Surrogacy ... not good?

Damn, that would suck big time!

 

Yes, but not in the way we pray to the Godhead. To use the terminology, the Blessed Mother is venerated, not worshipped.

A few years ago, there was a movement to label her the "Co-Redemptrix of all graces", which would have imparted a status beyond human, but that additional status was rejected, thankfully, although we are taught that she was assumed into heaven - make that of what you will.

There are also three officially recognized Marian Apparitions (appearing on earth to certain visionaries) - Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima, as well as many not officially recognized, in an in-between status, most recently Medjugorje, which I first heard about when we were dating from my now wife of 34 years.

San Diego is named after Juan Diego, the Mexican peasant Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to near Mexico City in 1531, who is officially the "Patroness of the Americas", including all of North America. I think that would not go over well if understood by many full of hatred for all things south of the border.

 

What difference do her looks make if you're shooting it in a cup?

 

I’m not going to shoot in a cup. I’d demand we do it the old fashion way.

 

You know, I never did ask my niece what it cost. Knowing her and her husband, I'm sure the least they did was pay all expenses, and I suspect they paid the woman who carried the baby a fair amount for "services rendered".

Surrogacy is complicated. I find it interesting that some focus just on the dangers and want to outlaw it, and ignore the great joy and happiness it brings to many for the reasons you noted.

 

I remember that case, too. It underscores how emotionally difficult it is for a surrogate mother to give up a child she played a large, but not the only, part in giving life. Likewise, I can understand how devastated the "expected parents" must feel when they are denied the child they played a part in giving life.

 

I find it hard to believe even close family would do this for “free”, even with expenses covered. It’s a thing that basically demands compensation since it’s such a sacrifice and possible health risk if there are complications.

I think most people envision it as a one off. Are there “professional surrogates”? Maybe that’s a bit more ethically/morally ambiguous on the one hand for a woman to make a career of “being pregnant” (assuming that’s even a thing). On the other hand, if a woman has successfully delivered a few times in the past at least she’s got a track record and not likely going to cause issues for the wanna be parents compared to a first time surrogate such as discussed above.

 

Another thing to ponder: since some of these zealots also wouldn’t allow unwanted/unclaimed embryo’s to be destroyed, if the genetic mother is deceased or unable to carry a child it means to outlaw surrogacy means all those embryos they “saved” are doomed to a frozen eternity. Make it make sense.

 

I have no idea what baby victims of surrogacy means. How are surrogate babies victims?

 

Since the rights of the “baby” supercede women’s rights to control their own body, then it would seem logical that the government choose a woman, randomly and by force if necessary, to carry the embryo to term.

 

That would also depend on her looks. I might take a look at her and say, "Bring me a cup."

 

what about you Rick? Do you oppose surrogacy?

 

Adopting is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

 

That’s not surrogacy though, sounds like those people were basically scammed. Not sure why they’d pay medical bills for a straight up adoption. Unless there was some firm contract (which may or may not be enforceable against the true biological mother), it’s begging for that situation to play out.

With surrogacy, it makes sense to pay the associated bills because the person is literally carrying someone else’s child for them. All the terms should be spelled out at the start when they agree to have the embryo implanted. Maybe there should be an escrow account involved to make sure they don’t just take the money and run? Not sure how much of an issue that really is, or how often they try to commit fraud or back out (I’m sure some “change their mind”, pretty tough thing to back out of).

 

I prefer not to answer right now. Ask me in a few days.

 

Chicago Veterinarian Charged With Child Porn, FBI Alleges He Planned To Sexually Assault Unborn Surrogate Child (msn.com)

On Thursday (March 21), an arrest warrant was issued for Adam Stafford King, a veterinary ophthalmologist from Elburn, Illinois who was also a national dog show judge. According to court documents filed by the Northern District of Illinois, King was arrested on Friday (March 22) and charged with knowingly distributing child pornography, just days before his surrogate was expected to give birth to his child, whom he allegedly said he was planning on sexually assaulting.

 

But whose objections are these? Certainly not the American political party that wants 10 year old rape victims to carry their child all the way to birth.

 

Sounds like a heinous case, thankfully this person never gained custody of the child, but is this showing an issue with surrogacy as a concept or was this just an evil person?

You can find zillions of heinous cases involving foster parents. I don’t think the rational response to that would be to outlaw foster care, or to “throw everyone involved in foster care into prison”. That is the logically equivalent argument some are making against surrogacy.