This surrogacy stuff is getting out of hand

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

How about the fact that the US is practically alone in the world in allowing commercial surrogacy? Most of the world correctly views surrogacy with horror.

https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/03/18/regulating-international-commercial-surrogacy/

Surrogacy is the business of exploitation.

Disagree. I think it’s okay to pay someone to carry your baby if you can’t. The people I know who have done it would laugh at the idea that they were exploited. They most certainly were not.

In India, poor women are often pimped out for surrogacy by their greedy in laws who see them as property.

Surrogacy is some handmaids tale s***. Wealthy American women are outliers in rationalizing it.

We’re not talking about surrogacy in India.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

How about the fact that the US is practically alone in the world in allowing commercial surrogacy? Most of the world correctly views surrogacy with horror.

https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/03/18/regulating-international-commercial-surrogacy/

Surrogacy is the business of exploitation.

Disagree. I think it’s okay to pay someone to carry your baby if you can’t. The people I know who have done it would laugh at the idea that they were exploited. They most certainly were not.

In India, poor women are often pimped out for surrogacy by their greedy in laws who see them as property.

Surrogacy is some handmaids tale s***. Wealthy American women are outliers in rationalizing it.

We’re not talking about surrogacy in India.

Why on earth do think the same thing doesn’t happen here?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

How about the fact that the US is practically alone in the world in allowing commercial surrogacy? Most of the world correctly views surrogacy with horror.

https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/03/18/regulating-international-commercial-surrogacy/

Surrogacy is the business of exploitation.

Disagree. I think it’s okay to pay someone to carry your baby if you can’t. The people I know who have done it would laugh at the idea that they were exploited. They most certainly were not.

In India, poor women are often pimped out for surrogacy by their greedy in laws who see them as property.

Surrogacy is some handmaids tale s***. Wealthy American women are outliers in rationalizing it.

We’re not talking about surrogacy in India.

Why on earth do think the same thing doesn’t happen here?

Have you personally known anyone who has done this? IRL. Not a story you read online.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

How about the fact that the US is practically alone in the world in allowing commercial surrogacy? Most of the world correctly views surrogacy with horror.

https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/03/18/regulating-international-commercial-surrogacy/

Surrogacy is the business of exploitation.

Disagree. I think it’s okay to pay someone to carry your baby if you can’t. The people I know who have done it would laugh at the idea that they were exploited. They most certainly were not.

Well, you are increasingly alone among civilized people in the entire world in that view, but wealthy DCUM women need to tell themselves a lot of lies in general, so that is at least consistent.

NP.

Getting back to the case OP posted:

- you can legally purchase as many surrogate products (children) as you can afford; that is legal;

- if you are a Chinese national, you can take your property (the child) to China; that is legal.

- in China, your surrogate can be surgically killed and its organs sold for a huge profit over the cost of buying the child in the first place.

How is any of this unlawful?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

How about the fact that the US is practically alone in the world in allowing commercial surrogacy? Most of the world correctly views surrogacy with horror.

https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/03/18/regulating-international-commercial-surrogacy/

Surrogacy is the business of exploitation.

Disagree. I think it’s okay to pay someone to carry your baby if you can’t. The people I know who have done it would laugh at the idea that they were exploited. They most certainly were not.

In India, poor women are often pimped out for surrogacy by their greedy in laws who see them as property.

Surrogacy is some handmaids tale s***. Wealthy American women are outliers in rationalizing it.

We’re not talking about surrogacy in India.

Why on earth do think the same thing doesn’t happen here?

Have you personally known anyone who has done this? IRL. Not a story you read online.

Surrogacy? Yes. I’ve known surrogates. And yes, it seems very exploitative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny that so many women have bought into the idea that controlling your body means renting it out like a brood mare. This is going to serve the wealthy and harm the poor. Y’all are mental.

So funny that women like you feel the perpetual need to put other women down because we make different choices than you. If you don't want to be a surrogate, don't be one. It's really that simple. Why do you feel the need to degrade women because they chose to help another family and make some money in the process?

It’s exploitive. Just because a woman does it, doesn’t make it right. Quote from an article about a Ukrainian surrogate:

“Maria Telyupa, the surrogate mother, headed for Kyiv one more time in 2019 to donate eggs to BioTexCom. She says she needed the 730 euros.”

This article is just an example of how wrong this can go. These are human beings we are talking about. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-perils-of-wartime-adoption-we-promised-bridget-we-would-come-get-her-a-abf4ad88-9c62-48b6-8b9b-f57bc3afeeba

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once the supreme court defines "mother" and "father" - then we can proceed with renting out uteri.

Is there something confusing in those terms?

I think so.

What determines parentage, biology or the person who bought the biological product? There needs to be a clearer designation if we are buying and selling sperm and eggs.

And that parentage needs to be fully recognized legally and courts need to set a precedent on who gets the child if there is a dispute.

I don't care who calls you Mommy or Daddy, but the law certainly does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny that so many women have bought into the idea that controlling your body means renting it out like a brood mare. This is going to serve the wealthy and harm the poor. Y’all are mental.

So funny that women like you feel the perpetual need to put other women down because we make different choices than you. If you don't want to be a surrogate, don't be one. It's really that simple. Why do you feel the need to degrade women because they chose to help another family and make some money in the process?

It’s exploitive. Just because a woman does it, doesn’t make it right. Quote from an article about a Ukrainian surrogate:

“Maria Telyupa, the surrogate mother, headed for Kyiv one more time in 2019 to donate eggs to BioTexCom. She says she needed the 730 euros.”

This article is just an example of how wrong this can go. These are human beings we are talking about. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-perils-of-wartime-adoption-we-promised-bridget-we-would-come-get-her-a-abf4ad88-9c62-48b6-8b9b-f57bc3afeeba

No, she donated her eggs, not human beings FFS.

Again, we are talking about surrogacy in the US where women are compensated very well for their time and effort. No one is being exploited here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny that so many women have bought into the idea that controlling your body means renting it out like a brood mare. This is going to serve the wealthy and harm the poor. Y’all are mental.

So funny that women like you feel the perpetual need to put other women down because we make different choices than you. If you don't want to be a surrogate, don't be one. It's really that simple. Why do you feel the need to degrade women because they chose to help another family and make some money in the process?

It’s exploitive. Just because a woman does it, doesn’t make it right. Quote from an article about a Ukrainian surrogate:

“Maria Telyupa, the surrogate mother, headed for Kyiv one more time in 2019 to donate eggs to BioTexCom. She says she needed the 730 euros.”

This article is just an example of how wrong this can go. These are human beings we are talking about. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-perils-of-wartime-adoption-we-promised-bridget-we-would-come-get-her-a-abf4ad88-9c62-48b6-8b9b-f57bc3afeeba

No, she donated her eggs, not human beings FFS.

Again, we are talking about surrogacy in the US where women are compensated very well for their time and effort. No one is being exploited here.

If you bothered to read the article she had already been a surrogate for an American could who decided they didn’t want the child when it was born disabled. She did it for the money and got 40% of it taken by agency. Americans are for sure buying babies abroad.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

How about the fact that the US is practically alone in the world in allowing commercial surrogacy? Most of the world correctly views surrogacy with horror.

https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/03/18/regulating-international-commercial-surrogacy/

Surrogacy is the business of exploitation.

Disagree. I think it’s okay to pay someone to carry your baby if you can’t. The people I know who have done it would laugh at the idea that they were exploited. They most certainly were not.

In India, poor women are often pimped out for surrogacy by their greedy in laws who see them as property.

Surrogacy is some handmaids tale s***. Wealthy American women are outliers in rationalizing it.

We’re not talking about surrogacy in India.

Right! The American surrogates I know are not being taken advantage of. Frankly most of us have worked a lot harder for 75-100k. Pregnancy was very easy for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So funny that so many women have bought into the idea that controlling your body means renting it out like a brood mare. This is going to serve the wealthy and harm the poor. Y’all are mental.

So funny that women like you feel the perpetual need to put other women down because we make different choices than you. If you don't want to be a surrogate, don't be one. It's really that simple. Why do you feel the need to degrade women because they chose to help another family and make some money in the process?

It’s exploitive. Just because a woman does it, doesn’t make it right. Quote from an article about a Ukrainian surrogate:

“Maria Telyupa, the surrogate mother, headed for Kyiv one more time in 2019 to donate eggs to BioTexCom. She says she needed the 730 euros.”

This article is just an example of how wrong this can go. These are human beings we are talking about. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-perils-of-wartime-adoption-we-promised-bridget-we-would-come-get-her-a-abf4ad88-9c62-48b6-8b9b-f57bc3afeeba

No, she donated her eggs, not human beings FFS.

Again, we are talking about surrogacy in the US where women are compensated very well for their time and effort. No one is being exploited here.

If you bothered to read the article she had already been a surrogate for an American could who decided they didn’t want the child when it was born disabled. She did it for the money and got 40% of it taken by agency. Americans are for sure buying babies abroad.

I have stated upthread that I have zero problem with regulating this heavily. There needs to be accountability. However, that's quite different from "women are being exploited." Many women have also been greatly helped by being allowed to do this.

If you want to argue putting safeguards in place, I'm all for it. But you have to distinguish between that and it's morally wrong to have a surrogate at all.

[Anonymous]

I think rich Americans are very naive to how poor or middle class Americans live. I know plenty of people who would love to sell a kidney for 15k and would like the side effect of saving someone’s life. It’s a lot to ask someone to do it for free. I knew lots of women in college who sold eggs for 10k. They were fully informed. I think some women have a pregnancy fetish and like pregnancy more than raising children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think rich Americans are very naive to how poor or middle class Americans live. I know plenty of people who would love to sell a kidney for 15k and would like the side effect of saving someone’s life. It’s a lot to ask someone to do it for free. I knew lots of women in college who sold eggs for 10k. They were fully informed. I think some women have a pregnancy fetish and like pregnancy more than raising children.

Of course they were not. Ridiculous take.

[Anonymous]

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.

I have 2 friends who stayed at this “hotels”. One is mega rich executive in China who wanted American passport for her kid. The other one is an American working as expat in China without family so she wanted to be taken care of. She said the hospital in China doesn’t have epidural.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They really need to start regulating this more. It’s like the Wild West.

“A Southern California couple has been charged with child endangerment and neglect after more than 20 children were removed from their home in Arcadia, most of whom were born to surrogate mothers, according to police.

The children ranged in age from two-months to 13-years-old, but most were between one-year and three-years-old, the Arcadia Police Department said.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/losangeles/news/arcadia-surrogate-children-seized-child-endangerment-neglect/

I saw the headline but didn't have time to read the article this morning but thought it made no sense, how would someone have 20 surrogate babies? I thought they were some go-between but why would people having children that way not get the child right away?

It's still nuts after reading it.