Surrogacy and IVF Debate Thread

[AgendaPoster]

ITT Agenda learns

The only thing I learned is that you post in The Thread, so you will obviously be reflexively contrarian, as expected.

 

[Ken Barlow]

reflexively contrarian

You are a fucking idiot.

 

[Yeeted Teet]

Also, love has NOTHING to do with fertility, and you usually find out you and your wide are infertile years after marriage and trying.

A person's circumstances matter just as much as the person when it comes to making a relationship work in the long term. If having children who are genetically related to you is such an issue then be a respectable person and feel the sting yourself rather than inflict greater suffering on some random, desperate woman and the child you would supposedly care so much about.

This whole argument is pretty much what you see in mainstream media articles about surrogacy, which entirely centre around the wants of the commissioning couple but never the implications for the surrogate mother or baby and demand compassion while showing none.

 

[Android raptor]

All this sperging when the most famous example of a rich straight man that's used IVF and surrogates is infamous for not giving a single fuck about his wives or kids.

 

[JamusActimus]

Surrogacy is demonic. Seeing 2 fags show off the child they bought while larping is disgusting. It's just a primal reaction.

It's not just fags tho. Elon musk using multiple surrogates at the same time was disgusting.

Surrogacy has issues but I'm less worried about it than I am forced pregnancy.

You watch too much porn.

(Don't talk about muh rape and muh abortion, I don't care)

 

[Whatevermancer]

I would just like to thank all IVF and Surrogacy advocates ITT, with your help we are one step closer to the eugenically enhanced Utopian society and to the brave ladies who volunteer their bodies I salute you.

In a perfect society we'd have genetically modified people born from incubators. All supersmart, superstrong, superhealthy and superbeautiful Gigachads and Gigastacies.

 

[Fareal]

The only thing I learned is that you post in The Thread, so you will obviously be reflexively contrarian, as expected.

Au contraire. Contrarian implies I listen to other people's opinions, and then form mine with reference to what theirs was.

I can wholeheartedly assure you I do not pay any concern to the opinions of moids about any issue.

 

[Stan]

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.

That's actually a fair point.

Which is more important: genetics, or gestation? Does the surrogate have more claim to the baby as a child of her body, because her body nurtures it and creates it, or is genetic inheritance which defines a parent to child relationship?

I don't have an answer to that question, but I can accept your interpretation that it's the gestation and birth which bond mother to child, and that genetics shouldn't imply ownership or guardianship of a child. We should not treat children as goods to be sold to faggots, and yet, I know that primary infertility isn't that uncommon (per WHO 1:6 people are affected), and that it's emotionally very hard. I could see that at the synagogue, and it really was ~15% of the women there who couldn't have kids and felt terribly guilty about it, or who were traumatized after multiple failed transfers or (chass v'shalom) a miscarriage. Or the women who had miscarriages after miscarriages. I don't know that the men carried this guilt, really. Even if his sperm had the motility of pond scum, a man would still see it as a woman's fault to fail to become pregnant.

As for me...? Well, I got lucky in the women's health department, so far, thanks be to God. They do say crazy bitches are fertile, and I got mine on the first roll. All of that is a gift and I'm going to try and remind myself some more to be grateful for that.

I would consent to that in a heartbeat and wish I was, I'd probably have a lot fewer mental illnesses.

Yeah, which is why I don't think it is human trafficking per se for a father to take his very-much-wanted child from a gestational mother.

Imagine having DNA in your body for the rest of your life that's completely unrelated to you, it can't be good.

It's not that much more foreign than the half-related-to-you fetal cells that would be there anyway in a normal pregnancy situation.

I think that as long as men can’t get pregnant, surrogacy violates the equal protection clause.

I don’t care about the morality of it, I just wish I could make that kind of money

slow clap for the slow moid, ladies

For the longest time I thought surrogacy meant that someone close to the couple who could not have children (a sister, a relative, a friend) would carry and bear the child. So I saw no problem with it.

That's called traditional surrogacy, and it can be even more batshit insane and freaky than third-party surrogacy. If you don't believe me... read the Book of Genesis.

Enjoy a botched mesh implant like everyone who had it implanted as "Safe" in Scotland and are fucked up. As a totes real feminist in Europe, of course, you are intimately familiar with the pain, struggles and suffering we have been through to get recognition for free IVF, compensation and recognition.

Ouch. I am sorry for you, for that. But free IVF is probably many many years away.

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

And to clarify, lesbians ARE homosexual

It's fine if you don't like her, but you should know that lesbians do not care what men think.

How cruel.
Allow science to improve your life.

I guess I'm with you on this one - Regulated.

But I disagree that lesbians are categorically degenerate, just because AR annoys you. And I hate to break it to you, but the men are pretty damn fast and loose with the sperm, so a lesbian couple in a bind has :ahem: options, if you will. After all, there are two of them, so their risk of infertility is mitigated by redundancy.

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.

That is horrible. I remember entertaining insane fantasies about needing to protect my baby by either fighting or fleeing hospital staff in the week before and after birth. The mental state of an immediately postpartum woman is fragile and vulnerable to say the least. I'm sure giving over your baby to the contractual parents is horrible.

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.

You'd be surprised how fast the cells turn over.

Stop seething about heterosexuals. Homosexuality should be treated as it used to be, as an abnormal paraphilia.

It's fine if you don't like her, but you should know that lesbians do not care what men think.

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

That's capitalism, baby. Put those couples under financial pressure and social pressure to reproduce and they fight like hell b/c they are mad at each other for spending college tuition money and so much agita, pain, and suffering, and they still don't have a darn baby to show for it.

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.

That is fair...

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.

All this sperging when the most famous example of a rich straight man that's used IVF and surrogates is infamous for not giving a single fuck about his wives or kids.

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.

That's actually a fair point.

Which is more important: genetics, or gestation? Does the surrogate have more claim to the baby as a child of her body, because her body nurtures it and creates it, or is genetic inheritance which defines a parent to child relationship?

I don't have an answer to that question, but I can accept your interpretation that it's the gestation and birth which bond mother to child, and that genetics shouldn't imply ownership or guardianship of a child. We should not treat children as goods to be sold to faggots, and yet, I know that primary infertility isn't that uncommon (per WHO 1:6 people are affected), and that it's emotionally very hard. I could see that at the synagogue, and it really was ~15% of the women there who couldn't have kids and felt terribly guilty about it, or who were traumatized after multiple failed transfers or (chass v'shalom) a miscarriage. Or the women who had miscarriages after miscarriages. I don't know that the men carried this guilt, really. Even if his sperm had the motility of pond scum, a man would still see it as a woman's fault to fail to become pregnant.

As for me...? Well, I got lucky in the women's health department, so far, thanks be to God. They do say crazy bitches are fertile, and I got mine on the first roll. All of that is a gift and I'm going to try and remind myself some more to be grateful for that.

I would consent to that in a heartbeat and wish I was, I'd probably have a lot fewer mental illnesses.

Yeah, which is why I don't think it is human trafficking per se for a father to take his very-much-wanted child from a gestational mother.

Imagine having DNA in your body for the rest of your life that's completely unrelated to you, it can't be good.

It's not that much more foreign than the half-related-to-you fetal cells that would be there anyway in a normal pregnancy situation.

I think that as long as men can’t get pregnant, surrogacy violates the equal protection clause.

I don’t care about the morality of it, I just wish I could make that kind of money

slow clap for the slow moid, ladies

For the longest time I thought surrogacy meant that someone close to the couple who could not have children (a sister, a relative, a friend) would carry and bear the child. So I saw no problem with it.

That's called traditional surrogacy, and it can be even more batshit insane and freaky than third-party surrogacy. If you don't believe me... read the Book of Genesis.

Enjoy a botched mesh implant like everyone who had it implanted as "Safe" in Scotland and are fucked up. As a totes real feminist in Europe, of course, you are intimately familiar with the pain, struggles and suffering we have been through to get recognition for free IVF, compensation and recognition.

Ouch. I am sorry for you, for that. But free IVF is probably many many years away.

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

That's capitalism, baby. Put those couples under financial pressure and social pressure to reproduce and they fight like hell b/c they are mad at each other for spending college tuition money and so much agita, pain, and suffering, and they still don't have a darn baby to show for it.

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.

I wanted to do this too pre-baby, in order to know whether I could handle caring for kids. In retrospect, I probably should have just gotten a job with a daycare.

All this sperging when the most famous example of a rich straight man that's used IVF and surrogates is infamous for not giving a single fuck about his wives or kids.

Are you talking about Ye or Elon?

 

[SpergioLeonne]

slow clap for the slow moid, ladies

Ask a real question, get a real answer.

 

[AgendaPoster]

But I disagree that lesbians are categorically degenerate, just because AR annoys you. And I hate to break it to you, but the men are pretty damn fast and loose with the sperm, so a lesbian couple in a bind has :ahem: options, if you will. After all, there are two of them, so their risk of infertility is mitigated by redundancy.

You misunderstand me significantly.
I don't mind AR at all, I quite like her as a user, even as she's obviously autistic and very, very obsessive.
The lesbian thing is not even remotely a jab at her. She's a woman with rather severe mental issues in a country without universal healthcare, that was likely abused and hurt by plenty of people and endlessly bullied.
My lesbian-focused rant is meant for other women that know very well what they do and at the sexual inclination itself.
Lesbians are nearly always feminists and progressives. The kids they adopt are again, nearly always, raised as tolerant progressives.
A homosexual couple has no other choice but to lie to their children that homosexuality is normal, and two dads/moms is equal to a heterosexual couple.
This confuses the child and brings them up as a progressive lunatic, a soldier for liberalism, that will fight to defend their abnormal family from the chuds that want it forbidden.
Marge, always remember that when I serious post about something, it's never to attack one person, especially a user here. It's always to attack an ideology or idea. Rate me autistic all you want, but this is how discussion should occur.

 

[Stan]

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.

Can we talk about your predilection for thin to the point of being underweight women? Because the last time we talked about this you rated an attractive girl at like 17 BMI, (I think your exact words were "Most of my GFs were like 1.70 and 49kgs.") For reference, healthy BMI is between 18.5 to 24.9.

It's fine if you like skellies, but don't pretend that it's a virtuous requirement all women need to strive towards.

My lesbian-focused rant is meant for other women that know very well what they do and at the sexual inclination itself.
Lesbians are nearly always feminists and progressives. The kids they adopt are again, nearly always, raised as tolerant progressives.
A homosexual couple has no other choice but to lie to their children that homosexuality is normal, and two dads/moms is equal to a heterosexual couple.
This confuses the child and brings them up as a progressive lunatic, a soldier for liberalism, that will fight to defend their abnormal family from the chuds that want it forbidden.
Marge, always remember that when I serious post about something, it's never to attack one person, especially a user here. It's always to attack an ideology or idea. Rate me autistic all you want, but this is how discussion should occur.

This is a lot of words to say you're mad that lesbians can mostly reproduce in their own hands, or uh, wombs, as the case may be.

 

[Android raptor]

Lesbians are nearly always feminists and progressives. The kids they adopt are again, nearly always, raised as tolerant progressives

Good

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

Imagine having DNA in your body for the rest of your life that's completely unrelated to you, it can't be good.

I am anti-surrogacy but that's not the main thing what's causing the health problems for the surrogate, i think the problem is the medicine you have to take to prevent your body from detecting the fetus as a foreign/parasitic object and try to kill it. Which is what our body does usually. When the fetus is related to you there's a communication happening between it and the mother's body that's preventing it.

We all, males and females, carry a lot of foreign DNA like from virus, bacteria and the like that's embedded in our bodies. We co-evolved with them. Some of those trace of DNA have been present in human bodies for millenniums.

 

[Spud]

In a perfect society we'd have genetically modified people born from incubators. All supersmart, superstrong, superhealthy and superbeautiful Gigachads and Gigastacies.

agree

 

[AgendaPoster]

Can we talk about your predilection for thin to the point of being underweight women? Because the last time we talked about this you rated an attractive girl at like 17 BMI, (I think your exact words were "Most of my GFs were like 1.70 and 49kgs.") For reference, healthy BMI is between 18.5 to 24.9.

It's fine if you like skellies, but don't pretend that it's a virtuous requirement all women need to strive towards.

If you insist.
I'm not gonna apologize for liking women that do the same things I do and their bodies being shaped by that as a result.

 

[Yeeted Teet]

I am anti-surrogacy but that's not the main thing what's causing the health problems for the surrogate, i think the problem is the medicine you have to take to prevent your body from detecting the fetus as a foreign/parasitic object and try to kill it.

The presence of a donor egg itself is a risk factor, though it hasn't been studied extensively enough yet to know exactly why.

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

reproduction rate increases some, all's great.

I beg people on here to get in their thick skull than we don't actually need the population to grow. We have 8 BILLIONS dummies living on this speck of space dust, the world has never been as populated by our kind of apes as it is today.

Anybody who tells you than humans are about to go extinct is a lying griffter. Even the Koreans are gonna be there for a long long time.

We just need to figure out a plan for the old, the disabled and the layabouts, but slowing down population growth would actually be a relief on several of our problems.

 

[Stan]

If you insist.
I'm not gonna apologize for liking women that do the same things I do and their bodies being shaped by that as a result.
View attachment 5790255View attachment 5790256View attachment 5790257View attachment 5790258

coal-burner confirmed

 

[Lidl Drip]

I don't think lesbians really matter in the surrogacy debate since they usually just get pregnant using donor sperm. It's only gay men who need to rent out a woman's womb and call them "meatsacks".

 

[PhoBingas]

Nick Fuentes was an IVF baby. That should be enough argument against it right there.