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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I believe surrogacy should be banned, but example does not really seem to be an issue with surrogacy so much as plain old child neglect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The world is truly f***ed.

Who is saying this is no big deal you dimwit? No one!!!

However, there is a place for ethical surrogacy. Find better examples than this if you want to advocate against surrogacy.

Yeah, like when an actress doesn’t want to risk stretchmarks?

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.

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)

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.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they want to harvest the organs of these mass-produced children? Anything can happen.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The world is truly f***ed.

Who is saying this is no big deal you dimwit? No one!!!

However, there is a place for ethical surrogacy. Find better examples than this if you want to advocate against surrogacy.

Yeah, like when an actress doesn’t want to risk stretchmarks?

You must live under a rock. My boss and his wife are expecting a child via a surrogate. She almost died giving birth to their first child.

Why do they absolutely need two children? Plenty of people stop after one.

Because they want two children? Why did you want any? Some people don't have any.

I don't accept your premise that surrogacy is unambiguously positive. I'm open to the possibility that some situations may justify the harms associated with surrogacy, but simply wanting a second child after a medically complex first pregnancy doesn't meet that standard for me.

I don't accept your premise that any pregnancy is unambiguously positive. Surrogacy is but one way to have children. No one actually needs to have a child.

All true. There are risks to anything one does in life. So there have to be rules and laws. Surrogacy is not a bad way to have kids, any worse than other ways. But I am a strong proponent of a federal database for surrogacy, to keep track of who is entering into contracts with whom. That seems like common sense to me, to preserve the safety of the surrogates, the babies and make sure the babies aren't ending up with families who don't have their best interests at heart. Just like sperm centers should have a capped maximum for donations and utilization of sperm per donor, as is the law in several countries, so that one donor doesn't produce too many children who could then inadvertently cause inbreeding (a real risk, apparently).