Anonymous wrote:I feel like there isn’t enough rights/respect given to the birth mother and child in surrogacy, as compared to ethical adoption. For gay couples, there should be a swift and easy avenue for adoption. There are ethical ways to adopt and foster a child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kim Kardashian used surrogates and she isn’t white.

It’s either women have control over their bodies or not. A woman in the US deciding to be a surrogate is different than a woman in a poor area of India locked in a room. However if being a surrogate allowed that poor non US mom to feed her children for a year or two or buy a house then it’s arguably a better option than her children starving, homeless, and possibly ending up trafficked or something worse.

I support choice, more regulations around surrogacy- possibly federal so there isn’t a patchwork of different state laws. Honestly a surrogate choosing to do it is her choice!

She’s half white.

Armenians are Caucasians from the Caucasus region no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kim Kardashian used surrogates and she isn’t white.

It’s either women have control over their bodies or not. A woman in the US deciding to be a surrogate is different than a woman in a poor area of India locked in a room. However if being a surrogate allowed that poor non US mom to feed her children for a year or two or buy a house then it’s arguably a better option than her children starving, homeless, and possibly ending up trafficked or something worse.

I support choice, more regulations around surrogacy- possibly federal so there isn’t a patchwork of different state laws. Honestly a surrogate choosing to do it is her choice!

She’s half white.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I legit had no idea there were anti-surrogacy people out there. Wow.

She is a crazy person.

Personally (as one of multiple anti-surrogacy posters in this thread), I would say the person defending an exploitative and cruel industry is the crazy one, but people who want to exploit the vulnerable always come up with pretzel logic to justify their exploitation.

But how are they vulnerable? All I have been hearing for the last two years is that the government should not have a voice about women and their bodies. How is this any different? Her body, her choice.

Or do you think you are the savior of the poor and unintelligent who don't know any better?

Is this a serious question? Are you kidding me?

It’s bizarre to me how people who presumably support labor laws and safe workplaces suddenly become the most horrific of rampaging capitalists when it comes to something they want for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:Kim Kardashian used surrogates and she isn’t white.

It’s either women have control over their bodies or not. A woman in the US deciding to be a surrogate is different than a woman in a poor area of India locked in a room. However if being a surrogate allowed that poor non US mom to feed her children for a year or two or buy a house then it’s arguably a better option than her children starving, homeless, and possibly ending up trafficked or something worse.

I support choice, more regulations around surrogacy- possibly federal so there isn’t a patchwork of different state laws. Honestly a surrogate choosing to do it is her choice!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I legit had no idea there were anti-surrogacy people out there. Wow.

She is a crazy person.

Personally (as one of multiple anti-surrogacy posters in this thread), I would say the person defending an exploitative and cruel industry is the crazy one, but people who want to exploit the vulnerable always come up with pretzel logic to justify their exploitation.

The narrative you’re spinning is quite entertaining at this point since it has nothing to do with reality.

There is so much evidence of the exploitation and cruelty in the surrogacy industry that you’d have to be deliberately blind to not see it.

Look at the lists of countries that ban it versus allow it. The US is an outlier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I legit had no idea there were anti-surrogacy people out there. Wow.

She is a crazy person.

Personally (as one of multiple anti-surrogacy posters in this thread), I would say the person defending an exploitative and cruel industry is the crazy one, but people who want to exploit the vulnerable always come up with pretzel logic to justify their exploitation.

The narrative you’re spinning is quite entertaining at this point since it has nothing to do with reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I legit had no idea there were anti-surrogacy people out there. Wow.

She is a crazy person.

Personally (as one of multiple anti-surrogacy posters in this thread), I would say the person defending an exploitative and cruel industry is the crazy one, but people who want to exploit the vulnerable always come up with pretzel logic to justify their exploitation.

Anonymous wrote:I am an infertile woman. It is heartbreaking. I understand the desire to be a parent but for it to not happen. I am pro-IVF (with your own gametes.)

I am anti-surrogacy, and anti-donor tissue IVF. I can see the arguments for folks with family members who are willing to be uncompensated carriers or donors and think that should probably be allowed.

Adoption is a gray area, and historically extremely unethical.

Just weighing in with these opinions because someone on this thread is conflating IVF with surrogacy and thinks if you're ok with one you have to be ok with the other. My desire to be a parent doesn't entitle me to use another person's gametes or body, even if I'm infertile (or a gay man, or etc.).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I legit had no idea there were anti-surrogacy people out there. Wow.

She is a crazy person.

Personally (as one of multiple anti-surrogacy posters in this thread), I would say the person defending an exploitative and cruel industry is the crazy one, but people who want to exploit the vulnerable always come up with pretzel logic to justify their exploitation.

But how are they vulnerable? All I have been hearing for the last two years is that the government should not have a voice about women and their bodies. How is this any different? Her body, her choice.

Or do you think you are the savior of the poor and unintelligent who don't know any better?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I legit had no idea there were anti-surrogacy people out there. Wow.

She is a crazy person.

Personally (as one of multiple anti-surrogacy posters in this thread), I would say the person defending an exploitative and cruel industry is the crazy one, but people who want to exploit the vulnerable always come up with pretzel logic to justify their exploitation.

It’s this type of post that undermines the anti-surrogacy argument.

US surrogates choose their actions. All the adjectives and hyperbole of the above PP doesn’t support any argument.

Just as people choose to work in unsafe places that exploit their labor? Like the kids that work in meatpacking factories in the Midwest? They’re choosing that too — I assume that makes it okay in your mind?

You are putting together two things that aren’t comparable and attempting to make a point. You are also making too many assumptions and attempting to make a point.