This surrogacy stuff is getting out of hand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The couple might have been sending the children back to China to have the children’s organs harvested for transplants.

It’s a thing in China.

Organ-harvesting is likely what these kids were destined for.

Uhh sick question but like, child size organs, or do they just keep them alive until they are adults. I imagine adult organs are far more in demand... this is so creepy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Creepy story. I haven't heard if this before, the surrogates living in a hotel-like place, but it's pretty common in So Cal to have these same kind of setups where Chinese mothers come to give birth to a child here in order to get citizenship for the child. Once they do, they leave. (I believe it's called birth tourism). They pay a large sum to the organizers who arrange travel, housing, hospital, etc. There have been many reported on Irvine in Orange County which has a large Chinese population. Arcadia and the whole San Gabriel Valley has a large Chinese population. The houses are in suburban neighborhoods.

I'm not against birthright citizenship but the way they do this is obviously gaming the system. I heard they do it because it helps with college admissions later? Not sure this is true.

j

I’ve known people who have done this and it’s beyond just for college admissions. While it’s not an issue now, sometimes it was because of the one child policy in China. Or, they’re from an agricultural area and can’t get a hukou for an urban area. Or, they’re want their kid to have different options. I’m not a fan but there are more reasons than college.

PP. Interesting, I didn't know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing about this is a surrogacy problem. This couple would have treated children the mom carried in the same way, and could have had just as many if biology allowed. Don't make this about surrogacy.

Biology doesn’t allow. That’s the point.

(And there’s a reason for that)

Uhm, what? What are you going on about?

Can you not follow a train of thought?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has nothing to do with surrogacy.

But for the record, I see nothing wrong with surrogacy.

It has everything to do with surrogacy. Surrogacy is what allowed them to get 20 babies. Most women can’t have 20 babies and you sure as hell can’t adopt 20 healthy babies. We’re gonna end up with baby farms full of underprivileged women.

That's like saying the skirt was too short ... hence rape.

OR without women there would be no rape.

The problem is not surrogacy; the problem is child neglect and human trafficking.

Stop trying to regulate women's bodies to stop men (and some women) from being terrible.

EXACTLY! This is not about surrogacy.

Without surrogacy these children would not exist.

Are you saying that no children were ever trafficked before surrogacy or that if we ban surrogacy, child trafficking would be eradicated?

No, but clearly surrogacy is one pathway to trafficking.

The US is on the wrong side of this issue. Very few developed nations allow surrogacy. It’s the US and a bunch of countries with desperately poor women that do.

Well, by that same logic, any birth is a pathway to trafficking.

Yes, that’s true. But we can’t ban people having their own children. We can criminalize using other people’s bodies to do so.

Ban organ donations while you are at it.

DONATION is the key word here. You're not being paid for organ donation. The money that's involved makes surrogacy deeply problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has nothing to do with surrogacy.

But for the record, I see nothing wrong with surrogacy.

It has everything to do with surrogacy. Surrogacy is what allowed them to get 20 babies. Most women can’t have 20 babies and you sure as hell can’t adopt 20 healthy babies. We’re gonna end up with baby farms full of underprivileged women.

That's like saying the skirt was too short ... hence rape.

OR without women there would be no rape.

The problem is not surrogacy; the problem is child neglect and human trafficking.

Stop trying to regulate women's bodies to stop men (and some women) from being terrible.

EXACTLY! This is not about surrogacy.

Without surrogacy these children would not exist.

Are you saying that no children were ever trafficked before surrogacy or that if we ban surrogacy, child trafficking would be eradicated?

No, but clearly surrogacy is one pathway to trafficking.

The US is on the wrong side of this issue. Very few developed nations allow surrogacy. It’s the US and a bunch of countries with desperately poor women that do.

Well, by that same logic, any birth is a pathway to trafficking.

Yes, that’s true. But we can’t ban people having their own children. We can criminalize using other people’s bodies to do so.

Ban organ donations while you are at it.

DONATION is the key word here. You're not being paid for organ donation. The money that's involved makes surrogacy deeply problematic.

Yes you are compensated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing about this is a surrogacy problem. This couple would have treated children the mom carried in the same way, and could have had just as many if biology allowed. Don't make this about surrogacy.

Biology doesn’t allow. That’s the point.

(And there’s a reason for that)

Uhm, what? What are you going on about?

Can you not follow a train of thought?

Apparently not, so I asked for clarification. SO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has nothing to do with surrogacy.

But for the record, I see nothing wrong with surrogacy.

It has everything to do with surrogacy. Surrogacy is what allowed them to get 20 babies. Most women can’t have 20 babies and you sure as hell can’t adopt 20 healthy babies. We’re gonna end up with baby farms full of underprivileged women.

That's like saying the skirt was too short ... hence rape.

OR without women there would be no rape.

The problem is not surrogacy; the problem is child neglect and human trafficking.

Stop trying to regulate women's bodies to stop men (and some women) from being terrible.

EXACTLY! This is not about surrogacy.

Without surrogacy these children would not exist.

Are you saying that no children were ever trafficked before surrogacy or that if we ban surrogacy, child trafficking would be eradicated?

No, but clearly surrogacy is one pathway to trafficking.

The US is on the wrong side of this issue. Very few developed nations allow surrogacy. It’s the US and a bunch of countries with desperately poor women that do.

Well, by that same logic, any birth is a pathway to trafficking.

Yes, that’s true. But we can’t ban people having their own children. We can criminalize using other people’s bodies to do so.

Ban organ donations while you are at it.

DONATION is the key word here. You're not being paid for organ donation. The money that's involved makes surrogacy deeply problematic.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did they afford all those kids?! It's like 100k to have a surrogate.

I too see nothing wrong with surrogacy. I've actually known several women who were surrogates. One was a SAHM who already had 2 kids. She enjoyed being pregnant and had easy pregnancies/labors. She joked about it being easy money for her and she liked helping infertile couples. These women weren't trafficked or in any way forced to be surrogates. I debated doing it myself too. I had some seriously easy pregnancies and really liked being pregnant.

I thought they were only supposed to have their medical expenses covered?

That’s adoption. Not surrogacy. You can pay someone to CARRY your (or a third party’s) child. You cannot pay someone to give you her own child.

[Anonymous]

Such a weird story. Were the mothers birth tourists who are hiding? Were they selling the babies? How is there a market for selling babies? Was this a surrogate operation but the intended parents bailed?

[Anonymous]

Involuntary organ-harvesting in China is real:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The couple might have been sending the children back to China to have the children’s organs harvested for transplants.

It’s a thing in China.

Organ-harvesting is likely what these kids were destined for.

Uhh sick question but like, child size organs, or do they just keep them alive until they are adults. I imagine adult organs are far more in demand... this is so creepy.

Things like liver transplants can be done from children as it will just regenerate. It’s also very difficult to find matches and someone willing to undergo the difficult donation surgery and recovery. A child who is a genetic match solves both of those issues.

[Anonymous]

The forced-harvesting of organs from living people is a well-established industry among doctors and the medical community in mainland China:

“Allegations of forced organ harvesting first came to light in 2001, after a boom in transplant activity was registered in China, with wait times becoming unusually short, the statement said. Chinese websites advertised hearts, lungs and kidneys for sale and available to book in advance, suggesting that the victims were killed on demand, it added.

On Monday, the tribunal concluded that there was “numerical evidence” of the “impossibility of there being anything like sufficient ‘eligible donors’ under the recently formed PRC [People’s Republic of China] voluntary donor scheme for that number of transplant operations.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has nothing to do with surrogacy.

But for the record, I see nothing wrong with surrogacy.

NP. Of course this has to do with surrogacy.

Honestly the willful blindness on issues like this are increasingly ridiculous. Like people have to pretend more and more absurdity in their desperation to avoid facing facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t people people hear about human trafficking via surrogacy and are like “eh NBD”.

The world is truly f***ed.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has nothing to do with surrogacy.

But for the record, I see nothing wrong with surrogacy.

NP. Of course this has to do with surrogacy.

Honestly the willful blindness on issues like this are increasingly ridiculous. Like people have to pretend more and more absurdity in their desperation to avoid facing facts.

What facts? Let's start with you making statements you can actually support.