Surrogacy is literally using women as breeding stumps

[Stan]

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 not a fetus... it's an embryo at the point of transfer. Fetus is only after 12 weeks. And at the point of harvesting for IVF, only gametes (eggs and sperm) are being taken from the bodies of the genetic parents. Sex cells prior to fertilization are cells of the parents and their property. And I mean outright property: frozen eggs and sperm are not alive persons.

Question: does sperm have a 'right' to be ejaculated into a vagina? Are you violating the rights of millions of sperm when you masturbate?
What about at birth? Do babies have a 'right' to a vaginal delivery? What if the mother needs a C-section, is the baby's right to natural birth being violated?

There are some women who can produce eggs (ova) but can't successfully bring a pregnancy to term. It's called having a miscarriage and it's very sad and can be very traumatic for the expectant mother. Some women try to get pregnant several times and have miscarriages every time they try. What then? Such a person/couple would need a surrogate to have a baby, and I think if they got the means there's no reason they shouldn't have one.

Is surrogacy also sad and potentially traumatic for the gestational mom? Yes, probably, I imagine it would be. But these women sign up for that, and they're being paid to carry this pregnancy to term. So while I get that they may be sad to give the baby to its parents at the end, a surrogate chose this for herself. Is she making these decisions within the confines of an exploitative system? Certainly, but so are you.

 

[ITK]

It's not a fetus... it's an embryo at the point of transfer. Fetus is only after 12 weeks. And at the point of harvesting for IVF, only gametes (eggs and sperm) are being taken from the bodies of the genetic parents. Sex cells prior to fertilization are cells of the parents and their property. And I mean outright property: frozen eggs and sperm are not alive persons.

Question: does sperm have a 'right' to be ejaculated into a vagina? Are you violating the rights of millions of sperm when you masturbate?
What about at birth? Do babies have a 'right' to a vaginal delivery? What if the mother needs a C-section, is the baby's right to natural birth being violated?

There are some women who can produce eggs (ova) but can't successfully bring a pregnancy to term. It's called having a miscarriage and it's very sad and can be very traumatic for the expectant mother. Some women try to get pregnant several times and have miscarriages every time they try. What then? Such a person/couple would need a surrogate to have a baby, and I think if they got the means there's no reason they shouldn't have one.

Is surrogacy also sad and potentially traumatic for the gestational mom? Yes, probably, I imagine it would be. But these women sign up for that, and they're being paid to carry this pregnancy to term. So while I get that they may be sad to give the baby to its parents at the end, a surrogate chose this for herself. Is she making these decisions within the confines of an exploitative system? Certainly, but so are you.

It's very simple: children have the right to gestate within and be born of their mothers. This applies whether you take the embryo out of the womb or you conceive it somewhere else and then inject it into a foreign womb. To remove or never grant access to the womb of his mother and then shuffle around the child pre- and post-birth is to commodify a human being and it is reprihensible. As for the surrogate, her consent does not make moral the act, as little as it does with prostitution. Her selling or even lending of her body and her womb is inherently contrary to the dignity of the human person.

 

[Otterly]

It’s not just women who are abused by this. The most serious concern is about the children.
Children are not a commodity to be bought and sold. They do best with biological parents and a baby will experience distress by being removed from its mother.
A baby conceived using third party eggs and sperm is dealing with three different immune system influences. Normally the mothers immune system is dampened down somewhat to cope with a baby that’s only half ‘her own body’ but a donor egg and sperm conceived child is totally foreign genetic material. We don’t know the consequences that for mother or baby yet. Every foetus passes cells across the placenta, i to the mothers circulation and those cells persist in her body. We don’t know the consequences of totally foreign immunologically material doing this.
Children are being purchased like products. Their birth certificates are supposed to reflect accurately their ancestry. Yet now we have drives to change the actual mother and father (troons driving this.)
If we end up in a situation where a baby can be commissioned using donor eggs and sperm, and removed without consequence from the mother and it’s paperwork changed completely - that’s a wet dream for people who want to produce children for profit or abuse. It’s incredibly inhuman. It’s bad for the women but it’s worse for the babies. Babies and children are not products to be sold.

If the child is not genetically related to the surrogate then I think it's fair to describe surrogates as providing a service, not selling a child.

It’s selling a child. If you’ve carried a child, felt it move and grow, it is part of you. There is something very wrong with anyone who can enable or do this to give a child away.
The legal frameworks are creeping in to completely disconnect biological parentage from a child. That should worry us

 

[Dr. Ricearoni]

It’s not just women who are abused by this. The most serious concern is about the children.
Children are not a commodity to be bought and sold. They do best with biological parents and a baby will experience distress by being removed from its mother.
A baby conceived using third party eggs and sperm is dealing with three different immune system influences. Normally the mothers immune system is dampened down somewhat to cope with a baby that’s only half ‘her own body’ but a donor egg and sperm conceived child is totally foreign genetic material. We don’t know the consequences that for mother or baby yet. Every foetus passes cells across the placenta, i to the mothers circulation and those cells persist in her body. We don’t know the consequences of totally foreign immunologically material doing this.
Children are being purchased like products. Their birth certificates are supposed to reflect accurately their ancestry. Yet now we have drives to change the actual mother and father (troons driving this.)
If we end up in a situation where a baby can be commissioned using donor eggs and sperm, and removed without consequence from the mother and it’s paperwork changed completely - that’s a wet dream for people who want to produce children for profit or abuse. It’s incredibly inhuman. It’s bad for the women but it’s worse for the babies. Babies and children are not products to be sold.

It’s selling a child. If you’ve carried a child, felt it move and grow, it is part of you. There is something very wrong with anyone who can enable or do this to give a child away.
The legal frameworks are creeping in to completely disconnect biological parentage from a child. That should worry us

Don't be bigoted you silly otter, if children weren't meant to be sold or bought then they'd put a clause or an amendment or something in the constitution outlawing the sales of people. It's your god given right to sell your children to pedophiles.

 

[trash cat]

Her selling or even lending of her body and her womb is inherently contrary to the dignity of the human person.

By that logic you should be morally opposed to entire swaths of modern medicine.

Is a father lending a kidney to his son contrary to the dignity of the human person?

What about a man donating (lending) a piece of his liver to a stranger to give him a second chance at life?

What about people that donate their blood to blood banks for a cookie? (You know hospitals buy that blood, right?)

What about people that donate their plasma for cash?

If you've ever had surgery you may have been a recipient of blood or plasma.

Why is a woman "lending" her womb so her infertile sister can have her own child any different?

 

[Fat Alcoholic Asshole]

By that logic you should be morally opposed to entire swaths of modern medicine.

Is a father lending a kidney to his son contrary to the dignity of the human person?

What about a man donating (lending) a piece of his liver to a stranger to give him a second chance at life?

What about people that donate their blood to blood banks for a cookie? (You know hospitals buy that blood, right?)

What about people that donate their plasma for cash?

If you've ever had surgery you may have been a recipient of blood or plasma.

Why is a woman "lending" her womb so her infertile sister can have her own child any different?

You are comparing the act of carrying and giving birth to a human being to organ donation and blood transfusions. If you don't understand how monstrous and inhuman such a notion is, you are either a psychopath or severely autistic (FWIW, I'm starting to think they should be treated the same)

 

[Rich Evans Simp]

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.

I am opposed to surrogacy. But, the current landscape of adoption looks nothing like it did even 15-20 years ago. It is very, very rare for mothers to surrender an infant of any race, and many countries have halted all international adoptions. Given that the goal of social services agencies is always reunification, childless couples are looking at temporary foster situations, or deeply traumatized children of school-age. I don't think it's quite fair to accuse them of wanting mini-me's. I hear the arguments that any biological child may turn out to have significant disabilities, so why not adopt special needs children, but decent people raising their babies from infancy don't really have to worry that their children will be violent or hypersexual.

 

[behavioral swamp thang]

Gestating a human life is not a "service"
That's like saying donating an organ, being in love, or friendship is a service
Some things can't be commodified.

 

[trash cat]

You are comparing the act of carrying and giving birth to a human being to organ donation and blood transfusions. If you don't understand how monstrous and inhuman such a notion is, you are either a psychopath or severely autistic (FWIW, I'm starting to think they should be treated the same)

First: When you accuse someone you disagree with of being a psychopath or autistic, it just shows you have poor arguments and nothing of substance to say.

Second: Of course I'm comparing surrogacy to organ donation - that was one potential implication of the original moral argument.

Her selling or even lending of her body and her womb is inherently contrary to the dignity of the human

"Lending of her body"

Consider two sisters - both straight, both married, but one healthy and one infertile.

The healthy woman lending her womb to help her sister treat infertility is no more immoral than that same woman giving a kidney to her sister. The relevant points here are (1) the morality of bodily autonomy and (2) the morality of using medical science to treat infertility, and to ultimately bring children into the world.

Is one sister not entitled to decide what to do with her own body? Who are we to tell her she can't volunteer to carry an embryo of an infertile relative? Especially when we are talking about the bodily autonomy to create and gestate human life into a stable and loving family.

The embryos are created via IVF for the infertile sister for transfer. When implantation fails, there is no other option. Without the assistance of a surrogate, the remaining embryos will die, and will never have the potential to become a fully developed human.

And the infertile sister will never have biological children.

It certainly seems like some folks here would have the State enforce a ban against voluntary surrogacy to treat infertility. If that's your position then just say so, and perhaps explain why.

 

[Fat Alcoholic Asshole]

First: When you accuse someone you disagree with of being a psychopath or autistic, it just shows you have poor arguments and nothing of substance to say.

No, it means I'm capable of feeling human emotion. Anyone who think to compare conceiving, carrying, and birthing a child to organ donation is fucked in the head. If you don't feel that on an emotional level, there is something wrong with you. Normal people don't need a dissertation on why they should care for a baby or mother's emotional wel-being.

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

Surrogacy doesn't treat infertility in any sense of the word, the infertiles are still infertiles, they just employ a fertile woman to gestate in their place.
It's a breeding ground for abuse. Some stuff shouldn't be comodified. And just because you will always find some people who will benefit from it doesn't mean you should forget that the women carrying children for others don't. What society are we building? A society of ultimate consoomer where ANYTHING is for sale? Even a woman's body, during nine long months? Even a child?

There's a thousand horror stories just google. And honestly the idea that "bringing children into the world" is paramount... if you are gonna use this type of religious argument just think for a second about what you are talking about.

 

[Stan]

It's very simple: children have the right to gestate within and be born of their mothers. This applies whether you take the embryo out of the womb or you conceive it somewhere else and then inject it into a foreign womb. To remove or never grant access to the womb of his mother and then shuffle around the child pre- and post-birth is to commodify a human being and it is reprihensible. As for the surrogate, her consent does not make moral the act, as little as it does with prostitution. Her selling or even lending of her body and her womb is inherently contrary to the dignity of the human person.

So you're basically telling these couples, who physically can't carry a pregnancy that they're shit out of luck. But the cat is out of the bag bro. Human gametes have already been commodified; egg donors are handsomely rewarded for their efforts in donation.
I think if such a couple can find a surrogate and even an egg donor and make their dream baby in the lab it's a net good for everyone involved.

 

[ITK]

"Lending of her body"

Consider two sisters - both straight, both married, but one healthy and one infertile.

The healthy woman lending her womb to help her sister treat infertility is no more immoral than that same woman giving a kidney to her sister. The relevant points here are (1) the morality of bodily autonomy and (2) the morality of using medical science to treat infertility, and to ultimately bring children into the world.

Is one sister not entitled to decide what to do with her own body? Who are we to tell her she can't volunteer to carry an embryo of an infertile relative? Especially when we are talking about the bodily autonomy to create and gestate human life into a stable and loving family.

The embryos are created via IVF for the infertile sister for transfer. When implantation fails, there is no other option. Without the assistance of a surrogate, the remaining embryos will die, and will never have the potential to become a fully developed human.

And the infertile sister will never have biological children.

It certainly seems like some folks here would have the State enforce a ban against voluntary surrogacy to treat infertility. If that's your position then just say so, and perhaps explain why.

I don't know why you're getting so caught up on my use of the word 'lend'. I think prostitution is evil and contrary to human dignity as it commodifies and objectifies the body. I think also that a woman giving up her body like a piece of flesh is wrong even if she does it free of charge, for the same reasons.

Surrogacy does not treat infertility in a woman, it merely disassociates the woman and man in the reproductive act by the introduction of a third partner. Her infertility still remains.

It is also not equivalent to organ donation. In organ donation, you take something from yourself and put it into someone else. This is not what's happening. Instead you are replacing someone else, using your entire body to bear the child.

So you're basically telling these couples, who physically can't carry a pregnancy that they're shit out of luck. But the cat is out of the bag bro. Human gametes have already been commodified; egg donors are handsomely rewarded for their efforts in donation.
I think if such a couple can find a surrogate and even an egg donor and make their dream baby in the lab it's a net good for everyone involved.

Except for the child, who does not get to be born of his mother and father in a stable relationship, the other fertilized embryos that are disposed of, the surrogate, who's body is used as an object, and the parents who become disassociated from the fullness of reproduction.

 

[Stan]

Except for the child, who does not get to be born of his mother and father in a stable relationship, the other fertilized embryos that are disposed of, the surrogate, who's body is used as an object, and the parents who become disassociated from the fullness of reproduction.

So you’re saying that child has a right to die before being born, because I’m asking you about women who medically cannot carry a pregnancy to term. For whom surrogacy is their only shot at having a bio child of their own.

Fullness of reproduction fucking lmao. A mother who hires a surrogate gets much more of the “fullness of reproduction” ( so fucking awkward of a phrase) than one who goes through multiple miscarriages. and I can say that as someone who has a baby. Do you have a baby at home? I doubt it.

Are you being purposefully dense? Cause I’m asking you about women who would require surrogacy to have kids at all and your answer is just “a child has a right to its (death trap) womb.”

PS why do you assume that parents who hire surrogates are not in “a stable relationship”? These people are having a much wanted baby together at significant expense. There are plenty of mothers who conceive naturally in unstable relationships, so it's not as if natural pregnancy is protective. Makes no sense

 

[Otterly]

Why is a woman "lending" her womb so her infertile sister can have her own child any different?

Because a child is involved. A liver is a bit of meat and if you take the right amount it’ll largely regenerate. A child is a living human being with its own needs. They are not the same

It certainly seems like some folks here would have the State enforce a ban against voluntary surrogacy to treat infertility. If that's your position then just say so, and perhaps explain why.

That is exactly my position and yes I will explain why.
The case you outline is about the only possible ‘moral’ way surrogacy can be done. Between blood relatives, voluntary and with the eggs and sperm of the relative as needed.
However, if the last ten years has told you anything it should be that all slopes are slippery. Let’s take euthanasia as an example. It starts off with a similar best moral case; people with incurable and terrible diseases who will die and die in terrible ways. Surely nobody could object/you wouldn’t let your dog die like that/never be used badly etc.
And then ten years down the line it’s the second or third most common cause of death in Canada, people who are fine are being pressured into it and it’s being talked about extending it to kids.
You either ban it or allow it. There’s no in between. The loopholes get bigger.
We have countless cases like this. Troons just wanted to pee and now they’re an infestation of sex pests. Gays just wanted to marry and now we’ve got men fisting each other in pride parades in public and drag queen story hours.
There will surely be some infertile sisters, the noblest of gestures, but there will be a whole lot more poor women who do it, coerced, and apart from all that there’s the impact on the child.
There’s the legal framework needed for child documentation - all that framework enables legal child trafficking and child creation.
There’s the genetic and immunological risk as well. I have cells from all my children floating around in my circulation. Every women who has been pregnant does. Those cells are at least half recognised as self. What happens when they’re zero percent self? What happens to women coerced into surrogacy?
What happens when we’ve got a framework that allows a child to be created with transferable legal parentage ? With no birth certificate that links them to reality?
What happens when women are told that this is now a legal career and that it’s surrogacy for the nice gay couple or no benefits? Think that’s ridiculous? A woman in Germany was told to go work in a brothel or her benefits would get cut (in the bar, but apparently the bar girls were all on the game too.)
Yes ban it all. It’s tragic for any infertile sisters out there but this is a slippery slope with child trafficking and abuse on it, so it’s a total hard no from me.
All slopes are slippery.

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

The fact that legalizing prostitution would mean you would have to have accept being raped for pay or get your benefits cut is dystopian and the biggest reason why I don't support sex trafficking and is why hitler did nothing wrong.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

Surrogacy defiles something good and precious, and makes it into an in-app purchase. It soils and denigrates motherhood, womanhood and family, and it uses an infant as a commercial tool for personal gratification. The thought of taking a new born babe away from its mother, is to me a dystopian nightmare. And the people who shop for babies are too often immoral, faggots or both.

Ban surrogacy and burn it with fire.

 

[Stan]

No, it means I'm capable of feeling human emotion. Anyone who think to compare conceiving, carrying, and birthing a child to organ donation is fucked in the head. If you don't feel that on an emotional level, there is something wrong with you. Normal people don't need a dissertation on why they should care for a baby or mother's emotional wel-being.

I don't really think your thoughts on this are with the mother's well being (surrogate or bio mom.) I think this is more about being able to control what women do and your traditionalist ideas about childrearing.

Surrogacy defiles something good and precious, and makes it into an in-app purchase. It soils and denigrates motherhood, womanhood and family, and it uses an infant as a commercial tool for personal gratification. The thought of taking a new born babe away from its mother, is to me a dystopian nightmare. And the people who shop for babies are too often immoral, faggots or both.

Ban surrogacy and burn it with fire.

How is surrogacy like microtransactions in Candy Crush, again? Getting a surrogate in the US is at least as, if not more involved than getting an adoption. Are you against adoption as well?

Times like this I'm glad that the autistics in Deep Thoughts can shriek their lunacy to the heavens, but it won't actually change the fact that surrogacy already exists, and there are people who will use the technique to have their own kids, and there are women willing to sign up for that within the confines of our capitalist hellscape. It's not perfect but it beats a living in paternalistic theocracy run by retards.

 

[Dr. Ricearoni]

I don't really think your thoughts on this are with the mother's well being (surrogate or bio mom.) I think this is more about being able to control what women do and your traditionalist ideas about childrearing.

How is surrogacy like microtransactions in Candy Crush, again? Getting a surrogate in the US is at least as, if not more involved than getting an adoption. Are you against adoption as well?

Times like this I'm glad that the autistics in Deep Thoughts can shriek their lunacy to the heavens, but it won't actually change the fact that surrogacy already exists, and there are people who will use the technique to have their own kids, and there are women willing to sign up for that within the confines of our capitalist hellscape.

Surrogacy is like microtransactions in candy crush because you can buy it while playing candy crush, dumbass.

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

Even the case of a sister gestating for her sister can be sketchy. Family isn't an abuse-free institution. If the golden child is infertile or in an infertile couple the unfavored daughter could be pressured into surrogacy by the rest of her family.

Pregnancy, even modern pregnancy isnt just inconvenient (you have nausea, you balloon up, you can't eat what you want, etc) it is risky. It will change your body forever and it can damage it. And it's 24/7 for nine months. All of that just to have no relationship with your offspring?
That's just not something you do for others if you have a choice, and if you love yourself. Anybody who thinks differently just have the utmost contempt for women and think they are put on this earth to be things that carry babies and shut up.