Surrogacy and IVF Debate Thread

[God of Nothing]

le. I just find it extremely hypocritical that people (mostly men) who say adoption is being cuckolded also use "You can just give your child up for adoption" as an argument against abortion

lol, no
it's don't have sex if you're not prepared for the consequences

 

[Flan Handler]

I think "Oh the kid would just be a drug addict loser and waste of resources" is a horrible attitude to have btw.

Isn’t that one of the arguments for abortion?

Also, I would have liked to (and still would) adopt an average kid that needed a good home. But I can’t without literally involving their fuck up clan and having the government interfering for years.

It’s just a bad deal for me, the person giving up their time, money, and emotional investment. It needs to be a better deal to get more people on board.

Also, this may be jurisdiction-dependent, that’s just the situation where I live.

 

[Heckler1]

Am I to understand that the main (and probably unavoidable) reason for your opposition is the complete wealth inequality and therefor predatory nature of it?

It's part in parcel to the general feeling of commodifying making babies as being bad. Even in your hypothetical scenario, if there was no weird power/wealth disparity it would still seem inhuman to me.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

My initial reaction is I'm not a fan of ivf, and support strong limits on insurance coverage of it. Insurance aside, it seems to fuck with people's heads quite often. That said, I never experienced any fertility issue, so I recognize my perspective comes from a fortunate place, and I'm therefore inclined to dial back back my view that it is not a great thing. I recognize it is a great blessing for many.

But I think that obsession with having (bio) kids is, like any obsession, a bad thing. I have seen a lot of people just mentally destroyed by a desperation to have children and also by going through ivf. And marriages, too - because the stress from the obsession, and often the ultimate failure of it, sucked the life out of the relationship.

Don't think it should be banned, but I don't like it when it becomes a grueling, destructive mission, and I don't think insurance should provide unlimited coverage for it.

I don't care about surrogacy that much, though I think gestational surrogacy (implanted embryo from mother and father, or third-party donor(s)) is preferable to traditional surrogacy (using the surrogate's egg). I understand the trafficking and exploitation concerns, and obviously don't support that/ support intense screening, counseling, and regulation of organizations and participants involved in it. But I don't really care about a stable, grown, compos mentis woman carrying a baby created from the intended parents' egg and sperm.

As a side note, I don't consider it "stealing a baby from its mother." People give up children at birth all the time, or decide while pregnant to do so. That's a choice, not a theft. If a surrogate changes her mind, even at/post-birth, outcome can depend on jurisdiction and on whether the surrogacy is traditional or gestational. Overall, laws in the US are something of a patchwork, and though they tend to favor upholding the agreement (particularly in gestational surrogacies), there are different time frames for establishing legal parentage, and states vary on enforceability. Gestational pregnancies are more clear-cut, because there is no biological link between the surrogate and the child; a traditional surrogacy could be more complicated if the surrogate/mother changes her mind. In the UK, a surrogate is deemed the parent at birth and for 6 weeks, after which a parental order is typically granted that confirms the intended parents as the legal parents.

Intended parents are also typically held to the contract. (See, Sherri Shephard).

Most surrogacies don't end up in that place.

That's called traditional surrogacy, and it can be even more batshit insane and freaky than third-party surrogacy.

Traditional surrogacy is when the surrogate's egg is used (artificial insemination [one hopes]). A relative being the surrogate could be either a traditional or gestational surrogacy. (And I personally find it kind of creepy at a base level, sentiment aside, but don't care too much and possibly would be uncreeped less creeped if I actually knew people who were doing it.)

Divorce is financially and socially ruinous for a lot of men.

Women are much worse off after divorce than men. I've posted the data before.

That aside, your comment that the $100k to create or buy a child is cheaper than child support makes no sense. You still have to raise the child. And I can assure you that the actual cost of raising a child exceeds child support awards.

In law the child of a unmarried mother belongs to the mother only, and the mother is the person who has just demonstrably shoved the baby out of her own body.

This is NOT the law in all jurisdictions for surrogate situations, and not even the default today in standard non-surrogacy pregnancy situations in many jurisdictions. If you're going to try to flex on legal matters, know what you're saying first, or provide appropriate qualifiers. (It appears that the current law in the UK is that at birth (assuming a live birth; there were some possible nuances suggested by the Law Commission a year ago for various death scenarios) the surrogate is the parent; but not everywhere has a "post-birth" scheme for legal patentage. Also of note is that in the UK, surrogacy agreements are not even enforceable. And technically you are only supposed to cover expenses (see prior link), though it is not illegal to pay more; the Family Court does review for reasonableness, but apparently they've never found any amount to be too much.

Your "I'm explaining contract law to you" comment was also incorrect/assumed certain terms in hypothetical contracts. Contracts, though they may have certain required provisions per law, depending on jurisdiction, are also at least partly negotiated. Negotiated terms can include requiring full compensation for, say, a stillborn baby or a miscarriage (though miscarriages are frequently pro-rated, and so could a stillborn death be) - but the point is that it can be purely a service contract, depending on the terms.

 

[KiwiFarmer9993!]

Surrogacy should be banned, full stop. IVF and related shit should be only for married straight couples only. Dad's sperm and mom's egg.

 

[generic sauce]

IVF and related shit should be only for married straight couples only. Dad's sperm and mom's egg.

My bro and his wife are about to have their first and prolly only kid from IVF later this month. It's a PITA but shit works.

 

[Flan Handler]

My bro and his wife are about to have their first and prolly only kid from IVF later this month. It's a PITA but shit works.

Congrats uncle, regardless of how they get here kids are a blessing.

 

[Flan Handler]

But I think that obsession with having (bio) kids is, like any obsession, a bad thing. I have seen a lot of people just mentally destroyed by a desperation to have children and also by going through ivf. And marriages, too - because the stress from the obsession, and often the ultimate failure of it, sucked the life out of the relationship.

I agree with all of this, but it’s a rare couple who can avoid losing their minds while navigating infertility, regardless of what path they choose.

Adopting, IVF, or surrogacy- these are incredibly consuming, expensive, physically difficult enterprises. But infertility is worse.

If you are able to have healthy kids when you want them: congratulations, you are incredibly blessed.

 

[KiwiFarmer9993!]

My bro and his wife are about to have their first and prolly only kid from IVF later this month. It's a PITA but shit works.

I am happy fot them I have no issue with IVF when it comes to married couples (husband and wife) it's the gays and the single women, and in some cases single MEN doing the surrogacy and IVF shit that I despise. Your brother and sister in law are making a child that is THEIRS, she is the mother, he is the father and they will love that baby to bits. That is what it was intended for

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

lol, no
it's don't have sex if you're not prepared for the consequences

The mental gymnastics people display whenever they try to get around that is hilarious.

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

At the same time, a lesbian couple closely related to us did IVF (they did fail IUI a few times and had to go to full IVF). They had twin boys. So that’s my boy and their boys born within a few months of each other so I’m seeing this play out in real time.

The lesbians are in hell. They hate men, and weren’t legally allowed to screen for sex in the fertility clinic, and probably assumed they’d get at least one girl. They can’t afford another IVF round, so these poor boys are 100% of their kids.

Shit like this is why I will never have a problem with surrogacy. Anyone who says these two degenerates can have children through IVF and straight couples (or single men) can't do so through surrogacy is garbage. Those boys are going to grow up so fucked up.

Women are much worse off after divorce than men. I've posted the data before.

I don't care if women are worse off. I know men are worse off then if they hadn't gotten married at all; and that is who gains my sympathy and concern. Men shouldn't be aversely effected because of the actions of women.

That aside, your comment that the $100k to create or buy a child is cheaper than child support makes no sense. You still have to raise the child. And I can assure you that the actual cost of raising a child exceeds child support awards.

I have two points in response to this. The first and the more important of the pair is that the burden/cost of raising a child is put off by raising them. Raising them is as much the point, if not more so, than having someone to carry on your name. No matter the monetary cost of raising them, it is less than only being able to see them during visitation and paying child support.

The second and the purely financial one is that child support usually comes after a long list of other expenses. I can't provide numbers but I'm willing to bet that the total cost of a wedding, the rings, divorce lawyers, alimony and a new home easily comes out to more than the hundred grand for a surrogate.

 

[Yeeted Teet]

More people should adopt and IVF is definitely preventing people from adopting children who need homes. I think "Oh the kid would just be a drug addict loser and waste of resources" is a horrible attitude to have btw.

I know a lot of people who were adopted, all of them turned out fine (even the one who was born addicted to heroin). But every single of of them who was adopted domestically tracked down and contacted their birth family, or are still trying to. When you adopt a baby it's never going to be 100% your baby, and I respect the fact that some couples don't want that. It's something that you're either going to be okay with or not, and there are people who won't be okay with it regardless of the availability of IVF. There are ethical issues with IVF, but thinking that all these children will be adopted if it were banned is like thinking people will pay for movies again of online piracy is cracked down on hard enough. Some might, but a large portion of those people never would have done it anyway.

Sperm/egg donation and surrogacy are also going to leave children with those questions about their real origins looming over them, we may start to hear about it more in the future as these things are becoming more widespread. There's already been at least one study that showed a large majority of people conceived through sperm donation wanted to get in touch with their biological fathers, and one of the most common motivations was reasons relating to personal identity.

 

[Lidl Drip]

I know a lot of people who were adopted, all of them turned out fine (even the one who was born addicted to heroin). But every single of of them who was adopted domestically tracked down and contacted their birth family, or are still trying to. When you adopt a baby it's never going to be 100% your baby, and I respect the fact that some couples don't want that. It's something that you're either going to be okay with or not, and there are people who won't be okay with it regardless of the availability of IVF. There are ethical issues with IVF, but thinking that all these children will be adopted if it were banned is like thinking people will pay for movies again of online piracy is cracked down on hard enough. Some might, but a large portion of those people never would have done it anyway.

Sperm/egg donation and surrogacy are also going to leave children with those questions about their real origins looming over them, we may start to hear about it more in the future as these things are becoming more widespread. There's already been at least one study that showed a large majority of people conceived through sperm donation wanted to get in touch with their biological fathers, and one of the most common motivations was reasons relating to personal identity.

Well there's always the choice to just not have kids at all if you are infertile and don't want to adopt. I just think that it was a pretty good way to balance things in the past. Some people can't have kids but want them and some people can have kids but don't want them, that's why adoption is great and important. I think if your choice is between being childless or adopting a child that might one day seek out their birth parents then those who really want kids would chose the latter. Now that IVF is an option there are going to be less people that chose to adopt, that isn't the same as movie and online piracy at all and a really dumb comparison. I'm not arguing for IVF to be banned or anything, but I don't personally think it's right.

 

[SentinentCloud]

this thread is gay

 

[gang weeder]

Surrogacy should probably be banned for obvious reasons.

IVF should be heavily restricted, at the very least. One issue with it (among others) is that people will put off having kids into their late 30s or even 40s then try to use it as a lifeline. This is a perverse incentive. The proper set of incentives in society should be to go ahead and have kids when you're young. This would require removing shit like IVF that people try to use to have their cake and eat it too. If the situation was "well, you better have kids young, because if you have fertility problems later in life, you're just fucked," that would better facilitate proper family-forming incentives.

The only qualifier I put on that is people who might have some kind of fertility problem that isn't related to age or weight or anything. A healthy 23 year old who has some rare fertility condition that needs to use IVF to get pregnant, maybe allow it then. But, ideally, that would be the only allowance. Obviously, it should be a total ban for anyone except straight married couples.

 

[Golden Apple]

I stopped supporting gay rights with the advent of paid surrogacy, and I no longer think they should be able to adopt children either. Same with single men. I think kids deserve both parents of both sexes - children have the right to a positive family to grow up in and not be an accessory to a faggot.

Being gay is not infertility, and it should not be treated that way. I can't imagine knowing I was a bought a paid for faggot baby, like meat at a meat market.

IVF, sperm donation, and egg donation should be strictly banned, unless it's unpaid and familial: spouses, sisters, brothers and cousins helping their family conceive. No more sperm banks and no more stranger pregnancies. (see the 12 autism babies because a dude lied or the doctors that use their own sperm)

lesbians use feminism as another branch of fag rights and this is the shit we have to deal with now. SMDH.

 

[Taser Confetti]

Reproduction should have never been considered a human right. Especially in the context of wine aunt boss girls and faggots who see having a child as akin to buying a pet that gets you tax benefits and lives longer than a dog.

The world’s overpopulated as it is. You have no right being another sentient human being into this world because you need to feel good about yourself.

Some people of no fault of their own have dumpster wombs or bad sperm. If they’re quality people they can adopt.

 

[bile demon]

Reproduction should have never been considered a human right.

This is correct. Reproduction is a privilege, not a right. It is earned. It is the ultimate litmus test of the path you chose in life. If you choose right, you reap the ultimate reward - high quality offspring. If you choose wrong, the result is either low quality offspring or, in the worst case, no offspring at all - the ultimate failure.

Spoiler

I'm so sorry, Null.

 

[cybertoaster]

IDGAF, I know IVF kids they turned out normal, its just that they are uggos because their parents are uggos, doubles as a paternity test I guess.

Most of the people of homo I seen only wanted to be able to adopt for bragging rights, to demostrate that they can also do it, but in reality the vast majority don't because a kid would ruin their lifestyle and they are too narcissistic to care for a child.

The only couple I know who used a surrogate the woman was 100% infertile, no eggs and can't carry a kid, so the whole thing was for the guy to be a dad and the woman to play house.

Got tons of adoption horror stories including a boomer couple who got two kids who turns out had genetic mental illness but they weren't told until it was too late. They are now in their seventies stuck with 2 middle age extra-demented chris chans-tier idiots.

I actually was considering this when I was a broke AF university student because hey, $50,000 sounds nice when you're desperate.

$50k is chump change given the stress of pregnancy.

There's already been at least one study that showed a large majority of people conceived through sperm donation wanted to get in touch with their biological fathers, and one of the most common motivations was reasons relating to personal identity.

Thank god I didn't donate sperm in college like a friend told me to. With my luck I would've broccoli head zoomies calling me right now, probably with two lesbian moms who are grooming them to go trans.

 

[Meiwaku]

The thing that sent me into the hard "no" category for surrogacy was the likelihood of women dying or experiencing serious complications when it's not her own egg in her body. Your body knows the difference between itself and an invader. It just does. It's a miracle of nature. Even women who have had babies successfully before have died from carrying another woman's eggs.

A mere 50-100k isn't worth your life.