Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F%#ing absolutely not. It's exploitation at its finest. Going to hire a wet nurse too? From the Third World??

You don't have the values to be a parent. The world has enough selfish pricks thank you very much.

That’s exploitation, but paying someone minimum wage to do backbreaking janitorial work is not?

Weird misogyny here, that you don’t deserve to be a parent if you’re not willing to physically bear a child. It reminds me of those who think women deserve pain in childbirth because of original sin.

OK, I echo earlier comments that as long as it is ethically handled you are OK. Pay well and treat the surrogate with respect and it’s a win for everyone. A well chosen surrogate will be somebody who wants to be doing what she’s doing, has had children before and knows exactly what it will entail, and typically has an easy pregnancy. Everyone wins.

MISOGYNY how dare you. No I never said she didn't deserve to be a parent b c she didn't bear it-- it's because her value system is F'ed up. She values HER body -THE WAY IT LOOKS- and health above another woman's body. Have you not read The Handmaids Tale. You are a crappy white Feminist if I ever saw one.

It's automatically exploitative. STFU

It’s automatically exploitative because you think so, huh? If you can’t recognize the difference between voluntary, consensual labor and forced labor (no pun intended) then I guess I’ll leave you to stew in your own incoherent outrage.

Let me blow your mind by telling you that I also think that women should be able to freely and safely choose to do sex work. Are you actually convulsing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Babies start to bond with their mothers in the womb. So no.

You don’t support adoption?

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have any medical reason to do so. I just don’t want to be pregnant again, gain weight and have to try to lose it again. have my body change permanently, give birth etc.

And I can easily afford a surrogate.

Would you do it in my situation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the surrogate is well compensated and not coerced (including indirect coercion due to financial need), sure. Some women actually enjoy being pregnant and view surrogacy as a blessing they can offer others. (I know women like this.)

People on this thread jumping right to racism and impugning your parenting ability are nuts, ignore them.

Yes, there are definitely surrogates who feel this way, but I’m guessing that the majority of them consider it a blessing to be a surrogate for people who *need* a surrogate, not people who simply want a surrogate for the sake of convenience.

Surrogates are perfectly free to interview prospective parents about their motivations, and to accept or decline the contract on that basis. Those who care deeply about motivations will do so.

And the ones who don't care about motivations are probably the more economically disadvantaged.

Would you go to your peer or friend and say hey please volunteer for this thing so I don't get fat? Your friend or peer would tell you to pound sand. A desperately poor person would be more likely to agree to these terms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have any medical reason to do so. I just don’t want to be pregnant again, gain weight and have to try to lose it again. have my body change permanently, give birth etc.

And I can easily afford a surrogate.

Would you do it in my situation?

It is immoral and you are amoral. If I were your husband, I would divorce you and get 100% custody of children and never allow you to see them again

You people are histrionic. And honestly I think this attitude is founded in misogyny. We can and do outsource absolutely every other aspect of the human experience, and for the most part none of that is considered immoral as long as all parties are consenting and the transaction is at arms length. But for some reason gestating a pregnancy is an absolute red line that we cannot ever cross - why? Interrogate why you think pregnancy and childbirth is such a sacred part of being a mother.

Also some thought experiments here to narrow down what you think the problem is:

- is it immoral for a gay male couple to use a surrogate to have a baby?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot get pregnant to use a surrogate? what about a woman who could get pregnant but is at high risk for complications - is use of a surrogate immoral for her?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot carry a pregnancy to have her own egg/embryo implanted into another woman for surrogacy?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot produce viable eggs to use donor eggs to get pregnant?
- is it immoral for an intended mother to use donor sperm to get pregnant when her partner/intended father's sperm isn't viable?
- is it immoral for a single woman to use donor sperm to become a single mother on purpose?
- is it immoral to use donor eggs/sperm in situations where the intended parent may have viable reproductive sperm/eggs, but has a genetic condition or other issue that they don't want to pass on to their children?
- is adoption immoral?

There are a thousand other shades of grey questions in between, but if you think some of these situations are fine and others are "immoral", I urge you to think about why. What bright line rule can you articulate about what is moral when it comes to reproductive technology?

Do you not get the difference between - I can't do something vs I don't wanna because of bikini season??

PP here. The questions above were intended to make you think about what *exactly* you think is immoral. If using a surrogate is okay for women who cannot carry their own pregnancy - then it's not the actual act of using a surrogate that you think is immoral. So what is it?

I only support surrogacy that is completely voluntary and the only money involved is for medical expenses or time off for birth and recovery etc. Many countries agree.

Ok now we're getting somewhere. Just to clarify - you support a fully voluntary surrogacy, regardless of whether the intended mother *cannot* carry her own pregnancy or simply *doesn't want* to? But you wouldn't support the same surrogacy if the surrogate was being compensated beyond loss of income and medical expenses?

So the morality for you has nothing to do with the reason for seeking a surrogate, but rather on whether the surrogacy has been commodified (by compensating the surrogate) - is that right?

No. Motivation to exploit another person bc of vanity is disgusting morally. What's next?? I get to harvest skin from teh poors so mine can look younger??

Are you the PP who said you support fully voluntary, non-compensated surrogacy? Because if so this seems contradictory.

Assuming you're a different poster, it sounds like for you the moral line is about the motive - is that right? So surrogacy is moral for an intended mother cannot physically or medically carry her own pregnancy, but if the intended mother is capable but just doesn't want to carry a pregnancy, it's immoral. Is that right?

Do you think anyone would sign up to voluntarily have their skin harvested? That they would do that for any reason other than money?? No that wouldn't be voluntary.

Basically, think of living organ donation. It can only be entered into for the most charitable, humanitarian reasons. No payment can be accepted legally. Because it's exploitation. I feel the same way about surrogacy. The payment makes it automatically exploitation.

The argument I'm opposed to is well if you pay them enough that makes it ok to use a person for your own vanity. And my analogy is if so we should be able to pay poor people for their skin so someone rich can look younger.

So you’re not against surrogacy for reasons of vanity — you’re just entirely against paid surrogacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the surrogate is well compensated and not coerced (including indirect coercion due to financial need), sure. Some women actually enjoy being pregnant and view surrogacy as a blessing they can offer others. (I know women like this.)

People on this thread jumping right to racism and impugning your parenting ability are nuts, ignore them.

Yes, there are definitely surrogates who feel this way, but I’m guessing that the majority of them consider it a blessing to be a surrogate for people who *need* a surrogate, not people who simply want a surrogate for the sake of convenience.

Surrogates are perfectly free to interview prospective parents about their motivations, and to accept or decline the contract on that basis. Those who care deeply about motivations will do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have any medical reason to do so. I just don’t want to be pregnant again, gain weight and have to try to lose it again. have my body change permanently, give birth etc.

And I can easily afford a surrogate.

Would you do it in my situation?

It is immoral and you are amoral. If I were your husband, I would divorce you and get 100% custody of children and never allow you to see them again

You people are histrionic. And honestly I think this attitude is founded in misogyny. We can and do outsource absolutely every other aspect of the human experience, and for the most part none of that is considered immoral as long as all parties are consenting and the transaction is at arms length. But for some reason gestating a pregnancy is an absolute red line that we cannot ever cross - why? Interrogate why you think pregnancy and childbirth is such a sacred part of being a mother.

Also some thought experiments here to narrow down what you think the problem is:

- is it immoral for a gay male couple to use a surrogate to have a baby?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot get pregnant to use a surrogate? what about a woman who could get pregnant but is at high risk for complications - is use of a surrogate immoral for her?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot carry a pregnancy to have her own egg/embryo implanted into another woman for surrogacy?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot produce viable eggs to use donor eggs to get pregnant?
- is it immoral for an intended mother to use donor sperm to get pregnant when her partner/intended father's sperm isn't viable?
- is it immoral for a single woman to use donor sperm to become a single mother on purpose?
- is it immoral to use donor eggs/sperm in situations where the intended parent may have viable reproductive sperm/eggs, but has a genetic condition or other issue that they don't want to pass on to their children?
- is adoption immoral?

There are a thousand other shades of grey questions in between, but if you think some of these situations are fine and others are "immoral", I urge you to think about why. What bright line rule can you articulate about what is moral when it comes to reproductive technology?

Do you not get the difference between - I can't do something vs I don't wanna because of bikini season??

PP here. The questions above were intended to make you think about what *exactly* you think is immoral. If using a surrogate is okay for women who cannot carry their own pregnancy - then it's not the actual act of using a surrogate that you think is immoral. So what is it?

I only support surrogacy that is completely voluntary and the only money involved is for medical expenses or time off for birth and recovery etc. Many countries agree.

Ok now we're getting somewhere. Just to clarify - you support a fully voluntary surrogacy, regardless of whether the intended mother *cannot* carry her own pregnancy or simply *doesn't want* to? But you wouldn't support the same surrogacy if the surrogate was being compensated beyond loss of income and medical expenses?

So the morality for you has nothing to do with the reason for seeking a surrogate, but rather on whether the surrogacy has been commodified (by compensating the surrogate) - is that right?

No. Motivation to exploit another person bc of vanity is disgusting morally. What's next?? I get to harvest skin from teh poors so mine can look younger??

Are you the PP who said you support fully voluntary, non-compensated surrogacy? Because if so this seems contradictory.

Assuming you're a different poster, it sounds like for you the moral line is about the motive - is that right? So surrogacy is moral for an intended mother cannot physically or medically carry her own pregnancy, but if the intended mother is capable but just doesn't want to carry a pregnancy, it's immoral. Is that right?

Do you think anyone would sign up to voluntarily have their skin harvested? That they would do that for any reason other than money?? No that wouldn't be voluntary.

Basically, think of living organ donation. It can only be entered into for the most charitable, humanitarian reasons. No payment can be accepted legally. Because it's exploitation. I feel the same way about surrogacy. The payment makes it automatically exploitation.

The argument I'm opposed to is well if you pay them enough that makes it ok to use a person for your own vanity. And my analogy is if so we should be able to pay poor people for their skin so someone rich can look younger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have any medical reason to do so. I just don’t want to be pregnant again, gain weight and have to try to lose it again. have my body change permanently, give birth etc.

And I can easily afford a surrogate.

Would you do it in my situation?

It is immoral and you are amoral. If I were your husband, I would divorce you and get 100% custody of children and never allow you to see them again

You people are histrionic. And honestly I think this attitude is founded in misogyny. We can and do outsource absolutely every other aspect of the human experience, and for the most part none of that is considered immoral as long as all parties are consenting and the transaction is at arms length. But for some reason gestating a pregnancy is an absolute red line that we cannot ever cross - why? Interrogate why you think pregnancy and childbirth is such a sacred part of being a mother.

Also some thought experiments here to narrow down what you think the problem is:

- is it immoral for a gay male couple to use a surrogate to have a baby?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot get pregnant to use a surrogate? what about a woman who could get pregnant but is at high risk for complications - is use of a surrogate immoral for her?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot carry a pregnancy to have her own egg/embryo implanted into another woman for surrogacy?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot produce viable eggs to use donor eggs to get pregnant?
- is it immoral for an intended mother to use donor sperm to get pregnant when her partner/intended father's sperm isn't viable?
- is it immoral for a single woman to use donor sperm to become a single mother on purpose?
- is it immoral to use donor eggs/sperm in situations where the intended parent may have viable reproductive sperm/eggs, but has a genetic condition or other issue that they don't want to pass on to their children?
- is adoption immoral?

There are a thousand other shades of grey questions in between, but if you think some of these situations are fine and others are "immoral", I urge you to think about why. What bright line rule can you articulate about what is moral when it comes to reproductive technology?

Do you not get the difference between - I can't do something vs I don't wanna because of bikini season??

PP here. The questions above were intended to make you think about what *exactly* you think is immoral. If using a surrogate is okay for women who cannot carry their own pregnancy - then it's not the actual act of using a surrogate that you think is immoral. So what is it?

I only support surrogacy that is completely voluntary and the only money involved is for medical expenses or time off for birth and recovery etc. Many countries agree.

Ok now we're getting somewhere. Just to clarify - you support a fully voluntary surrogacy, regardless of whether the intended mother *cannot* carry her own pregnancy or simply *doesn't want* to? But you wouldn't support the same surrogacy if the surrogate was being compensated beyond loss of income and medical expenses?

So the morality for you has nothing to do with the reason for seeking a surrogate, but rather on whether the surrogacy has been commodified (by compensating the surrogate) - is that right?

No. Motivation to exploit another person bc of vanity is disgusting morally. What's next?? I get to harvest skin from teh poors so mine can look younger??

Are you the PP who said you support fully voluntary, non-compensated surrogacy? Because if so this seems contradictory.

Assuming you're a different poster, it sounds like for you the moral line is about the motive - is that right? So surrogacy is moral for an intended mother cannot physically or medically carry her own pregnancy, but if the intended mother is capable but just doesn't want to carry a pregnancy, it's immoral. Is that right?

Do you think anyone would sign up to voluntarily have their skin harvested? That they would do that for any reason other than money?? No that wouldn't be voluntary.

Basically, think of living organ donation. It can only be entered into for the most charitable, humanitarian reasons. No payment can be accepted legally. Because it's exploitation. I feel the same way about surrogacy. The payment makes it automatically exploitation.

The argument I'm opposed to is well if you pay them enough that makes it ok to use a person for your own vanity. And my analogy is if so we should be able to pay poor people for their skin so someone rich can look younger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the surrogate is well compensated and not coerced (including indirect coercion due to financial need), sure. Some women actually enjoy being pregnant and view surrogacy as a blessing they can offer others. (I know women like this.)

People on this thread jumping right to racism and impugning your parenting ability are nuts, ignore them.

Yes, there are definitely surrogates who feel this way, but I’m guessing that the majority of them consider it a blessing to be a surrogate for people who *need* a surrogate, not people who simply want a surrogate for the sake of convenience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have any medical reason to do so. I just don’t want to be pregnant again, gain weight and have to try to lose it again. have my body change permanently, give birth etc.

And I can easily afford a surrogate.

Would you do it in my situation?

It is immoral and you are amoral. If I were your husband, I would divorce you and get 100% custody of children and never allow you to see them again

You people are histrionic. And honestly I think this attitude is founded in misogyny. We can and do outsource absolutely every other aspect of the human experience, and for the most part none of that is considered immoral as long as all parties are consenting and the transaction is at arms length. But for some reason gestating a pregnancy is an absolute red line that we cannot ever cross - why? Interrogate why you think pregnancy and childbirth is such a sacred part of being a mother.

Also some thought experiments here to narrow down what you think the problem is:

- is it immoral for a gay male couple to use a surrogate to have a baby?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot get pregnant to use a surrogate? what about a woman who could get pregnant but is at high risk for complications - is use of a surrogate immoral for her?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot carry a pregnancy to have her own egg/embryo implanted into another woman for surrogacy?
- is it immoral for a woman who cannot produce viable eggs to use donor eggs to get pregnant?
- is it immoral for an intended mother to use donor sperm to get pregnant when her partner/intended father's sperm isn't viable?
- is it immoral for a single woman to use donor sperm to become a single mother on purpose?
- is it immoral to use donor eggs/sperm in situations where the intended parent may have viable reproductive sperm/eggs, but has a genetic condition or other issue that they don't want to pass on to their children?
- is adoption immoral?

There are a thousand other shades of grey questions in between, but if you think some of these situations are fine and others are "immoral", I urge you to think about why. What bright line rule can you articulate about what is moral when it comes to reproductive technology?

Do you not get the difference between - I can't do something vs I don't wanna because of bikini season??

PP here. The questions above were intended to make you think about what *exactly* you think is immoral. If using a surrogate is okay for women who cannot carry their own pregnancy - then it's not the actual act of using a surrogate that you think is immoral. So what is it?

I only support surrogacy that is completely voluntary and the only money involved is for medical expenses or time off for birth and recovery etc. Many countries agree.

Ok now we're getting somewhere. Just to clarify - you support a fully voluntary surrogacy, regardless of whether the intended mother *cannot* carry her own pregnancy or simply *doesn't want* to? But you wouldn't support the same surrogacy if the surrogate was being compensated beyond loss of income and medical expenses?

So the morality for you has nothing to do with the reason for seeking a surrogate, but rather on whether the surrogacy has been commodified (by compensating the surrogate) - is that right?

No. Motivation to exploit another person bc of vanity is disgusting morally. What's next?? I get to harvest skin from teh poors so mine can look younger??

Are you the PP who said you support fully voluntary, non-compensated surrogacy? Because if so this seems contradictory.

Assuming you're a different poster, it sounds like for you the moral line is about the motive - is that right? So surrogacy is moral for an intended mother cannot physically or medically carry her own pregnancy, but if the intended mother is capable but just doesn't want to carry a pregnancy, it's immoral. Is that right?

Anonymous wrote:Wow, there is a lot of anger about this.

Nope, not unethical, just a choice on both sides and no one gets to decide that your reasons are not good enough. It's your choice and your body and your money.

Anonymous wrote:If the surrogate is well compensated and not coerced (including indirect coercion due to financial need), sure. Some women actually enjoy being pregnant and view surrogacy as a blessing they can offer others. (I know women like this.)

People on this thread jumping right to racism and impugning your parenting ability are nuts, ignore them.