Should it be legal to pay surrogates to have babies for you and your significant other?

[Nap]

Agreed. But then all monies must be given back to the parents who paid for the surrogacy. (That probably goes without saying)

Agree

 

[Nap]

?? What connection? Are you saying if they never meet again, they are somehow connected by more than DNA?

In the case of a surrogacy, they aren't even connected by DNA.

 

[Lursa]

In the case of a surrogacy, they aren't even connected by DNA.

Ah, that's right. Thanks.

 

[OldFatGuy]

It's also illegal in most of Europe.

Not true.

Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain prohibit all forms of surrogacy. All other European either have regulatory standards for surrogacy or no laws for the same at all. Both France and Germany ignore violations of prohibitive surrogacy and are in the process of legislating new standards. Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal and Italy outlaw all forms of out of marriage sex, and define surrogacy under those laws. Of course no French, Spanish or Italian men have sex outside of marriage.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Allowing someone to make a stupid decision isn't a good thing.

No one stopped me from marrying wife, even tho my father warned me to buy the cow when the milk is free. Now I sleep with her cold feet planted in the middle of my back unless I move to the living room couch. I'm much to lazy to make the move.

 

[Felis Leo]

I don't know all of the details on this, but I believe some states allow it. New York state government has proposed a bill to make it legal in their state. What say you? Should paid surrogacy be legal or illegal?

I am against it for the same reason I am against prostitution and I am against people being allowed to sell their bodily organs: Because it allows for the exploitation of the poorest and most vulnerable women in society.

People look at this as an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom. I would argue that if you are in such desperate economic straits that you feel you have to sell your health and your body in such a manner to some well-to-do couple, you are not free.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Why do you think women are stupid and can't make up their own mind what is best for their body?

Aw, come on. One night she says no, the next yes, and then makes demands early in the morning. Of course she can't make up her own mind, that's why I buy her more jewelry and cook dinner for her. Damn. You've raised the bar too high.

Just getting my granddaughters to choose what flavor ice cream they want. Impossible. I just buy what I buy and say "Here." As long as it is covered with rainbow sprinkles, all is fine.

 

[OldFatGuy]

/// I cannot imagine ripping a child away from a mother after childbirth. /// So you are advocating that an imprisoned female inmate should be allowed to keep her child, raise that child in prison, and force the government to pay for the feeding, housing, clothing, and medical care for the child in a prison environment ?

Works for me if the schools are good and Sponge Bob is prohibited.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Who says the women that choose this are all poor?

And is any low-paying job that a poor person takes 'exploitation'? I mean, there certainly are alot of crappy jobs out there that unskilled people may get stuck with...is that 'exploitation?'

NOOOOO! Not logic.

 

[OldFatGuy]

In the case of a surrogacy, they aren't even connected by DNA.

Maybe. I recall a mother who gave birth to her daughter's child. A surrogacy of double love.

 

[Felis Leo]

I think it's between the parties involved and the government should keep its nose out of their business.

If an impoverished woman were to carry mine and my wife's fertilized egg to term in her body in exchange for some prearranged amount, that would be fine with you. But if that same woman were to offer to paint my fence at less than minimum wage, would you argue that the government should keep out of that private transaction bongsaway? Or would you consider that exploitation of someone in desperate economic straits?

 

[Nap]

Maybe. I recall a mother who gave birth to her daughter's child. A surrogacy of double love.

Well the DNA wasn't passed through due to the surrogacy in that example but through the already established DNA connection between the mother and daughter. If you were to place a fertilized egg into a surrogate mother the child would inherit the DNA from the Sperm and Egg not the woman who gave birth.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Well the DNA wasn't passed through due to the surrogacy in that example but through the already established DNA connection between the mother and daughter. If you were to place a fertilized egg into a surrogate mother the child would inherit the DNA from the Sperm and Egg not the woman who gave birth.

Ah, but the mother's dna has been passed on to the daughter's dna, and subsequently to the grandchild. That's why this was posed as an exception to your absolutist statement, and certainly, since there are no absolutes, there can be other exceptions. Such as a sibling acting as a surrogate, even a cousin. And in some cases even when an egg or sperm are donated from a 3rd party relative, known or unknown.

During the early 60's, scifi author Ted Sturgeon posed a world where all births were surrogate, all sperm and all eggs from the same two King and Queen donors. A world of clones envisioned before genetic science theorems had reached heights of today's cloning possibilities. A method of obtaining peace, because cloned siblings would not kill each other. Until the purpose of war in his story, by an unidentified enemy, genocidal deaths of the king and queen, ending the future of the human race. The vulnerability of his suggested exclusive surrogate pro-genesis. Another negative outcome of the Frankenstein monster, man playing god, Mary Shelley's accusation of men abandoning the women they impregnated, their offspring to the unknown petulance of life.

This thread isn't about a woman's right to do what she wishes with her body, nor is it about exploitation. Mere subterfuges for fear of men playing at being gods, and the inevitable retribution of jealous gods. Fear is the true name of this game. Fear of science and the powers it gives mankind, the powers of jealous gods. Fear of men being replaced by test tubes. :rofl

 

[Nap]

Ah, but the mother's dna has been passed on to the daughter's dna, and subsequently to the grandchild. That's why this was posed as an exception to your absolutist statement, and certainly, since there are no absolutes, there can be other exceptions. Such as a sibling acting as a surrogate, even a cousin. And in some cases even when an egg or sperm are donated from a 3rd party relative, known or unknown.

During the early 60's, scifi author Ted Sturgeon posed a world where all births were surrogate, all sperm and all eggs from the same two King and Queen donors. A world of clones envisioned before genetic science theorems had reached heights of today's cloning possibilities. A method of obtaining peace, because cloned siblings would not kill each other. Until the purpose of war in his story, by an unidentified enemy, genocidal deaths of the king and queen, ending the future of the human race. The vulnerability of his suggested exclusive surrogate pro-genesis. Another negative outcome of the Frankenstein monster, man playing god, Mary Shelley's accusation of men abandoning the women they impregnated, their offspring to the unknown petulance of life.

This thread isn't about a woman's right to do what she wishes with her body, nor is it about exploitation. Mere subterfuges for fear of men playing at being gods, and the inevitable retribution of jealous gods. Fear is the true name of this game. Fear of science and the powers it gives mankind, the powers of jealous gods. Fear of men being replaced by test tubes. :rofl

The point is that they do not share DNA due to being a surrogate, your examples aren't exceptions as they are actual family. Your DNA is coded in at conception when the egg is fertilized by the sperm and so it is already decided before ever being placed in the surrogate.

As far as the SciFi clone world you mentioned, that seems like a pretty ridiculous story even for science fiction. Cloned siblings won't kill each other? Siblings killing each other is one of the oldest stories in human history and was pretty common back when the eldest was the one that inherited everything in order to preserve family wealth. You could argue that it would be more peaceful than reality, but I personally don't have that much faith in humanity and believe even with duplicate DNA one group would find something to "other" another group for, it is simply what humans do.

 

[bongsaway]

If an impoverished woman were to carry mine and my wife's fertilized egg to term in her body in exchange for some prearranged amount, that would be fine with you. But if that same woman were to offer to paint my fence at less than minimum wage, would you argue that the government should keep out of that private transaction bongsaway? Or would you consider that exploitation of someone in desperate economic straits?

Since the woman offered to paint your face for less than minimum wage, that's on her. If you ask her to paint your fence for less than minimum wage, that's on you for knowingly trying to take advantage of a person in need....what many people call 'just business'.

 

[GodlessBrandy]

I don't know all of the details on this, but I believe some states allow it. New York state government has proposed a bill to make it legal in their state. What say you? Should paid surrogacy be legal or illegal?

Who should care? Why would this even be an issue if a woman decides she would rather get paid for a baby she doesn't want rather than send it off for adoption. Or have a baby for the purpose of selling it to someone who wants it.

We're not talking about the illegal trafficking of babies. This would be a straight up business arrangement. A taxable venture.

 

[OldFatGuy]

The point is that they do not share DNA due to being a surrogate, your examples aren't exceptions as they are actual family. Your DNA is coded in at conception when the egg is fertilized by the sperm and so it is already decided before ever being placed in the surrogate.

As far as the SciFi clone world you mentioned, that seems like a pretty ridiculous story even for science fiction. Cloned siblings won't kill each other? Siblings killing each other is one of the oldest stories in human history and was pretty common back when the eldest was the one that inherited everything in order to preserve family wealth. You could argue that it would be more peaceful than reality, but I personally don't have that much faith in humanity and believe even with duplicate DNA one group would find something to "other" another group for, it is simply what humans do.

There are exceptions to every rule. And science is now telling us DNA can be altered in the womb, synthetically and naturally by mechanisms not yet understood. The same even for adults. Don't be so sure of yourself. Besides, as we are gaining a better understanding of RNA, its values may be more important than that of DNA for explaining species traits and adaption to the environment.

Of course it was a ridiculous story. The entire point of scifi, speculative fiction, is theater of the absurd. Metaphor prodding the reader to think even from the depths of cheap escapist pulp fiction. After playing Phillip Marlow, Humphrey Bogart couldn't stop playing the role. The fictional character sharing a common self image with the man, or vice versa. Bogart would say "I want to put them in a small bottle, in my pocket." His opinion of women he dared not say to Lauren Bacall. Like Marlow, Bogart mistrusted women, viewed them as a necessary nuisance, a complete chauvinist with that element of fear so very obvious.

"Sure baby, I love you. But you got to pay for what you've done. I'm turning you in and its the chair for you." Tough love.

 

[phattonez]

When a relative or close friend agrees to act as a surrogate for a woman unable to carry a fetus to term, poverty does not come into play. Nor does it do so when someone does so out of the kindness of heart. Surrogates do not always seek remuneration.

And I would use different arguments against that. Arguing against paid surrogacy is easy.

 

[phattonez]

Freedom for one to make decisions for themselves is much better than the tyranny of the majority even if you disagree with the choices they make.

I'm not arguing for democracy. I'm arguing what I explicitly argued.

Should we make single motherhood illegal?

Intentional single motherhood 100% should be illegal.

 

[phattonez]

?? What connection? Are you saying if they never meet again, they are somehow connected by more than DNA?

Absolutely. My father is more than just the guy who gave me half of my DNA. Same for my mother. They raised me. They nurtured me. They took care of me.

 

[phattonez]

What makes it a stupid decision?

A decision that you only make out of desperation isn't a good decision.

 

[phattonez]

So women are too stupid or weak to make a decision for themselves? In their own best interests? :roll:

Poor people do not have enough economic power to make the best decisions.

 

[phattonez]

Who says the women that choose this are all poor?

And is any low-paying job that a poor person takes 'exploitation'? I mean, there certainly are alot of crappy jobs out there that unskilled people may get stuck with...is that 'exploitation?'

If they pay far below what those jobs are worth, then yes it's exploitation.

 

[Nap]

Poor people do not have enough economic power to make the best decisions.

Poor people do not have enough economic power because they don't make the best decisions.

 

[phattonez]

Poor people do not have enough economic power because they don't make the best decisions.

Therefore it's okay to exploit them?