If you're doing a modern, legal surrogacy then the gametes (egg and sperm) are not going to be related to the biological mother. They're going to come from the bio parents. This isn't the bronze age, we can retrieve ova from the woman and sperm from the man, IVF and implant embryos not genetically related to the surrogate.
The former still often happens with gays using surrogacy. In either case, you are still trading around a child that has a right to go through normal pregnancy in the womb of his mother.
In the case of partners who can't concieve on their own (because they are gay, or a single man) any lawyer worth their salt would advise you to purchase ova from a donor instead of inseminating the surrogate. but for those who want to pursue grey-area traditional surrogacy... idk good luck. Get the contract in writing.
I think the analogy of performing a service is adequate to describe what surrogates do. If you're doing this the right/legal way the surrogate has no genetic kinship to the baby... so idk why you'd characterize that as akin to organ donation. The surrogate literally just provides energy, labor, and endures the discomforts of pregnancy for you.
My comments were more about is pregnancy a sacred thing being encroached on by modernity, or is it just a medical procedure. If a gestating fetus doesn't have the right to not be aborted, then it doesn't have the right to object to surrogacy.
Surrogacy and sperm donation are both pretty retarded. Plenty of orphans out there waiting to be adopted, but instead you decide to spit in the face of God
I know a few people who are obsessed with having Biological children to continue on the bloodline. I think the people who choose surrogacy are the types who want mini-mes and not children to raise.
Yeah, I live in reality whereas you’re consumed by a fantasy.
But how do you know you live in reality? You trust your senses but they've been fooled before and you know it. Trust me, women aren't even real, so you don't have to feel bad for them.
I think, therefore I am. And also, off topic.
I agree.
I don't think that is actually a human right per se. It's more like a human norm, because assisted reproduction therapies are a recent-ish innovation. I'm not exactly clear on what injury the fetus suffers from not gestating in its genetic mother. However, gestation by surrogate could be favorable for a pregnancy compared to doing it the 'natural' way. (e.g. the genetic parents have tried to concieve on their own and had multiple miscarriages)
Well you are purposefully obstructing a natural process by removing the fetus from the organ in which it was concieved and which exists for the explicit purpose of gestating it. It's different from-say-wet nursery because breastfeeding is something you have to actively do. It is therefore not the same as obstructing the natural development of the child within his given environment, which I would say could be seen as a right. A child outside the womb would only have the right to his mother's breast if it was necessary to sustain his life (no formula or other women, etc), though I do think it is perverse to use a wet nurse unless the mother absolute cannot take care of it herself.
