Surrogacy and IVF Debate Thread

We need to ban surrogacy and gay men (and never married straight men) should not ever be allowed access to children:
All Faggots.jpg
Are To Be Fed.jpg
To The Glorious Woodchipper.jpg
Nitter link

We need to go to purge.jpg
Link to Substack (Paywalled)

What the fuck.jpg
Link to paper (Paywalled)
 
Some people simply aren't meant to have kids for one reason or another and it would be better if they accepted that. I wouldn't go so far as making surrogacy illegal, but it's pretty damn questionable and it's hard to support.

People have told me many times "oh you can still have kids, just get a surrogate" and I'm like no...just no.
 
Gay men purchasing women to grow and birth babies for them when they don't even support the surrogate mothers in childbirth is disgusting. The fact they're allowed to pose in wheelchairs and hospital beds as if they gave birth to the baby is like something out of the Handmaid's Tale.

Women are not under any obligation to risk our lives and health in excruciating childbirth to supply those who call us "fish," "cis" or "terf cunts" with children.
I know this is a troll account. But I will bite....

As foster carer who cannot have children. Fuck you.

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.

Seriously fuck you. You have no idea. Hat rant over.
She's 100% right about surrogacy. I don't necessarily agree with her views regarding I.V.F. However, I can understand where she's coming from because I've read some horrifying accounts from women who have gone through I.V.F.

One of these accounts was by a woman going through a custody battle because her ex-husband, who filed for sole custody, believes she has no right to custody of the child she grew, birthed, breastfed and raised because they used a donor's eggs. Oh, and he was the cause of the marital breakup (homo who came out of the closet to start a new life with his boyfriend) and his input with the child was the absolute bare minimum. But because the child was conceived using a donor egg, he views the child as being exclusively his child.

And this is why moids, particularly fags, disgust me.
 
Needing IVF is one of the most unnecessary medical procedures I've ever witnessed. If you cannot have children then I feel sorry for you, but if you're a troon or a faggot trying to put a child through hell without a stable family, you should never be allowed near children ever. Children are accustomed to their genetic parents, so if they see two fags having a child, they will have issues during development. Banning IVF should be a necessary good and could've prevented the pedophile defender and hider Nick Fuentes.
 
"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.
You really are an absolute cunt. I didn't have a particularly high opinion of you before, but your replies on this thread really prove that you are a repugnant prick.

You haven't the faintest idea of what it's like to go through pregnancy or excruciating childbirth or what it's like to deal with lifelong health issues due to childbirth. Ejaculation is not the equivalent of the aforementioned.

Approximately 300'000 women and girls die in childbirth every year. Countless more will live with lifelong health issues. The treatment of surrogate mothers, particularly those sourced from third world countries, is often barbaric. There has been multiple cases of women being sold, against their wishes, into surrogacy.

Misogynists like you are not entitled to the female reproductive system. It is not a right to have a child and it's certainly not a right to have a child via the expense of a woman's health or her suffering.
 
You really are an absolute cunt.
Love you too, babe 😘

You haven't the faintest idea..
If only I liked power leveling.

Approximately 300'000 women and girls die in childbirth every year. Countless more will live with lifelong health issues.
And imagine the money that will be poured into maternal care to ensure surrogates can have healthy babies. Win for mothers, fathers, and most importantly, a win for the babies.

The treatment of surrogate mothers, particularly those sourced from third world countries, is often barbaric. There has been multiple cases of women being sold, against their wishes, into surrogacy.
Which is why it needs to be legal in first world nations. Where such criminal acts are far harder to get away with.

Misogynists like you are not entitled to the female reproductive system.
Given that its only the most misogynistic types, be they muslim, jewish. christian, or something else, that is even attempting to meet replacement rates. It seems we are entitled to it. Especially the women amongst us, who will be mothers, and grandmothers, and great grandmothers of future generations. While women like you are consigned to the dust bin of history. Don't call it a grave.
 
Opposition to IVF or surrogacy here is overwhelmingly homophobia by proxy, and that's why when people here oppose it they always bring it up in the context of gay people using it to have children.

It is not human trafficking. This is a melodramatic exaggeration meant to morally indict people for opting for surrogacy or IVF. It is as ridiculous as comparing Somalian pirates to someone torrenting a music album. It's fucking embarassing to describe it like that. And the people here only get away with it because it's behind a computer screen. Framing it as society allowing trafficking of children is insulting to children who are actually trafficked for forced child labour or sexual abuse. Deliberately calling it that is so that you can disingenuously associate IVF or surrogacy with things like child rape.

The opponents of IVF and surrogacy here will say couples should just adopt because of some systemic issue with IVF or surrogacy. But foster care and adoption are far worse. Why would you trust a parent to adopt a child who has already had an abusive home environment or who requires significantly more care than a normal child, especially when adoption/foster care is notoriously bad, when you wouldn't trust those same people to use IVF or surrogacy? Because it isn't "natural"? Having an epidural isn't "natural", by the same token. Either everything is natural, or nothing is.

It's hypocritical moralfaggery which has become an astroturfed topic of discourse on this site, which is taken up by bible thumping faux-conservative morons, and retards who define their entire hysterical ideology around misandristic delusions of persecution on the basis of being women, both of whom latch onto the issue in a way where they greatly misrepresent it. As with a number of other topics, the truth is that A & T spergs will fixate onto any example of IVF or surrogacy being bad, while ignoring any possible alternative viewpoints on it. They'll throw whatever they can at the wall to see what sticks, even if it is not internally consistent.
 
bible thumping faux-conservative morons
Oh Hai, Hollywood Hulk Hogan sock account.

Anyway, no - it is absolutely human trafficking.
No one is entitled to children and no one is entitled to use women's bodies to gestate children for you.
This is about the rights of the child - something that is protected via the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 35.
These arrangements always involve monetary compensation to the mother/s to acquire these children.
Purchasing children is not human trafficking only according to shitlib progressive paedos.

As is typical of morons such as yourself, you paint everyone who disagrees with something you want as "conservative" even though the majority of anti-surrogacy campaigning is done by left-wing feminist women:
 
Opposition to IVF or surrogacy here is overwhelmingly homophobia by proxy, and that's why when people here oppose it they always bring it up in the context of gay people using it to have children.
It might shock you, but most people don't actually like the idea of fags being around kids.

Even besides that, IVF is a procedure done out of vanity the vast, vast majority of the times, by people whose live choices make it incompatible for them to have children, but who still want to do so regardless because it makes them look good in social media or they want to skinwalk as a normal family.

Framing it as society allowing trafficking of children is insulting to children who are actually trafficked for forced child labour or sexual abuse. Deliberately calling it that is so that you can disingenuously associate IVF or surrogacy with things like child rape.
Nigger, do you honestly believe that the fags who have male babies won't put them more at risk of being sexually abused than if the baby stayed with his mother? Why do I, the individual who hates faggots, know more about how faggots act than you do?
 
Last edited:
It is not human trafficking.

IVF is not human trafficking, as only a few ova and some sperm is involved. It is typically a treatment for infertility or reduced fertility. Surrogacy sometimes involves IVF, but far from always.

Surrogacy is always human trafficking.
A child changes hands for money, no matter how you want to spin it.

And to use a woman as a mobile incubator, and to steal the screaming baby out of her hands, is extremely cruel and evil. You rib an infant of a maternal bond, the most precious thing in life. It's a sordid and exploitative affair.

PS: The reason that many people associate homosexual men with childrape is that they are 1.5% of the population, yet 30% of convicted child molesters.
 
Women are not under any obligation to risk our lives and health in excruciating childbirth to supply those who call us "fish," "cis" or "terf cunts" with children.
You're right! Women can make their own choices and they alone are responsible for them.

Women aren't victims of surrogacy if they signed up for it. The only individual involved in surrogacy it's possible to feel sympathy for is the child.

#NormalizeWomenTakingResponsibilityForTheirPoorChoices.
 
Anyway, no - it is absolutely human trafficking.
You are using this to conflate IVF and surrogacy with the much more disastrous and adverse consequences of real human trafficking, which you are depending on in order to morally frame it as bad, even though those adverse consequences are notably absent in IVF and surrogacy. You are describing surrogacy in terms of a legal definition of human trafficking, in order to give the impression of an entirely different and more colloqual understanding of human trafficking, which usually involves prostitution or forced labour. That's my point here, and I think it is disingenous to conflate surrogacy and especially IVF with these activities. Sending a child to private school or daycare in exchange for funds is not something I have any problem with, and that is "human trafficking". Compulsory elementary education in these cases is an example of human trafficking, if we apply the UN definition for trtafficking. But nobody calls it that because it would be ridiculous to associate it with something like sex trafficking. There is an argument to be made that private schools constitute human trafficking of children more than the practice of surrogacy does.
No one is entitled to children and no one is entitled to use women's bodies to gestate children for you.
You phrase it like it needs to be an entitlement. By the same token, you are not entitled to dictate what women do or don't do with their bodies, including opting to become surrogates. You want to make it out like surrogacy is what is violating the reproductive freedoms of women. Nobody is arguing for forced surrogacy. Even if you point to instances where there were forced surrogates, supporters of surrogacy would overwhelmingly condemn those cases. And like I said, many of the people here espouse adoption as an alternative, which has even more systemic problems.
This is about the rights of the child - something that is protected via the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 35.
I feel as if you are violating the spirit of the law by abusing the letter of it. The reason why this legislation exists is to prevent children from being trafficked into child labour or sexual abuse. There is nothing that is being deprived from the child by surrogacy. And it is not as if there is a overwhelming legal consensus on the application of article 35 as it relates to the regulated practice of surrogacy and especially IVF. Within Canada IVF and surrogacy are both legal and regulated, even though Canada has ratified the Covention on the Rights of the Child. There is room within the argument for surrogacy to change the letter of the law to allows legal provisions for surrogacy, if that becomes absolutely necessary.
These arrangements always involve monetary compensation to the mother/s to acquire these children.
The idea that it always has to involve monetary compensation is a complex issue. Of course, the woman needs to receive a certain amount for support in health and recovery, and for the labour of having children. But this is a process which can be regulated, and which, as I said before, does not need to be for-proft.
Purchasing children is not human trafficking only according to shitlib progressive paedos.
And here you are implying that I am a pedophile because I happen to disagree with you over surrogacy.
As is typical of morons such as yourself, you paint everyone who disagrees with something you want as "conservative" even though the majority of anti-surrogacy campaigning is done by left-wing feminist women:
I pointed out the feminists in my initial post, even if I didn't say the word. I don't understand the point here. And it should be understood that in my post I am referring very specifically to the discourse as it relates to this forum.
 
By the same token, you are not entitled to dictate what women do or don't do with their bodies, including opting to become surrogates.
Lolbertarian opinion discarded.
This is same dumb rhetoric that caused lobotomies and children to currently be sterilised.
"But who does it hurt?!?!? People are free to make their own choosey choices about things and we don't need to limit muh freedumbs to prevent societal harm"

Okay then, let's disband the FDA and the USDA then.
Everyone is FREE to do whatever they want so why do we need limits on what people can put in their bodies - just publish the lead levels in water, the e.coli and listeria counts found in meat/produce and let the people decide if they want to eat it
 
You are not entitled to bring another human life into this world for your own sense of self-gratification. Funny how the venn diagram of people who support IVF as some sort of human right and those who bemoan "puppy mills" is basically a circle.

Homosexuals and single adults are unfit to raise children. Heterosexual couples unable to convince should adopt.
 
Back