Anonymous wrote:How did they afford all those kids?! It's like 100k to have a surrogate.

I too see nothing wrong with surrogacy. I've actually known several women who were surrogates. One was a SAHM who already had 2 kids. She enjoyed being pregnant and had easy pregnancies/labors. She joked about it being easy money for her and she liked helping infertile couples. These women weren't trafficked or in any way forced to be surrogates. I debated doing it myself too. I had some seriously easy pregnancies and really liked being pregnant.

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.

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.

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?

This is like saying, if we outlaw anal rape, do you think that will eradicate vaginal rape? And when the answer is no, using that as an excuse to turn a blind eye to one type of rape and allowing criminals to freely exploit vulnerable populations.

Is it so hard to understand that both forms of horrific acts should be treated as crimes?

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:I am the mother of two kids and I would never have another pregnancy even if someone gave me 100K. Not worth the toll on my health.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ban organ donations while you are at it.

It is illegal to sell organs for money.

Did you not realize that most surrogacy is paid? It’s not altruistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. This is not child neglect. These are criminals. The man is 65 and woman is 38 years old. They are having 20+ kids from various surrogacies?

They are paying surrogates to have their kids so that they can sell them. This is a baby factory and who are these people who are providing childcare?

Surrogacy is not an issue here.

OR these are people who are the front for rich Chinese in China to have kids here by surrogates so that they can have American citizenship. This is an illegal and criminal business.

It is neglect for the parents. It’s abuse by the Nannies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ban organ donations while you are at it.

It is illegal to sell organs for money.

Did you not realize that most surrogacy is paid? It’s not altruistic.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. This is not child neglect. These are criminals. The man is 65 and woman is 38 years old. They are having 20+ kids from various surrogacies?

They are paying surrogates to have their kids so that they can sell them. This is a baby factory and who are these people who are providing childcare?

Surrogacy is not an issue here.

OR these are people who are the front for rich Chinese in China to have kids here by surrogates so that they can have American citizenship. This is an illegal and criminal business.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ban organ donations while you are at it.

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.