Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

Are you a child? Do you not understand that there are all kinds of legal limits on what you can do with your body, and for very good reasons. I can’t pay you to cut your hand off, for example. Or buy one of your kidneys. This has nothing to do with abortion.

I can certainly chose to give someone my kidney. Are you saying that if surrogacy was completely free you’d be ok with it?

If surrogacy was only limited to altruistic surrogacy, the rates would drop like a stone.

I fail to see what your point is. Surrogacy is ok as long as it is free? That’s not exploitative?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

You are exhausting. You don’t get to make that decision for every woman. Worry about your own womb.

So you agree that a woman should be able to sell one of her kidneys, yes?

Again, organ donation is a thing. U couldn’t care less is someone made money doing it too. But a child is not an organ. So it is a nonsensical argument.

We all know organ donation is “a thing”. The question is simple: should it be legal for a person to SELL an organ?

What if a person just wanted to rent out their kidney for 9 months and then have it returned? That seems comparable to renting out a womb, right?

The topic of this thread is surrogacy. If you want to talk about the ethics of organ donation, start a separate thread. It has nothing to do with surrogacy. Women have been carrying children for other women for millennia.

😳

You know, as someone who thinks surrogacy is exploitative and cruel, sometimes I think I should just let the pro-surrogacy people make my arguments for me. They do a better job at revealing the grotesque entitlement of pro-surrogacy people than I could ever do, just by being themselves.

Wealthy women have been exploiting poor women for millennia, yes. If that is your argument as to why surrogacy is good, you’ve lost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

Are you a child? Do you not understand that there are all kinds of legal limits on what you can do with your body, and for very good reasons. I can’t pay you to cut your hand off, for example. Or buy one of your kidneys. This has nothing to do with abortion.

I can certainly chose to give someone my kidney. Are you saying that if surrogacy was completely free you’d be ok with it?

If surrogacy was only limited to altruistic surrogacy, the rates would drop like a stone.

I fail to see what your point is. Surrogacy is ok as long as it is free? That’s not exploitative?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

You are exhausting. You don’t get to make that decision for every woman. Worry about your own womb.

So you agree that a woman should be able to sell one of her kidneys, yes?

Again, organ donation is a thing. U couldn’t care less is someone made money doing it too. But a child is not an organ. So it is a nonsensical argument.

We all know organ donation is “a thing”. The question is simple: should it be legal for a person to SELL an organ?

What if a person just wanted to rent out their kidney for 9 months and then have it returned? That seems comparable to renting out a womb, right?

The topic of this thread is surrogacy. If you want to talk about the ethics of organ donation, start a separate thread. It has nothing to do with surrogacy. Women have been carrying children for other women for millennia.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you just assume that gay couples wouldn’t want a child that is biologically theirs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My sister doing #3 surrogacy now. She gets 100K for it. She loves being pregnant, and in her state no teacher makes 100K, ever. It is perfect for her family.

Your sister is closer to a thoroughbred horse than to a teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

Are you a child? Do you not understand that there are all kinds of legal limits on what you can do with your body, and for very good reasons. I can’t pay you to cut your hand off, for example. Or buy one of your kidneys. This has nothing to do with abortion.

I can certainly chose to give someone my kidney. Are you saying that if surrogacy was completely free you’d be ok with it?

If surrogacy was only limited to altruistic surrogacy, the rates would drop like a stone.

I fail to see what your point is. Surrogacy is ok as long as it is free? That’s not exploitative?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

You are exhausting. You don’t get to make that decision for every woman. Worry about your own womb.

So you agree that a woman should be able to sell one of her kidneys, yes?

Again, organ donation is a thing. U couldn’t care less is someone made money doing it too. But a child is not an organ. So it is a nonsensical argument.

We all know organ donation is “a thing”. The question is simple: should it be legal for a person to SELL an organ?

What if a person just wanted to rent out their kidney for 9 months and then have it returned? That seems comparable to renting out a womb, right?

The topic of this thread is surrogacy. If you want to talk about the ethics of organ donation, start a separate thread. It has nothing to do with surrogacy. Women have been carrying children for other women for millennia.

You think women have been implanted with other women’s embryos for millennia? You are a fool.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yup!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

Are you a child? Do you not understand that there are all kinds of legal limits on what you can do with your body, and for very good reasons. I can’t pay you to cut your hand off, for example. Or buy one of your kidneys. This has nothing to do with abortion.

I can certainly chose to give someone my kidney. Are you saying that if surrogacy was completely free you’d be ok with it?

If surrogacy was only limited to altruistic surrogacy, the rates would drop like a stone.

I fail to see what your point is. Surrogacy is ok as long as it is free? That’s not exploitative?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

You are exhausting. You don’t get to make that decision for every woman. Worry about your own womb.

So you agree that a woman should be able to sell one of her kidneys, yes?

Again, organ donation is a thing. U couldn’t care less is someone made money doing it too. But a child is not an organ. So it is a nonsensical argument.

We all know organ donation is “a thing”. The question is simple: should it be legal for a person to SELL an organ?

What if a person just wanted to rent out their kidney for 9 months and then have it returned? That seems comparable to renting out a womb, right?

The topic of this thread is surrogacy. If you want to talk about the ethics of organ donation, start a separate thread. It has nothing to do with surrogacy. Women have been carrying children for other women for millennia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In France and Germany by law whoever gives birth is the mother. Even altruistic surrogacy is banned. So if your sister wants to help you out and carry your child for free it still isn't allowed.

They see surrogacy as undignified because a child is not a product or the result of some type of transaction. Surrogacy is treating the child as something fungible not human.

Bravo to these countries.

I definitely agree with this.

Are they also against IVF?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In France and Germany by law whoever gives birth is the mother. Even altruistic surrogacy is banned. So if your sister wants to help you out and carry your child for free it still isn't allowed.

They see surrogacy as undignified because a child is not a product or the result of some type of transaction. Surrogacy is treating the child as something fungible not human.

Bravo to these countries.

I definitely agree with this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

Are you a child? Do you not understand that there are all kinds of legal limits on what you can do with your body, and for very good reasons. I can’t pay you to cut your hand off, for example. Or buy one of your kidneys. This has nothing to do with abortion.

I can certainly chose to give someone my kidney. Are you saying that if surrogacy was completely free you’d be ok with it?

If surrogacy was only limited to altruistic surrogacy, the rates would drop like a stone.

I fail to see what your point is. Surrogacy is ok as long as it is free? That’s not exploitative?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

You are exhausting. You don’t get to make that decision for every woman. Worry about your own womb.

So you agree that a woman should be able to sell one of her kidneys, yes?

Again, organ donation is a thing. U couldn’t care less is someone made money doing it too. But a child is not an organ. So it is a nonsensical argument.

We all know organ donation is “a thing”. The question is simple: should it be legal for a person to SELL an organ?

What if a person just wanted to rent out their kidney for 9 months and then have it returned? That seems comparable to renting out a womb, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My sister doing #3 surrogacy now. She gets 100K for it. She loves being pregnant, and in her state no teacher makes 100K, ever. It is perfect for her family.

Your sister is closer to a thoroughbred horse than to a teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

Are you a child? Do you not understand that there are all kinds of legal limits on what you can do with your body, and for very good reasons. I can’t pay you to cut your hand off, for example. Or buy one of your kidneys. This has nothing to do with abortion.

I can certainly chose to give someone my kidney. Are you saying that if surrogacy was completely free you’d be ok with it?

If surrogacy was only limited to altruistic surrogacy, the rates would drop like a stone.

I fail to see what your point is. Surrogacy is ok as long as it is free? That’s not exploitative?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

You are exhausting. You don’t get to make that decision for every woman. Worry about your own womb.

So you agree that a woman should be able to sell one of her kidneys, yes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you just assume that gay couples wouldn’t want a child that is biologically theirs?

I assume that anyone, couples or individuals, would welcome a child regardless of “biological”

Unfortunately the people who support this practice only want their little “mini me”. They don’t actually GAF about children or women.

Funny how all the people arguing so harshly against surrogacy have not adopted any children. They wanted a mini me. And I don’t even blame you. But others should be able to do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

Are you a child? Do you not understand that there are all kinds of legal limits on what you can do with your body, and for very good reasons. I can’t pay you to cut your hand off, for example. Or buy one of your kidneys. This has nothing to do with abortion.

I can certainly chose to give someone my kidney. Are you saying that if surrogacy was completely free you’d be ok with it?

If surrogacy was only limited to altruistic surrogacy, the rates would drop like a stone.

I fail to see what your point is. Surrogacy is ok as long as it is free? That’s not exploitative?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

Are you a child? Do you not understand that there are all kinds of legal limits on what you can do with your body, and for very good reasons. I can’t pay you to cut your hand off, for example. Or buy one of your kidneys. This has nothing to do with abortion.

I can certainly chose to give someone my kidney. Are you saying that if surrogacy was completely free you’d be ok with it?

If surrogacy was only limited to altruistic surrogacy, the rates would drop like a stone.

I fail to see what your point is. Surrogacy is ok as long as it is free? That’s not exploitative?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

You are exhausting. You don’t get to make that decision for every woman. Worry about your own womb.

So you agree that a woman should be able to sell one of her kidneys, yes?

Again, organ donation is a thing. U couldn’t care less is someone made money doing it too. But a child is not an organ. So it is a nonsensical argument.