s remarkable to me how many people will absolutely ignore profound ethical problems in their drive to acquire a child. Just appalling.

It’s remarkable to me how many people are convinced that if someone doesn’t agree with their position, that person must be absolutely ignoring profound ethical problems. It can’t possibly be true that someone else has looked at the same set of facts and come to a different conclusion.

Are you the “DNA dolly” poster? Or are you just similarly arrogant and entrenched in your own sense of absolute righteousness?

It’s got to be the same couple of people posting on here. I personally know five families who used surrogates. Three heterosexual couples and two sets of gay dads. In real life, I never heard one word of gossip or judgment from the people who knew them. It was well accepted by everyone in the community, even by the evangelical types I thought might judge (especially the gays.) I have no knowledge of anyone thinking poorly of these personal choices.

You think people say everything they think?! You're so naive. If I knew someone using a surrogate I would smile and say congratulations, but I think it is actually appalling and unethical.

Do you think they really care about what you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes in this life you just don't get what you want. I understand that for people experiencing infertility, the lack of a child is like a gaping chest wound, but that doesn't make it right to exploit others for your personal benefit. Having a child is not actually a human right.

You would be the first to change your tune if it happens to you.

if what happens? I asked this upthread and you still havent answered?

What is the line where its justifiable to impregnate women like cattle and buy their baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, know that most people are not wackadoodle enough to actually think that surrogacy is “purchasing a human being” (wtaf). As you can tell, like adoption, this is an issue that triggers a lot of people’s personal baggage.

A non-anonymous board may be a better resource for you, since anonymous boards really encourage people to let their crazy/vicious flags fly.

I am sure you are intelligent enough to know that there are unethical surrogacies, and a decent enough person to want to avoid that. I wish you luck in finding a better corner of the Internet for actual discussion of what ethical surrogacy can look like, and if it can be ethical to do it across borders (I think it absolutely can be).

Best of luck to you.

+1000

What kills me the most about this thread is the venomous Marxists. They’re ranting about exploitation of poor people when really they’re just ranting against capitalism and trying to pretend they’re being altruistic.

Well, I ask you Marxists, what about firefighters? Should they not be paid? Should rescuing people be done on a volunteer basis, to ensure that no one gets exploited? I mean firefighters put their bodies on the line to go into burning buildings for money, sometimes to rescue much richer people. Look how many died rescuing rich bankers on September 11. That’s as clear an imbalance of power as it gets.

To keep it fair, should they work on a volunteer basis only? In their own neighborhoods? For people of the same ethnicity as they are? (Otherwise, it’s clearly racist.)

Under your line of reasoning, firefighters are being PAID to use their BODIES to rescue other people that should just rescue themselves or deal with their predicament. (I mean sometimes in life you just have to accept your fate. We don’t get everything we want.) It’s appalling, unethical and unconscionable to ask someone else to be paid to use their body to rescue YOU . They’re clearly being unfairly exploited with their paychecks and benefits.

Should people, especially rich people, figure out their own volunteer system of saving themselves from a fire? So as not to expose these working class, mostly White men to the many serious potentially fatal dangers they face in trying to rescue them? It’s not fair to have this sort of imbalance of power.
Firefighters are forced to run into burning buildings FOR MONEY!!!!

You all are nuts and incredibly judgmental. I hope one day you are forced to eat your words in a very personal way.

Same as the crazy thread not-my-child for joining the military. We literally use poor people and trade them college, money or citizenship to go to war zones and die. But yeah surrogacy is the evil threat.

So because military enlistees are, in your view, mistreated, how does that justify you mistreating poor women just because you want something from them? How is that ethical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes in this life you just don't get what you want. I understand that for people experiencing infertility, the lack of a child is like a gaping chest wound, but that doesn't make it right to exploit others for your personal benefit. Having a child is not actually a human right.

You would be the first to change your tune if it happens to you.

if what happens? I asked this upthread and you still havent answered?

What is the line where its justifiable to impregnate women like cattle and buy their baby?

This is incredibly insulting towards women who choose to become surrogates.

When cattle are sentient, can make their own decisions about their bodies, and are fairly compensated for their labor, it will be a fair analogy. Until then, you’re babbling.

Your dogged refusal to allow these women any agency at all is pretty gross and paternalistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes in this life you just don't get what you want. I understand that for people experiencing infertility, the lack of a child is like a gaping chest wound, but that doesn't make it right to exploit others for your personal benefit. Having a child is not actually a human right.

You would be the first to change your tune if it happens to you.

if what happens? I asked this upthread and you still havent answered?

What is the line where its justifiable to impregnate women like cattle and buy their baby?

This is incredibly insulting towards women who choose to become surrogates.

When cattle are sentient, can make their own decisions about their bodies, and are fairly compensated for their labor, it will be a fair analogy. Until then, you’re babbling.

Your dogged refusal to allow these women any agency at all is pretty gross and paternalistic.

So you cant actually articulate the line in which someone "will understand if it happens to them"?