Surrogacy and IVF Debate Thread

[Spud]

making a bunch of busted old hags carry the children of faceless anonymous mystery men is not how you improve population health lol, it's the opposite
growing up with a geriatric mother and nonexistent father doesn't result in healthy and productive children either

That's exactly my point. They're the beta testers for the tech and with their heroic sacrifice the tech improves. You gotta think about this long term.

 

[Lidl Drip]

In the ideal case, surrogates have no genetic relationship to the child they bear. The ovum and sperm come from other people (potentially, from the couple who needs a surrogate.) even in the less than ideal case of “trad” (ie biblical) surrogacy, the baby is still related to its father.

I am aware, I still think the woman who has grown the baby in her womb and birthed it is the mother. They take another woman's eggs so the mother has no right to her own baby if she changes her mind and wants to keep it and that's incredibly and utterly fucked up.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Regulated.
Convicted criminals and degenerates of all kinds (including lesbians, of course) should not be able to access reproduction and children.

 

[Android raptor]

People like to bring up the fact that when you adopt a puppy or kitten you don't take them away from the mother until they are old enough to thrive without her but we don't afford human beings the same kindness. It's so fucked honestly.

Unfortunately not all mothers are people whose kids can thrive with them and taking the kids away from them is the best option.

See our current featured new mom.

Regulated.
Convicted criminals and degenerates of all kinds (including lesbians, of course) should not be able to access reproduction and children.

That would include all men since they rape way more kids than lesbians.

 

[smile.jpg]

That's a very interesting take on IVF coming from you, what are your thoughts on women who want to be mothers, but are reaching the end of their fertility window and can't/don't want to lock down a moid? Wouldn't that be a great solution for such people? Or should women really depend on a penisnigger for fertilization?

 

[Fareal]

I am aware, I still think the woman who has grown the baby in her womb and birthed it is the mother. They take another woman's eggs so the mother has no right to her own baby if she changes her mind and wants to keep it and that's incredibly and utterly fucked up.

I did a lot of medical law and ethics subjects at undergrad.

It horrified me twenty years ago that it was 'probably' the legal position that someone could take the child you bore literally from you in the hospital on the basis that the baby had been "their egg". It felt profoundly, viscerally wrong.

I don't feel any better about it now all these years later and with that legal position being calcified.

The most basic, obvious, unquestioned familial relationship we have as a species is that "this baby came out of this woman's body". It is the foundation of all our family units.

The snatching of a child out of a mother's arms also carries terrible weight in a place (the UK and Ireland) where forced adoptions were very real. We can never go back to that. The only reason to take a baby away must be sufficient evidence that the baby will be significantly harmed staying with the mother.

I have been present, professionally, at one removal-at-birth into care. I have advanced numerous others through court. Every time, I was absolutely convinced that absolutely nothing else would adequately safeguard that's baby's health and welfare. Every time, I tried to pursue literally every other option to prevent us having to go ahead with it.

I will never forget the sound that girl made as we walked away with her baby. Nor should I. I did a terrible, terrible thing that day. The fact it was the least terrible of all the options available does not lessen my part in that outrage. I had the right of it in law, but I will have to answer to God for what I did.

I can't ever support that being done to women and babies except as an absolute last resort. The idea of it being done for money makes me physically sick.

 

[AgendaPoster]

That would include all men since they rape way more kids than lesbians.

You are derailing this bait thread.
Can you just chill yo' tits for like one evening.
"all men"
Why would I deny a productive, rich heterosexual dude access to a surrogate mother and reproduction?
I would not.
If he's gay, like Glenn Greenwald, DENIED.
Homosexuals teach children to accept homosexuality, so they deserve ZERO access to kids and education.
End of line.
And to clarify, lesbians ARE homosexual.

 

[Teghern]

The most basic, obvious, unquestioned familial relationship we have as a species is that "this baby came out of this woman's body". It is the foundation of all our family units.

Even if it isn't genetically "yours" even in a totally perfectly ethical incubation scenario with donor eggs and donor sperm in a 3rd party womb cavity, the resulting spawnling still bears the flesh and blood of where it was gestated which has to count for something. Advocates always dance around ignoring this, I don't think there's really a get out card unless we're talking plastic bag uterus's.

 

[Fareal]

a productive, rich heterosexual dude access to a surrogate mother and reproduction?

this nigger already has several GFs he has no need for a surrogate

 

[AgendaPoster]

this nigger already has several GFs he has no need for a surrogate

What if he has a sterile wife that he loves and does not want to leave just because she cannot carry a pregnancy?
What if he desires a specific set of genetics, for eugenic purposes? Let's say he wants access to a 150IQ chemist lady, 180cm tall, with dark hair and 19 BMI.
She gets money (if she wants to), he gets his desired child (hopefully), reproduction rate increases some, all's great.

 

[Android raptor]

You are derailing this bait thread.
Can you just chill yo' tits for like one evening.
"all men"
Why would I deny a productive, rich heterosexual dude access to a surrogate mother and reproduction?
I would not.
If he's gay, like Glenn Greenwald, DENIED.
Homosexuals teach children to accept homosexuality, so they deserve ZERO access to kids and education.
End of line.
And to clarify, lesbians ARE homosexual.

This includes straight men

 

[Fareal]

What if he has a sterile wife that he loves and does not want to leave just because she cannot carry a pregnancy?
What if he desires a specific set of genetics, for eugenic purposes? Let's say he wants access to a 150IQ chemist lady, 180cm tall, with dark hair and 19 BMI.
She gets money (if she wants to), he gets his desired child (hopefully), reproduction rate increases some, all's great.

1 - Leave her or get over it. Not all dreams can come true. "In sickness and in health", remember. Honour your vows or divorce her.
2 - "Dating" is how you obtain a partner with specific genetics. If he wanted a kid of a lady with those characteristics, he should have gone out and married one. Too bad so sad, his kids won't be tall and skinny and smart.

You don't buy babies and you don't buy traits. You can however buy a mother and access to a womb. It's called "marriage".

 

[AgendaPoster]

This includes straight men

Obviously not.
Straight men and women are absolutely great, and when they DO crime, and get convicted for it, their rights are to be curtailed, like in any civilized society.
Stop seething about heterosexuals. Homosexuality should be treated as it used to be, as an abnormal paraphilia.

1 - Leave her or get over it. Not all dreams can come true. "In sickness and in health", remember. Honour your vows or divorce her.

Lunacy.
You have to be absolutely retarded to leave the woman you love just because she has a tiny biological issue, like sterility.
We live in 2024, there are options.
Imagine wanting more broken families and women being abandoned for what? Being unable to carry?
How cruel.
Allow science to improve your life.

 

[Android raptor]

Obviously not.
Straight men and women are absolutely great, and when they DO crime, and get convicted for it, their rights are to be curtailed, like in any civilized society.

Is that why people like the Rodrigues' are allowed to breed like German roaches and abuse and starve their kids while CPS shits itself and does nothing?

 

[AgendaPoster]

Is that why people like the Rodrigues' are allowed to breed like German roaches and abuse and starve their kids while CPS shits itself and does nothing?

I literally don't care about your niche lolcow crap, she's obese and should likely be unallowed access to reproduction, ESPECIALLY after producing kids with genetic defects.

 

[Yeeted Teet]

What if he has a sterile wife that he loves and does not want to leave just because she cannot carry a pregnancy?

Then he needs to decide which is more important to him, make a decision and live with it. Life is full of trade offs, relationships are full of compromises. If having children is non-negotiable then an infertile person isn't right for you, in the same way a person who doesn't want children isn't right for you.

What if he desires a specific set of genetics, for eugenic purposes? Let's say he wants access to a 150IQ chemist lady, 180cm tall, with dark hair and 19 BMI.

Then he needs to find a partner who meets his standards, if he can't maybe his standards are too high and he needs to reconsider them.

 

[Android raptor]

I literally don't care about your niche lolcow crap, she's obese and should likely be unallowed access to reproduction, ESPECIALLY after producing kids with genetic defects.

JillRod isn't emaciated like her kids, but I wouldn't exactly call her obese.

Only the youngest daughter has a diagnosed genetic defect AFAIK.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Then he needs to decide which is more important to him, make a decision and live with it. Life is full of trade offs, relationships are full of compromises. If having children is non-negotiable then an infertile person isn't right for you, in the same way a person who doesn't want children isn't right for you.

Absolutely not.
Science provides a way out. You keep wife you love, and you get to raise a child carried by another woman, who will gain material benefits from it.
Such privileges should only be reserved to people that are functional, productive, normal, law abiding.
Also, love has NOTHING to do with fertility, and you usually find out you and your wide are infertile years after marriage and trying.
Why dismantle the marriage? Why remain childless, when you have the means to rear some properly?

 

[Fareal]

Obviously not.
Straight men and women are absolutely great, and when they DO crime, and get convicted for it, their rights are to be curtailed, like in any civilized society.
Stop seething about heterosexuals. Homosexuality should be treated as it used to be, as an abnormal paraphilia.

Lunacy.
You have to be absolutely retarded to leave the woman you love just because she has a tiny biological issue, like sterility.
We live in 2024, there are options.
Imagine wanting more broken families and women being abandoned for what? Being unable to carry?
How cruel.
Allow science to improve your life.

ITT Agenda learns that failed IVF breaks marriages by the tens of thousands.

Yes, her not being able to have a baby is just as much of a dealbreaker as her being unwilling to have one. You are entitled to walk away from a spouse of either gender who won't or can't give you the family you want. Children and having them (or not) is genuinely that important. People are allowed dealbreakers. The empty crib is the dealbreaker of dealbreakers for most people, and that is exactly why everyone is strongly urged by society, the media, the Church, to have the conversation about whether or not they have a family before they marry.

The 'option' you are thinking of is called "adopting from foster care". There are many thousands of children waiting for such a lovely home as you describe. If you insist on buying a factory-fresh one, you really don't want to be a parent as much as you think.

 

[Smokingpoop]

I know a woman who had twins at the age of 40 through IFV and both of the twins have severe autism. If nature is telling you that you should not have children then it is best not to go against nature, that's a fight nobody has ever won and nobody ever will.