Surrogacy abroad

[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.

What is this? Who decides? Have you read the articles posted about this being borderline trafficking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is this? Who decides? Have you read the articles posted about this being borderline trafficking?

Those pearls of journalistic wisdom you are referring to is just one article by a muck journalist for the India Times who has been discredited for making up propaganda and lies many times.

https://www.opindia.com/2020/02/india-times-shweta-sengar-fake-news-propaganda/amp/

Don’t you think if you were hired to try to justify ending surrogacy in India, you’d make up lies about what was happening with surrogacy in Ukraine? I don’t believe a syllable of that article. It’s hardly a hard hitting article by a respected, trusted journalist.

[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.

No, not everyone who experiences infertility makes their problem other people’s problem as well.

[Anonymous]

Some people want to believe that there are no ethical issues with global commercial surrogacy and that it's a win-win, on an even playing field.

That is often not the reality, which is why for-profit surrogacy have been banned in most countries, with only a handful of exceptions.

There is extensive research demonstrating that the global surrogacy industry has been prone to exploitation and abuse.

Some surrogacies have certainly worked out to the satisfaction of all parties.

But anyone who is a fervent cheerleader for the use of international surrogacy without also acknowledging its problematic aspects is either in denial or disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people want to believe that there are no ethical issues with global commercial surrogacy and that it's a win-win, on an even playing field.

That is often not the reality, which is why for-profit surrogacy have been banned in most countries, with only a handful of exceptions.

There is extensive research demonstrating that the global surrogacy industry has been prone to exploitation and abuse.

Some surrogacies have certainly worked out to the satisfaction of all parties.

But anyone who is a fervent cheerleader for the use of international surrogacy without also acknowledging its problematic aspects is either in denial or disingenuous.

Or maybe they just have a different opinion than you do. Why does everyone have to see everything the way you do? How insufferable can you be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people want to believe that there are no ethical issues with global commercial surrogacy and that it's a win-win, on an even playing field.

That is often not the reality, which is why for-profit surrogacy have been banned in most countries, with only a handful of exceptions.

There is extensive research demonstrating that the global surrogacy industry has been prone to exploitation and abuse.

Some surrogacies have certainly worked out to the satisfaction of all parties.

But anyone who is a fervent cheerleader for the use of international surrogacy without also acknowledging its problematic aspects is either in denial or disingenuous.

Do you want to build a strawman? Nobody here is a “fervent cheerleader”. I see people saying that it can be done ethically, and people making blanket statements that it can never be OK to have a surrogate outside of your country code.

Even people who think that it can be mutually beneficial don’t think that there are zero precautions that should be taken. Saying “it is possible for this transaction to be done unethically, and therefore it should never ever be done” isn’t a particularly persuasive take. Nor is “it is always unethical to pay people less to do X if you could get an American to do it for more money.”

[Anonymous]

Babe I think its the reverse - if your opinion is that you believe poor women should be trafficked so rich women can have bio babies - you are the insufferable one.

[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.

No, not everyone who experiences infertility makes their problem other people’s problem as well.

It is 100% your personal opinion that this is “making their problem other people’s problem”. You could just as easily say that this is “making their problem a solution for someone else”. Or, God forbid, “engaging in a mutually beneficial transaction between adults with free choice.”

[Anonymous]

Because you know, its ok "if it happened to you"

Whatever that qualifier actually means, which no one has even tried to articulate. Because drawing a line where its ok to treat humans like cattle is abhorrent. But as long as you get your own DNA in a lil baby it's fine to ignore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Babe I think its the reverse - if your opinion is that you believe poor women should be trafficked so rich women can have bio babies - you are the insufferable one.

No, you are definitely insufferable for thinking that women in other countries need your beneficent Western self to tell them what they can and can’t do with their bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because you know, its ok "if it happened to you"

Whatever that qualifier actually means, which no one has even tried to articulate. Because drawing a line where its ok to treat humans like cattle is abhorrent. But as long as you get your own DNA in a lil baby it's fine to ignore.

Oh yeah, you’re definitely DNA Dolly. You are a hideous troll and nothing anyone says penetrates your self-righteous frenzy.

Piss off, DNA Dolly. Take your ill-informed moralizing elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because you know, its ok "if it happened to you"

Whatever that qualifier actually means, which no one has even tried to articulate. Because drawing a line where its ok to treat humans like cattle is abhorrent. But as long as you get your own DNA in a lil baby it's fine to ignore.

Oh yeah, you’re definitely DNA Dolly. You are a hideous troll and nothing anyone says penetrates your self-righteous frenzy.

Piss off, DNA Dolly. Take your ill-informed moralizing elsewhere.

I'm a troll because I dont think poor women should be trafficked so you can have a biological child? Because you refuse to adopt because so and sos aunties neighbor had a rough go with her adopted child?

Or are you the avocado poster trying to compare purchasing a human being to growing... fruit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What is this? Who decides? Have you read the articles posted about this being borderline trafficking?

Those pearls of journalistic wisdom you are referring to is just one article by a muck journalist for the India Times who has been discredited for making up propaganda and lies many times.

https://www.opindia.com/2020/02/india-times-shweta-sengar-fake-news-propaganda/amp/

Don’t you think if you were hired to try to justify ending surrogacy in India, you’d make up lies about what was happening with surrogacy in Ukraine? I don’t believe a syllable of that article. It’s hardly a hard hitting article by a respected, trusted journalist.

India Times isn't good enough? You want more? It's not hard to google. Here's a BBC article:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42845602

"We have seen examples where Ukrainian agencies have refused to pay the surrogate if she doesn't adhere to strict requirements, if she miscarries," says Mr Everingham. "There are some awful examples where agencies really treated surrogates dreadfully in Ukraine if things haven't worked out to the benefit of parents."

"The industry, Ms Bogomolets says, is not sufficiently regulated and this lack of oversight can put both surrogate mothers and the paying parents at risk."

And another:

https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/Ukraine/Surrogate-motherhood-and-exploitation-in-Ukraine-203929

"...many clinics (not registered or under a false name), foreign couples, intermediary agencies, or even improvised surrogate mothers do things under the table in order not to pay taxes, obviously without taking care of any consequences if something goes wrong."

' "Two-thirds of the surrogacy market in Ukraine is illegal", says Serhiy Antonov, jurist at IRTSA Ukraine (International Agency for Assistance in Auxiliary Reproduction Technologies), who stresses how easy it is to find surrogate mothers on social networks, instant messaging services (Viber, Telegram), job search platforms, or even on advertising spaces on the underground.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because you know, its ok "if it happened to you"

Whatever that qualifier actually means, which no one has even tried to articulate. Because drawing a line where its ok to treat humans like cattle is abhorrent. But as long as you get your own DNA in a lil baby it's fine to ignore.

Most people I know that have used surrogates it isn't their DNA. Usually it's donor material plus 1 partner (true for both heterosexual and homosexual couples). It's literally the last resort after 100K and years of failed treatments. Even at 50 to 70K very few people can afford it. At 200K it's out of reach for most too. If we reform it, we cap the costs like egg donor. So a US woman gets the same as one in another country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people want to believe that there are no ethical issues with global commercial surrogacy and that it's a win-win, on an even playing field.

That is often not the reality, which is why for-profit surrogacy have been banned in most countries, with only a handful of exceptions.

There is extensive research demonstrating that the global surrogacy industry has been prone to exploitation and abuse.

Some surrogacies have certainly worked out to the satisfaction of all parties.

But anyone who is a fervent cheerleader for the use of international surrogacy without also acknowledging its problematic aspects is either in denial or disingenuous.

Or maybe they just have a different opinion than you do. Why does everyone have to see everything the way you do? How insufferable can you be?

You're replying to my post. I cited the fact that the for-profit global surrogacy industry has been shut down in most countries, and there are extensive studies discussing the ethical quandaries. I also said some surrogacies have worked out the benefit of all parties. My primary point, which makes you defensive and angry, is that one cannot defend the global surrogacy market in good faith without acknowledging that it is often problematic. I don't think this fact would be disputed by any informed, objective person. Sheesh.