Surrogacy and IVF Debate Thread

[im5!XxhO]

I see no reason to ban either in the west. Don't want to do it, don't do it. Importing them from the third world can be problematic though since there's a risk it's the "only option".

 

[Fareal]

Then don’t bitch about these “notes” if you’re above caring about them.

It looks like the other 3,000 words are more pretending not to bitch about it, so luckily they were addressed so concisely

I was talking to the people in the thread, not the moids. Your moid opinion was an example of moid thinking being used as evidence. The dissection of lab rats isn't a dialogue between the rat and the scientist.

 

[Stan]

It’s just there’s that modern thing to try to turn the tables and imply there’s something more wrong with men who are attracted to women in reasonable shape than there is with being out of reasonable shape. So, I was drawing the correlation between bmi and fertility to point out it’s not as simple as us all being jerks about it.

It’s fine to be attracted to skellies, but there is also such a thing as being too thin to cycle and menstruate too, and the women who are living their best lives at a BMI of 17 are suspect to have that happen to them.

. I also think a number of men think underweight women are “healthy”, which only makes sense if health is defined as one’s ability to fit into a very small dress.

Anyway back on topic: skinny celebrity women like Kin Kardashian are using surrogates to maintain their figure. So yeah, it’s an exploitative tool of class conflict. It empowers rich celebrities to buy pregnancy as a service from women and it presses poor worn into service as donors and surrogates, because the money is too good to turn down.

 

[A Cat in a Minefield]

Surrogacy is child trafficking and should be banned with out any exceptions. I also find it disgusting to use women for that like a tool.
I believe that IVF, if done with the egg and the sperm taken from the couple, should be ok. No homo couples creating a bastard child.
I can kind of see the argument of it not being natural, but if sperm and egg are functional and good I think it would be really cruel to deny it.
If I'd have to make this type of descision with a parner, I'd have a hard time desciding because I'm split on: "If there is no child naturally, so be it." And "I love children and really want one. I see it as a reason to exist and fight for."

 

[derpherp2]

Not being able to get pregnant sounds like a skill issue.

Get rekt and/or cucked.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

It’s fine to be attracted to skellies, but there is also such a thing as being too thin to cycle and menstruate too, and the women who are living their best lives at a BMI of 17 are suspect to have that happen to them.

Yeah, I have never felt aroused by Eugenia Cooney. Men who are into that are essentially the same thing as feeders.. it’s a form of psychopathy, not a normal guy with a type.

Death isn’t attractive. Life is.

Female secondary sex characteristics are largely made out of fat. The trick is for them not to get washed out, obscured etc.

. I also think a number of men think underweight women are “healthy”, which only makes sense if health is defined as one’s ability to fit into a very small dress.

We all get the beauty standard thing, but nobody asks straight men to hire fashion models. That whole world is outside of our purview. Blame the gay men and their secret resentments

Anyway back on topic: skinny celebrity women like Kin Kardashian are using surrogates to maintain their figure. So yeah, it’s an exploitative tool of class conflict. It empowers rich celebrities to buy pregnancy as a service from women and it presses poor worn into service as donors and surrogates, because the money is too good to turn down.

My sister in law has been trying for a second kid for literally years. She has PCOS. Should my wife be legally allowed to carry a child for her own sister, or? My brother in law is a cop and that’s the fanciest job between us

Not being able to get pregnant sounds like a skill issue.

Get rekt and/or cucked.

Noobs with boobs

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

It’s fine to be attracted to skellies, but there is also such a thing as being too thin to cycle and menstruate too, and the women who are living their best lives at a BMI of 17 are suspect to have that happen to them.

18 (sometimes 17,5) is officially the cut-out between "normal" and "underweight" so i think many still have period at a 17 BMI (tho it may vary) It's just very close to the healthy range. I have known a few very thin women.

There's no need to pathologize everything

 

[SpergioLeonne]

18 (sometimes 17,5) is officially the cut-out between "normal" and "underweight" so i think many still have period at a 17 BMI (tho it may vary) It's just very close to the healthy range. I have known a few very thin women.

There's no need to pathologize everything

I mean, 17 sounds close to organ damage. If you carry almost no body fat, then your metabolic needs will resort to cannibalizing muscle. If there’s not much muscle to spare, it will start trimming your organs.

For the sake of shitposting, ok fine them skelly bitches is hot. But in real life, it sort of IS a pathology. At least, there’s no more room to go in that direction

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

I mean, 17 sounds close to organ damage. If you carry almost no body fat, then your metabolic needs will resort to cannibalizing muscle. If there’s not much muscle to spare, it will start trimming your organs.

I think you are exaggerating, and forgetting that the human body adapts to a lot of predicaments. It's at the cusp, probably difficult to maintain without some small level of eating disorder, but depending on your genes and workout routine, probably doable.

I am pretty sure many ballerina and starlets are there at their skinniest. The first dance everyday, the second are Killing themselves with Pilates

 

[WULULULULU]

Surrogacy: already said by various others here. Should be illegal worldwide.

IV-F: illegal in a human sense, you fucked up something on your body to become impotent. Just live with the fact that you failed your ancestors and cannot reproduce.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

I think you are exaggerating, and forgetting that the human body adapts to a lot of predicaments. It's at the cusp, probably difficult to maintain without some small level of eating disorder, but depending on your genes and workout routine, probably doable.

I am pretty sure many ballerina and starlets are there at their skinniest. The first dance everyday, the second are Killing themselves with Pilates

I looked some shit up and apparently 50% of ballerinas have a bmi under 18.5. So, sure. But at that kind of body fat and activity, they probably go into seizures if there’s an interruption to their 1.5 lettuce leaf per hour intake. That’s the thing, healthy body fat levels are there as insurance. You can drive a nice car without insurance in some states, but if anything bad happens, it will ruin you.

That said, you probably don’t need to carry six months’ worth of calories around

Starlets, who gives a fuck? They don’t have to do anything physical, they hire other people even to walk their teacup miniature dogs. Useless.

Surrogacy: already said by various others here. Should be illegal worldwide.

IV-F: illegal in a human sense, you fucked up something on your body to become impotent. Just live with the fact that you failed your ancestors and cannot reproduce.

Chinese surrogacy can fuck itself but here in America I declare it’s a welcome form of income redistribution. Fuck taxing the shit out of people so the bureaucracy can misappropriate it; just let rich people go wild with finding vanity projects to shed wealth over

 

[GunCar Gary]

Ew. Used children.

adoption is always brought up when the topic of IVF and other reproductive aids are brought up but it’s not a magical fix all. even under the best conditions where a baby is adopted as soon as its born to a couple that looks like the baby there’s always the possibility of drama down the line with the kid finding out or the mother trying to get back in contact. once you start getting into kids that are more than a few years old they’re usually complete messes and will have something just a little bit (or majorly) wrong with them for their entire life

there’s no replacement for a biological link between a child and their parents

 

[Fareal]

adoption is always brought up when the topic of IVF and other reproductive aids are brought up but it’s not a magical fix all. even under the best conditions where a baby is adopted as soon as its born to a couple that looks like the baby there’s always the possibility of drama down the line with the kid finding out or the mother trying to get back in contact. once you start getting into kids that are more than a few years old they’re usually complete messes and will have something just a little bit (or majorly) wrong with them for their entire life

there’s no replacement for a biological link between a child and their parents

No, there isn't, and sometimes God and mother nature just say, 'sorry no'.

We all have our crosses to bear. Not everyone gets what they want. Some people want children and get none. Some people want children and get downies instead.

There are no guarantees. No one has an inalienable right to a child of their own genetic lineage. Not every couple are reproductively viable. Life sucks, and then you die.

This isn't medicine. Infertility is a serious grief in the lives of those who suffer it, but it's not an illness. PCOS on its own never killed anyone; neither did a shitty sperm count. Most IVF seeking couples never find any medical reason for their 'unexplained infertility'; it just doesn't work for them. People don't go to the IVF clinic for treatment for their infertility, they go there because they want a fucking baby. They don't give a tinker's cuss if their ovaries are banjoed as long as they get the much wanted kid. It is a cash-for-baby transaction, and it's not fucking okay.

It is not even a straight cash-for-baby transaction; it's a fucking gacha where the chance of pulling a miscarriage is drastically higher than that of pulling S-tier live birth. Even after the recommended three cycles. Even when it's provided for free, three cycles is close to a decade of a woman's life, during which she is pumped full of hormones and drugs for egg harvesting and implantation cycles at doses that genuinely risk her life. (See ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.) There is the utter misery of repeated failed implantation, miscarriages and all the horrors that if you are very fucking lucky, will give you a baby. There is a complete lack of honesty in the fertility industry about what they are selling. They are selling certain misery and grief, and what at best is a long shot at a baby. They are peddling faint hope for tens of thousands of desperate people's money. It is despicable.

And then there's the issue of the leftovers. No one ever has all their embryos implanted unless the process was a disaster and they only ever got one or two viable embryos. It is not ethically consistent to hold a pro-life position and also support IVF treatment, which by its very nature requires large scale destruction of viable embryos. If life begins at conception, those 'snowflake' unimplanted embryos which get flushed after five years' storage are lives. They are deliberately created lives, with a mother and father and everything. And they are flushed as the unwanted by products of medical progress. Guess the test tube should have kept its legs closed, eh?

Never mind the practice of 'selective reduction' after implantation: abortion of implanted embryos to improve the chances of survival for the 'chosen' one.

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

How do you feel about people who can not have kids naturally doing in vitro fertilization or surrogacy to have/buy a child? Do you think it should be banned, regulated, allowed? Should it be banned or allowed only for gays or only for straights? Should single people be able to have fatherless/motherless babies? Should there be an age limit?

Overall I think it is a good thing. Any technology or practice which allows men, straight or gay, to have children independent of traditional arrangements with women is a boon to society, not a disservice. Society and women, have made it clear that marriage and the traditional path will not insulate men from the horrific outcomes of the law. Why should men bother with it at all? Especially successful men who have more to lose from a failed marriage than a poor man, though he is burned as well.

The complaints of "exploitation" and "class conflict" are rather insulting. All "work" can be exploitive. From the marixst perspective all work is exploitive under capitalism. All rich people not doing hard labor along side the toiling masses is "class conflict". Is it a problem that Bill Gates doesn't weld for his pay? Well I'm not a marxist, so to me it isn't. Why is this service suddenly exploitive when there is more dangerous and far more common services being provided. It isn't.

The cries of "your buying a baby" and "you can't rent a woman's body" are plainly idiotic. Every person has a genetic mother and father. The bases of society is their union, regardless of what other claim it to be, and children are a product of that union. No homosexual couple has ever bought a baby through surrogacy. One of those men is the genetic father of that child and he has a right to that child; and because of liberalism has a right to raise that child along side his husband. If you don't like homosexual couples, of either sex, having children, than blame liberalism, not surrogacy/IVF. The "renting" complaints stem from societies over protective nature of women. Any work done today or at any other point in human history has required the use of one's body? Is a company renting a woman's body by having her type up reports? No. Or if you want to go further, is a company renting a woman's body by having her shoveling dirt in the hot sun? Or carrying shingles up on a roof? No. Otherwise a lot of women, and men are currently being exploited.

Surrogacy is a rapidly growing industry and that's a good thing. A society has to have a new generation or it ceases to be. If our collective societies can not reproduce by any means, than they deserve to die out or be replaced or as is occurring in a lot of our nations, both.

There is no age limit and no background checks at all for surrogacy. Technically an 80 year old man who has just gotten out of jail for raping 20 kids can but a baby, as long as he can pay.

And why should there be? There is no legal age limit for either men or women to have a baby. If a woman can have a baby at 60, than more power to her. Nor is there no laws barring convicted arsonists, kidnappers, traffickers, rapists, pedophiles or murderers from having children. Or getting into relationships with people who have small children. A convicted pedophile can date a single parent of small children. If you want to make a law banning convicted criminals from accessing IVF or surrogacy, please go ahead and do so, but I think you would safeguard children more by stopping criminals from accessing already existing children.

They recently uncovered a huge illegal surrogacy operation in China that is rumored to have discarded any children that were born disabled.

China is a shithole that practices literal sex selective abortions. Other nations allow abortions of the deformed, and while laws against sex selective abortions exist, no woman will ever be prosecuted for such. Discarding disabled/deformed babies is just the logical conclusion of the ever increasingly callous global view of children. This isn't a problem specific to surrogacy.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

And why should there be? There is no legal age limit for either men or women to have a baby. If a woman can have a baby at 60, than more power to her. Nor is there no laws barring convicted arsonists, kidnappers, traffickers, rapists, pedophiles or murderers from having children. Or getting into relationships with people who have small children. A convicted pedophile can date a single parent of small children. If you want to make a law banning convicted criminals from accessing IVF or surrogacy, please go ahead and do so, but I think you would safeguard children more by stopping criminals from accessing already existing children.

Imagine how good the internet could be in 100 years if the world government outlawed births from shit posters.

Where becoming parents is a privelege awarded to those with the highest forum scores.

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

Imagine how good the internet could be in 100 years if the world government outlawed births from shit posters.

Hey, if you want a sanitized internet go to boomerbook or X or tiktok. Its the shit posters who make the internet great.

 

[Fareal]

Nor is there no laws barring convicted arsonists, kidnappers, traffickers, rapists, pedophiles or murderers from having children. Or getting into relationships with people who have small children. A convicted pedophile can date a single parent of small children. If you want to make a law banning convicted criminals from accessing IVF or surrogacy, please go ahead and do so, but I think you would safeguard children more by stopping criminals from accessing already existing children.

...ackshually in the UK a serious violent or any sexual offence is a bar to accessing IVF treatment, including privately. Advanced parental age is also a bar. Significant illness or disability on the part of the parents is a bar. No IVF facility is required to give you a test tube baby just because you want one; in fact to keep their licence, they have to evidence that they carefully considered the best interests of any child that may be born as a result of the process. Smoking greatly increases the risk of cot death and certain childhood illnesses, so most if not all NHS facilities will not accept you if you smoke.

If a convicted paedophile (who is monitored by the police under MARAC) is found to be in a relationship with a parent of small children, the children are removed by court order until their mother gets a fucking clue. Or if she does not get a clue ASAP, we do what is called twin-tracking to permanency within three months of the initial removal. This is when the social work department tells the family there is still a chance of reconciliation, but meanwhile I go to court to obtain the freeing-for-adoption order.

If a child is about to be born into a household where such a person as a murderer, rapist, paedophile or known child abuser is part of that household, we go and get ourselves a court order as soon as the hospital confirms the child was born alive, and within an hour or two, we turn up at the hospital with the cops and physically remove the baby to foster care. Less than one in thirty babies removed at birth are ever returned to the birth family.

The rights of the parent do not ever outweigh the rights of, and the best interests of, the child. Children aren't property. They are people.

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

If a convicted paedophile (who is monitored by the police under MARAC) is found to be in a relationship with a parent of small children, the children are removed by court order until their mother gets a fucking clue. Or if she does not get a clue ASAP, we do what is called twin-tracking to permanency within three months of the initial removal. This is when the social work department tells the family there is still a chance of reconciliation, but meanwhile I go to court to obtain the freeing-for-adoption order.

Wow, the UK isn't as big of a shithole as I thought it was.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

I am very much against surrogacy. It steals babies from mothers and mothers from babies. To rob a wee babe from the arms of the women who created it, and hand it over to some egotistical faggot hipster, is evil of the ninth degree. Children should never be a tradeable commodity and neither should a womans womb.

It also exploits the destitute, which is why I am also against egg donation, aka ovaries for rent.

I don't mind IVF for infertile couples. Helen Joyce has had two children with the aid of IVF, and we definitely need more of her in the gene pool. Also, those children grew up with their mum, which all children should. Mums are the best.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I am very much against surrogacy. It steals babies from mothers and mothers from babies. To rob a wee babe from the arms of the women who created it, and hand it over to some egotistical faggot hipster, is evil of the ninth degree. Children should never be a tradeable commodity and neither should a womans womb.

It also exploits the destitute, which is why I am also against egg donation, aka ovaries for rent.

I don't mind IVF for infertile couples. Helen Joyce has had two children with the aid of IVF, and we definitely need more of her in the gene pool. Also, those children grew up with their mum, which all children should. Mums are the best.

Basically where I'm at. Surrogacy is slavery by any other name. IVF is a actual medical procedure that can help couples that wouldn't normally be able to get pregnant to have kids.