Surrogacy ... not good?

I think there are times when surrogacy is pretty creepy (I'm sure there are some wealthy women who just don't want to go through being pregnant and hire a poorer person to do it for them), but at the same time, some people just cant have their own children for varying reasons. I'm not sure how ultimately you could be anti-surrogacy but pro-adoption. Seems like contradictory views to me.

 

There is a concern that surrogate mothers may be exploited, particularly in countries where surrogacy is not well-regulated. Surrogate mothers may be paid low wages, they may not be given adequate medical care, and they may not be fully informed of the risks of surrogacy.

 

If that's a religious, ethical or moral view, I could see that. If this is right wing buffoonery like opposition to birth control, it's hard to understand why.

 

This could be true of adoption as well but I'm not sure anyone is going to cut off the flow of adoptable children to the first world

 

Possibly because lack of proper legislation, both surrogate mothers and intended parents can be exploited and the profit is earned by middlemen and commercial agencies.
It’s sort of like football recruiting…lots of uncles with their hand out.

 

Well on some level, its the sort of buffoonery that comes out of being anti-abortion, which the church most certainly is. In a world where the poorest arent going to be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, you've already set conditions ripe for exploitation.

 

You can say the same with adoption! You don’t think money changes hands with adoptions?

Things like this should of course be regulated (it’s not as if it isnt). The govt can set some ground rules, maybe at least be a deterrence to the scumbags or catch a few of them. Not sure how anyone can rationally get from that to outlawing surrogacy. To say things like “anyone involved in surrogacy deserves no less than a life sentence” is just pure nuttery. Maybe that guy is a fundamentalist Catholic who actually believes that, but I suspect it’s probably a troll.

 

I've never heard of the other guy, but Matt Walsh is a vile crazy person, not the kind of person you want as the spokesman of anything lol

 

River asked us to keep this thread on SURROGACY... you obviously didn't read his OP. Lol...

 

He was talking about not turning it into another tranny thread, presumably, since he literally opened with that.

Surrogacy and adoption are more closely linked, and I’m sure there are plenty of adoptive parents who consider surrogacy and vice versa. Literally nobody is against adoption, right? If we are seriously “debating” surrogacy, it’s fair to point out pretty much all the arguments against it could also be levied at the adoption process.

 

Most adoption doesn’t take place in the form of directly approaching a birth mother and saying “I would like to buy your child.”

While I don’t personally have a major moral concern with surrogacy, I can see how paying someone to have a kid and give it to you could raise some ethical questions if you look at it from that perspective.

 

Only someone that has brain fog would confuse surrogacy with adoption. In this case "tiny" details matter immensely.

But why not simply just explain the virtues of surrogacy on it's own merits? What makes surrogacy so good in your opinion? Of is it wrong, unjust and dangerous for the baby victim?

 

On the flipside in this country, my understanding is that a surrogate mother would have every legal right to keep the baby upon delivery and demand child support from the genetic parents.

At least, that's what a family lawyer told me at a party, for whatever that's worth. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I'm not sure how you can be anti-surrogacy and pro-forced pregnancy. It seems that surrogacy is much less objectionable here. At least the surrogate entered into the agreement willingly, the child wasn't raped into them.

 

No it usually involves approaching an agency, a 'surrogate' if you will and saying "I would like a child please" and paying them money to get you one

 

What are thought on the males role in this (ie sperm donor) I'm creeped out by the idea of spewing in a cup but for the right price (six figures) I'd be willing to impregnate a (client?) if she is hot and rich.

Im pretty good looking very fit and have exceptional intelligence.​

 

But, at least in the United States (as far as I am aware), there’s not a market for people to have children and sell them to adoption agencies.

You can debate the merits of adoption fees, but to me adopting already existing children who for one reason or another do not have a permanent home does not seem to be a terribly close equivalent to paying someone to have a child and give it to you.

 

Well, I think material conditions can add a measure of coercion to any arrangement, like any other agreement to perform a service or do labor we call "voluntary." While I'm sure that is the Pope's angle, I doubt that is the angle of freaks like Matt Walsh, who probably object to the idea in some kind of weird sex way (similar to the people who think IVF is bad).

 

With respect, please do not use the word "tranny." It is considered a slur.
Tranny - Wikipedia