SpergioLeonne
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2022
Oh it is. You can’t apply that law to Muslims. See: Rotherham
Surrogacy and IVF Debate Thread
- Thread starter Lidl Drip
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2021
Well, I listed only two exceptions that I think are exploitative per se, and those are surrogacy, and prostitution. I don't think people should be able to sell these two things, and I don't think people should be allowed to buy these two things. I guess I could get super pedantic and put "literal slavery, adult human" and "selling human organs for money" as two more things that you also shouldn't be allowed to buy and sell purely on principle. But that's about it.
I think: selling sex and reproduction as services is as degrading and dehumanizing as selling persons as chattel. The sale of surrogacy and gametes is two (2) asshairs away from the organ trade. I don't think there's a price you can put on surrogacy that would equal the value of that baby's life at birth. These "services" are categorically different from paying me to do receptionist work, or buying duck eggs from me, or hiring me to hang onto your dog for a week, or making me haul bricks to build Pharoah's Pyramid would be. None of those scenarios would involve 3rd party acquiring something unique from my body that can't be replaced.
lol ^^ this guy is going to flip his shit when he finds out what contractual surrogacy costs in non-shithole countries. I priced it out a couple of years back and it was ~$100,000 per singleton pregnancy. If you thought society and women are "divorce raping a man's wallet" when marriages break down, then buying a surrogacy contract would be like a Shoah of wallets for you. To say nothing of actually supporting that kid in the future.
Counterarguments:
1. Well, someone needs to think of those rich celebrities, and the rich faggots, and the rich(ish) couples who want to have their bio-kids. (I don't think this is that compelling. Rich people and faggots can still adopt.)
2. A family that has cash to burn on fertility treatments would surely be a good financial position to care for a child. (Maybe? But wealth doesn't stop people from being abusive jerks, and it wouldn't be the first time a wealthy family chooses to abuse or neglect their kids, anyway.)
3. [sad story about a couple inexperiencing infertility goes here]
I agree that is sad. But like Fareal said earlier, IVF can be its own gauntlet of horrors, and there were women in the infertility support group at the Heebs Institute of Riverdale who were depressed because of their primary infertility (because that religion basically equates a woman's purpose to childrearing and housekeeping), those who had been traumatized and impoverished from numerous fertility treatments, including IVF, as well as those who had lost much-wanted children to miscarriage. (Or still birth.
) So, are fertility treatments easing the suffering of these people? I'm leaning towards mostly no, it complicates it and turns that suffering into a market for IVF treatment and surrogacy services.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2023
i don't really see any problem with this. i'm not really religious or pro life so i don't have any moral qualms against IVF being used. it's just another medical tool, similar to giving a person born without a hand a moving cybernetic hand or something
it's always superior for someone to conceive naturally or to have a natural hand but i like that science and technology can fill in the gap where nature and god have failed. sometimes you have to spit in god's face because he deserves it
counterpoint: children being molested is bad. giving single or gay men easy access to them is bad because it's more likely to lead to children being molested
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
You aren't buying a baby with surrogacy. The "value" of a baby is irrelevant. What is the value of gestation. You are paying for services you can't do yourself. In the same way you pay a surgeon for example. Hauling bricks to build the Pharoah's Pyramid is probably more dangerous and degrading for your body than being a surrogate, and most definitely more so than being a prostitute. As to the "something unique" part, I had no idea sex removed something physical from a woman, how very incel of you, and as for the child part, you can have children you aren't being paid to gestate if you want one so bad.
I already knew the cost and it is far cheaper a price than not having primary custody of your children and paying child support. Divorce is financially and socially ruinous for a lot of men. A hundred thousand and no legal obligations to the mother is rather cheap, and this assumes price will not decrease as this practice grows in acceptance. If anything, not having to worry about the mother turning your own children against you is itself alone worth every penny.
@GunCar Gary
counter-counterpoint: women are more likely to abuse children than men, and are more likely to murder them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
I wouldn't want a surrogate, but if there were any way I could conceive and keep a single child, I'm not opposed to IVF. The issue would ultimately arise if more than one embryo survived til birth.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
Any IVF debate should have ended here, honestly. More often than not, just like surrogacy, it's a tool of the rich and/or defective. You either get misogynists like Elon Musk using it to only shit out boys (only to wind up with a troon as retribution), or literal tards like two people I know. He's an infertile autist who has mommy pay for everything, she's a tard who miscarries anytime the IVF tries to take, they shove 7 animals into a small apartment. Just stop. It's natures way of saying don't reproduce.
And then there's this. I love seeing rightoids using IVF while simultaneously crying about muh abortion. There was some story recently of some gay right wing anti-abortion moid couple having an IVF baby. The absolute state of the right. If it weren't for double standards, there'd be none.
As for surrogacy, it should absolutely be banned worldwide. No one is entitled to a child, no one is entitled to a woman body. Hell, you aren't even entitled to a womans time. But rich people, gay men, and that weird Turkroach woman Android Raptor mentioned don't care. Why should a woman have to carry a child, altering her body, for someones vanity, so they can carry on muh genes? Why should she be pumped with hormones, risk death in childbirth which, yes, still happens in the so-called first world. Why should she have to lay there, watching her buyers take the child she birthed immediately away (surrogates are discouraged from so much as touching the child, so theoretically the child will bond with the buyers)? It's not like human trafficking, that's exactly what it is.
I'm sorry if you are some sort of genetic dead end. Adopt, foster, spend time with your nieces and nephews, buy a fucking dog. Get a grip. You are owed nothing.
Someone mentioned egg donation earlier in the thread, and that is another disgusting practice hat should be banned. Here's a documentary about it, from women who went through it, and the effects it had on their bodies. Many of them were young, hoping to pay for college or something else they needed, and they were completely unaware of the risks. the medical industry goes out of its way to make it look as enticing as possible, while shrouding all of its dangers.
Last edited:
They don't. Don't want to do it, don't do it. I really don't get the entitlement argument in this particular context. Essentially it's a service people are doing voluntary that you pay for. Women should have enough agency to deal with that themselves. Granted it does carry some health risks, but so do many jobs yet they aren't outlawed outright.
I also find it strange that so many people argue that someone that can't have children naturally shouldn't have them because it's somehow by design. We use science all the time to fight with nature and sometimes we win, sometimes we don't. We wouldn't make that argument when it comes to illness, so why would that be decisive when it comes to having children.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2015
I am pretty willing to make that argument for a range of illnesses.
Either you surrender to God's plan for you, or you don't. But without using "muh christ" as a touchstone in a first world country's ethical framework for questions of ethical regulation, you need some very good reasons for why you are putting the boundaries of what's illegal where you are putting them.
I respect the argument that "everything that is scientifically possible is valid". I don't agree with it in respect of human reproduction, because there's a party involved there who can't be asked for their consent at all and yet is the one living with the consequences. Which is why I think we do need safeguards and boundaries around its use, if it is to be used. I don't think it should be available, but in a liberal democracy, the majority opinion holds sway over people like me. Which is as it should be.
You aren't paying for the service of gestation, by the way, or the woman could fulfil her contract by giving birth and immediately fetus deletus. You are paying for a baby. You give her money and in return for money she hands over her child. Blood of her blood, flesh of her flesh. Anyone who fails to understand the gravity of that is not fully engaging with the ethical issues involved. Nor are they giving due weight to the future of the child. The child is sidelined totally by focusing on the buyers and muh poor buyers and their empty cribs.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2020
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
"It isn't a service because the woman can't off the baby after it's born!"
I've heard and seen some very stupid shit on this website from cows and users alike, but this has to take the cake.
But it isn't just her child. It's his child as well, and if its done with a donated egg, the baby isn't even the surrogates.
Aren't you pro-abortion? Oh the irony. Surrogacy is a good thing; it will continue to grow in use and acceptance.
I am not implying that everything that's scientifically possible should be allowed, that wasn't the point. My point was that just because something wouldn't work naturally (eg, having children or surviving an illness), it shouldn't automatically be illegal. I find that argument logically inconsistent unless you are firmly in the god's plan camp.
The fact that the baby doesn't give consent is obvious, but what's the different to having children the natural way? You also can't ask those and they also run the risk of being born into fucked up circumstances. That's life.
That's an oversimplification. Especially once IFV is involved, there's a lot that can go wrong. If IFV doesn't work, you generally still have to pay for it. So it can hardly be classified as buying a baby outright.
In the case of surrogacy if the deal is actually "no kid no money", I would concede that that form is unethical since all the health and financial risk is put on one side. But that's not the only way you can do it and not the only way it is done in practice.
Maybe I am missing something here, but what is the connection between surrogacy and the future of the child? Like I said earlier, children can be born into fucked up circumstances the natural way as well and I don't see why parents that used surrogacy or adopted the child at birth are automatically more dangerous for the child's wellbeing. If anything the surrogacy route slightly improves the position of the child on average since the parents are more likely to be wealthy since the process can generally only be afforded by wealthy people unless there's insurance coverage. Not that I think that would skew it meaningfully one way or another.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
I understand the pro side, but objectively it needs to be banned.
I notice you do that a lot, "what about muh Rodrigues', what about muh Duggars?" Your broken little brain only allows you to focus on anecdotes because cherry picked instances of confirmation bias are the fuel you run on for some reason.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2015
I am explaining how contract law works. If the only thing required by the contract was the service of gestation itself, there would be no contractual requirement to deliver the baby to the buyers safely or indeed at all. It's not a contract for services. It is also, and indeed principally, a contract for delivery of a human baby.
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. "it's his childdddd" well no it isn't, not until there's a court order to that effect. Moids do not have unequivocal physical evidence of any relationship to a child at birth. I understand this is why there is so much seething about the idea of "paternity fraud".
The price of being a MGTOW is being a broken branch until it become technologically possible to both conceive and gestate a human entirely outside the womb. The technology for that is very far away (nothing is impossible). Moids say they are good at sacrifice, and holding fast to their principles, so being childless shouldn't be difficult for them.
I am broadly in favour of people keeping their fucking nose out of my uterus, and in return I am fully happy to keep my nose out of theirs. Lower abortion rates are the reason A&N exists. I am a eugenicist. More sub 130 IQ males need to die to rebalance society and get rid of the fucking useless vidya/anime/porn consoomer cattle. The reason I am a "weak librul" is to protect the majority from the people who are like me, who do not actually believe in the slightest that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". People like me can't be in charge because very soon we have black coats with skulls on our hats and everywhere smells of burning.
Surrogacy will continue to grow in use and acceptance unless restrained by law because the opening chasm between the wealthy and the poor in society will work as it always does. The poor will sell more and more of their dignity and their very bodies to survive in the conditions the elite choose to inflict on them, and the elite will benefit. Our species are predators, and we will predate on one another in any way we can unless and until we are prevented from doing so. Everything always gets shittier for those in society with the least power.
Luckily, there are hopeful signs that in a few generations, those with the least power will be moids, instead of brown women, like it always is.
Kiwisee
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2021
If people knew the full extent on how the global surrogacy industry contributes to the overflow of orphanages and even organ trafficking, there'd be a call for an outright ban on the practice.
It isn't an uncommon practice for surrogacy firms to outright dump disables babies into orphanages, which dooms them to a life of poverty and turmoil.
I also suggest giving a listen to adults who were born as a result of surrogacy: they don't exactly live happily ever after with their parents, and knowing that you were born with a price tag on you can mess you up big time:
And once you're finished watching that, there's an interview with a former surrogate mother:
It is an industry that exploits vulnerable women, contributes to the abundance of stateless orphans, contributes to child trafficking, and a lot of other horrors. I believe that not only should international surrogacy be banned, but it also must only be between people who all know each other.
However, it won't get banned because the wealthiest of people in north America are the ones travelling to exploit third world women. They will lobby to keep it legall, and leave the host countries to clean up their messes.
As for IVF, I think it's sketchy because of how it exploits people’s false hopes. Theres too much incentive for reproductive doctors to turn people into repeat customers, instead of being honest and telling the couple point-blank that their chances are very low.
I also suggest giving a listen to adults who were born as a result of surrogacy: they don't exactly live happily ever after with their parents, and knowing that you were born with a price tag on you can mess you up big time:
It is an industry that exploits vulnerable women, contributes to the abundance of stateless orphans, contributes to child trafficking, and a lot of other horrors. I believe that not only should international surrogacy be banned, but it also must only be between people who all know each other.
However, it won't get banned because the wealthiest of people in north America are the ones travelling to exploit third world women. They will lobby to keep it legall, and leave the host countries to clean up their messes.
As for IVF, I think it's sketchy because of how it exploits people’s false hopes. Theres too much incentive for reproductive doctors to turn people into repeat customers, instead of being honest and telling the couple point-blank that their chances are very low.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
I don't have any particular opinion or position on surrogacy. But I have a question for some that do, like @Lidl Drip @Heckler1 @CoolFool and anyone else who is opposed to it for its commercial and wealth aspect.
Is the power and wealth disparity at the center of your criticism or only a side issue? If we imagined a purely fictional situation where the only surrogacy that happened was ideologically driven and instead of large business, something that only had a small compensation of time/medical costs, a kind of expenses paid rather than a reward situation. And where the recipients were similarly people of all walks of life and wealth, because there wouldn't be a cost associated with it. And let's for complete fantasy sake, also assume this happened with relatively little corruption.
I know were getting at utopian levels of hypothesis here, but I really wish to understand; is it that the surrogacy, the trade of pregnancy risks and costs for giving people a child to love and take care off, to brighten their lives as they brighten it, is the main problem the unfairness of people who have access to receiving the such a child and the unfairness of the likely poor women who might be persuaded to donate their time and risk their health for this service?
Is it more fundamental and that you believe that young women are unable to make this choice responsibly for themselves in the real world situation?
Or... ?
---
And here a question for everyone: do we have any stats on how surrogate mothers feel about their choice a week, a year, 5 years after their choice to become one?
Is the power and wealth disparity at the center of your criticism or only a side issue? If we imagined a purely fictional situation where the only surrogacy that happened was ideologically driven and instead of large business, something that only had a small compensation of time/medical costs, a kind of expenses paid rather than a reward situation. And where the recipients were similarly people of all walks of life and wealth, because there wouldn't be a cost associated with it. And let's for complete fantasy sake, also assume this happened with relatively little corruption.
I know were getting at utopian levels of hypothesis here, but I really wish to understand; is it that the surrogacy, the trade of pregnancy risks and costs for giving people a child to love and take care off, to brighten their lives as they brighten it, is the main problem the unfairness of people who have access to receiving the such a child and the unfairness of the likely poor women who might be persuaded to donate their time and risk their health for this service?
Is it more fundamental and that you believe that young women are unable to make this choice responsibly for themselves in the real world situation?
Or... ?
---
And here a question for everyone: do we have any stats on how surrogate mothers feel about their choice a week, a year, 5 years after their choice to become one?
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2019
I think situations where a woman's sister for example is her surrogate because she can not have kids due to a previous injury or disease and the sister is doing it only out of love and kindness and is fully supported through the entire process and also stays in the child's life I would have less of a problem with it (though I would still see it as going against god's will).
Yes the main issue is exploitation of women and commodification of women's bodies to be rented out and then discarded. The fact that single men (pedophiles) and gay men (pedophiles) are doing it and therefore depriving the baby of any kind of mother figure at all is especially evil. It should be obvious that if you dedicate your life to being a non-reproductive buttpirate that you are choosing this over having children and a family. But gay men want both, because they are entitled as fuck and they are calling surrogate women "meat sacks" and I recently saw a video of a gay couple berating their surrogate WHILE SHE WAS GIVING BIRTH because she didn't wax her vagina for it. Also the fact old people are having children that they will be too old to care for before the child is even a teenager and that there are literally no background checks so it's a great way for child traffickers and pedos to acquire babies with money to do god knows with it horrifying.
Just everything about it is bad and evil.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
What the fuck.
I thought the scene from louis ck was ludicrously exaggerated, but I guess it was a "it's funny because it's true" kind of episode.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2019
Two separate issues IMO. IVF has its own issues, kids born via it have roughly double the rate of defects as regular conception. There’s also a distinction between various types - it can use your own sperm and eggs, and for example sort for one sex only so you avoid having a child with a sex linked lethal allele being passed on. Or ISCI with your own gametes. IVF with purchase gametes is a different thing, and a more moral grey area.
Surrogacy is wrong on every level there is.
1. It’s a crime against women. Women are not purchasable incubators
2. It’s a crime against the child. The baby is removed from its birth mother, which causes great distress. Children are not commodities to be bought.
3. It’s a crime against society. It creates a market for something that should never be a commodity.
I also think surrogacy creates / interacts with some very dangerous trends in society, regarding the way children are protected. Birth certificates should reflect reality. But surrogacy creates this idea that a child can be common and bought, and the legal ownership of that child transferred. Ownership in the context of children isn’t like a car, it’s more a set of rights and responsibilities you have to and over them to raise them right. But creating a buyable child you take that away. You create a ‘thing’ that’s buyable. Now someone who is no blood relative to that child has power over them.
Birth certificates should reflect reality. But surrogacy creates this idea that a child can be common and bought, and the legal ownership of that child transferred. Ownership in the context of children isn’t like a car, it’s more a set of rights and responsibilities you have to and over them to raise them right. But creating a buyable child you take that away.
Birth certificates should reflect reality. But surrogacy creates this idea that a child can be common and bought, and the legal ownership of that child transferred. Ownership in the context of children isn’t like a car, it’s more a set of rights and responsibilities you have to and over them to raise them right. But creating a buyable child you take that away. You create a world where a child can be commissioned and bought, by anyone. For anything.
Then it links into the loosening of parental rights in general. The named person legislation, the idea of child consent all feeds into the same thing - loosening the bond between a child and parents. It’s very frightening stuff
The UK is now trying to loosen the rules on surrogacy. I used to think only altruistic surrogacy should be allowed but now I’d ban it all.
Post in thread 'Feminists gear up for a new fight'
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/feminists-gear-up-for-a-new-fight.172162/post-16845330