Poll: Should surrogacy be available for fertile, straight couples.

[kortin]

I clicked no, but not because I particularly give a shit exactly how people continue to breed us into inevitable societal meltdown, I just wish someone would get about installing breeding licenses, or that some influential people would go about propagating the idea that breeding is in fact, NOT a right, NOT something every single person is capable of or wants to do, and that raising spawn isn't for everyone.

Seriously, control your breeding or we're properly fucked in couple of centuries, tops.

Dear god, I hope you're not one of those people who irrationally label people who choose to have kids as "breeders" and consider them scum. Because you definitely sound like one of those kinds of people.

 

[Phasmal]

Just because you've had kids before doesn't mean you necessarily can again.
I know a few women who have been advised not to have any more children biologically because of complications with their last pregnancy.

And either way, if they've got the money, who cares? Sure they should.
People are too quick to stick their oar in other people's business. It may offend your mum, but nobody's asking her permission.

 

[Snowbell]

I have a perfectly functioning womb (to my knowledge), but crippling depression. Carrying a baby is super stressful and I really don't want to get post-portem depression which could very well end in my death - or worse, the death of my child.

I intend to have on child surrogated because I want to have a child with my to-be husband, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Reeve]

I voted yes. So long as it doesn't come out of the taxpayers' money!!

 

[EvilRoy]

One of my bio professors many years ago brought this up as a point of discussion on a moral basis, although the question was framed more as "Is surrogating okay". It lead to a very interesting discussion, but generally boiled down to two primary questions:

1) why is the surrogate willing to do this;
2) why is the mother seeking a surrogate

In the case of 1) the problem is whether the surrogate mother is 'renting' their body as an act of desperation (money), with intention to perform criminal action (extortion, kidnapping), or as a more intrusive part time job.

In the case of 2) the questions become somewhat more difficult. If the mother seeks to employ a surrogate due to emotional, financial, or time problems the question must be asked whether this person can ethically be considered fit to act as a parent, as there may be no reason to believe these personal issues will be solved by the time the child has arrived. If the decision to employ a surrogate is based simply on comfort then there should be no problem, but unfortunately there is still more to deal with.

In terms of liability should a miscarriage occur or non-genetic disorder appear in the child, is it the responsibility of the surrogate mother? In these cases is the surrogate mother still entitled to pay despite the failure to deliver a working 'product'? Should the surrogate mother be allowed to forfeit her pay and choose not to deliver services rendered?

I can only imagine the size of the contracts one must sign in order to enter into this kind of agreement, especially given the nature of the 'product' as a living being.

 

[HardkorSB]

Anyway this got me thinking should surrogacy be an option for a fertile straight couple?

As far as I'm aware, there are more kids in need of adoption than there are parents who want to adopt a kid, otherwise surrogacy wouldn't be a thing.
Why would you want to make that gap even bigger?

 

[spartan231490]

I have a dream. I dream of a world where consenting adults will be able to do whatever the hell they want without anyone else judging them just to feel superior . . .


Yeah, that'll never happen.

 

[Dirge Eterna]

They are free to pursue that option but if it was someone I knew I would encourage them to look at adoption first. Too many people want a brand new baby and the older kids get kicked to the curb. I am adopted and my wife and I have 1 child biologically, we want to adopt a child around the same age as our son who is 6. I have always wanted to adopt even before I had a child to give someone else the opportunity to find a family. My childhood wasn't perfect but it was much better than being in an orphanage or a group home.

 

[Lieju]

Let me just read my own post now, ignore it and write something about how sexist I am, save you the trouble.

Do you think you're being sexist?

Do you live in a big city? Are you familiar with the idiom rat race? We have few children but that doesn't mean that Agent Smith didn't have a point when he outlined our survival strategy of 'spread to an area and multiply'. Simplistic, but not incorrect and certainly very obviously true when you look at the vast hordes in any major population centre.

That's true for every single species, BTW.
Also, Matrix is your source of biology?

However, that day is done and we have too many people on this rock and yet, women are only asking men to come up with new ways to give them further options to extend their baby having time to give us MORE people. That shit needs to be talk about. But we're more than happy to examine parts of male development, and societal development, and pick apart the stuff which is no longer relevant and pick apart the stuff which can be actually detrimental.

Do that with women and... Well. Yeah.

Do you think men do not want children? Do you think men do not have these same instincts to breed?
Why don't all men have vasectomies, then? Or, you know, decide not to have kids? They can do that. These days you can even have heterosexual sex without a risk of pregnancy, or so I hear.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Stop the "if both parties are okay with it"..blablabla.
Not everything is okay just because both parties agree to it. And this is messed up.

Why? Because it offends your sensibilities? What damage is it doing other then subverting your vision of the natural world?

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Let me just read my own post now, ignore it and write something about how sexist I am, save you the trouble.

Do you think you're being sexist?

Do you live in a big city? Are you familiar with the idiom rat race? We have few children but that doesn't mean that Agent Smith didn't have a point when he outlined our survival strategy of 'spread to an area and multiply'. Simplistic, but not incorrect and certainly very obviously true when you look at the vast hordes in any major population centre.

That's true for every single species, BTW.
Also, Matrix is your source of biology?

However, that day is done and we have too many people on this rock and yet, women are only asking men to come up with new ways to give them further options to extend their baby having time to give us MORE people. That shit needs to be talk about. But we're more than happy to examine parts of male development, and societal development, and pick apart the stuff which is no longer relevant and pick apart the stuff which can be actually detrimental.

Do that with women and... Well. Yeah.

Do you think men do not want children? Do you think men do not have these same instincts to breed?
Why don't all men have vasectomies, then? Or, you know, decide not to have kids? They can do that. These days you can even have heterosexual sex without a risk of pregnancy, or so I hear.

The guy assumes his own apathy towards the subject is universal. As a man who has bizarre (figuratively) yearnings for procreation, not just for the sex, but with the mind of having kids of my own, I can safely prove the opposite of his world view simply by being me. A lot of people seem to develop an aversion to Kids for some reason.

As for the Womanly Prime Directive he seems to be ranting about? I'm not going to assume anything on that since I haven't put a lot of research into it. But from personal experience I can say that most women don't let their biology dominate their lives, just as much as most men don't let their boners dominate their social interactions.

The key word is "most" here.

 

[rvbnut]

I personally believe its not a big deal, Science gives us options and if a woman chooses to use an option to avoid the hardship and sacrifice of natural birth, then that's their choice.

And it is people like you that ruin it for the people that have no other choice than to use surrogacy.

This topic is just another example of how people think they are self entitled to things that they normally wouldn't have even considered.

i say why not?
If surrogacy becomes natural for all couples, it will make it easier for people to make use of it and everyone can benefit from it.
Taking nine months out of a persons life is so demanding. If women with a sucessful career can have surrogates, they can keep making money and have kids.
I dont see what can possibly be wrong about it.

I don't even know what I just read....

So basically you are OK with some people existing to grow babies? Because that is what it sounds like.

Taking nine months out of a persons life is so demanding.

"so demanding."
If these people think that 9 months of pregnancy is such a pain to suffer through, then they certainly don't deserve to have the child(ren) that they are being lucky to gain from this process.

People who think like you, and I know that there are people that do, really need a good kick up the ass.
If you don't want to get pregnant, then don't get a surrogate, adopt. There are more than enough children already in the world that don't have their natural parents.
Personally I think that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she forfeits the right to be the mother to a child until the time such that she decides to want to be pregnant.

This mindset of 'I want everything without the hassle' is infuriating and disgusting. I'm out.

 

[Saelune]

Legally yeah....but I dont like surrogacy at all right now. But Im an adoption advocate and put little value in the "bonds of blood".

 

[JayElleBee]

I voted no. While I'm not going to advocate for fertile straight couples being banned from using surrogacy, I don't think they should. I feel like it would be very selfish and self-absorbed on their part. Not enough people are adopting children as it is. In my eyes, getting someone else to give birth to a baby made with your DNA is just vanity.

The only time when I wouldn't find it distasteful is if the woman in question was either phobic about pregnancy, or if her life could be at risk from carrying a child.

 

[gazumped]

I don't see why it's any more wrong than non-fertile/straight couples using it, but like a few other people I'm not keen on people going out of their way to bring more kids into the world and think people should adopt if they can even if they're straight and fertile.

I know a couple of people scoffed at Retrograde's doom and gloom but it's absolutely (and frighteningly) true - the world's population has TRIPLED within the last 70 years, it's insane. That's over four billion people more on the planet today than there was when some of your grandparents were born - http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

We're not going to be able sustain ourselves and it's scary.

Here's an extra link for luck. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12338901

 

[Ragsnstitches]

The guy assumes his own apathy towards the subject is universal. As a man who has bizarre (figuratively) yearnings for procreation, not just for the sex, but with the mind of having kids of my own, I can safely prove the opposite of his world view simply by being me. A lot of people seem to develop an aversion to Kids for some reason.

As for the Womanly Prime Directive he seems to be ranting about? I'm not going to assume anything on that since I haven't put a lot of research into it. But from personal experience I can say that most women don't let their biology dominate their lives, just as much as most men don't let their boners dominate their social interactions.

The key word is "most" here.

Passively aggressively avoiding talking directly TO the person they're talking ABOUT are we? Nevermind lad, one of us has strength in his conviction.

So, I'm guessing you're a guy who is just out of school (if I had to guess) in his early twenties who lacks confidence and also probably a job and girlfriend. Tell me more about being a family man.

Straighten out the following contradiction and come back to me. You say that you "prove" that I'm wrong in my assertion that female breeding instinct is far deeper and more profound than the male variety simply by telling us you're a guy who wants kids. Fair enough.

If I hadn't outright said that people like you were definitely out there you might have a point.

However, you then describe your own feelings toward reproduction as 'bizarre yearnings', which is telling, and then you also yourself say "a lot of people develop an aversion to kids".

You can call it the womanly prime directive and attack the strawman of breeding controlling lives and boners controlling interactions all you like, that's got absolutely nothing to do with what I said. But then you create the strawman and then don't burn it down because you admit you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about? Whatever kid.

Also, I think you and I have different definitions of 'rant'.

Well first off, you are awfully condescending, not exactly someone I would willingly choose as a verbal sparring partner. You are just unpleasant. That isn't a crack at you're ideals so much as how you present them. I only responded to lieju to chime in my support. Did I passively aggressively attack you? Yeah, if you take making an assumption on your standing with the subject as a passive aggressive attack then okay. I didn't say anything that directly targets you, other then claiming apathy towards kids (which is heavily inferred by your stance on the subject) and accusing you of ranting (which is evident by your deliberately confrontational attitude).

If you don't like that, I don't care. I haven't broken any rules.

Now, just out of school? I've been out of school for several years (almost 5 I think), so what is your barometer for "just". I work independently and, you are right, I'm not in any relationship currently. So 1 out of 3, good guess. Though even if you were correct on me being jobless, it's hardly a shot in the dark given the current economical crisis the world is facing. I am an exception to the norm, at least where I'm from.

I'll straighten out the contradiction very simply, by telling you I never said that. I said that my existence is proof that there is a Male biological imperative to procreate, since I have urges that are not solely sexual (Paternal instincts maybe?). That is it, that is my proof and it ended there.

The follow up was not a proof but an observation. A lot of women I know are not driven by deeply seated urges to procreate. In fact, some have a complete aversion to kids. I'll grant you that some seem completely infatuated with the idea of having a baby and babies in general. But what I have described is a pretty broad spectrum only from my own extremely limited (relatively) experience.

This is in conflict with what you said earlier.

I refuse to believe that your blanket definition, that all women are driven by a primal urge, since by my own experience that isn't the case. Just like men are not all sexual horndogs and can operate without consideration for their penis, women can operate with complete indifference to their ovaries. [/Strawman]

You make a lot of assumptions but back up none. This is why I didn't fancy confronting you.

Some minor notes because fuck it, I really don't want to continue this with you unless you change your attitude:

*I said Bizarre figuratively (I literally said it right the fuck there next to it), so congratulations on taking it literally. I'm sure it served it's purpose in your mind.

*I admit to limited knowledge and am only speaking from personal experience, which conflicts with your binary view on things. This is distinct from you who talks in absolutes but fails to support it.

*Womanly Prime Directive was a facetious statement. It sounds silly, which was exactly the point. Did I strawman you? Well, I didn't take what you said and rewrite it, I just facetiously rephrased a term you used. It hardly subverted your argument, bar highlighting certain absurdities, since I never attempted to redefine it in the first place.
In other words, your point is still there, I just undercut the weight you imposed on it.

Lastly, if you are going to respond at least do us the honour of telling us what your social standing is, since it seemed awfully important for you to define who and what I am to preface your own retort. Are you a graduate? How long? Do you have job? Do you have a girlfriend or partner?

 

[Lieju]

There are very very few women out there(of course you're one them, who isn't everything on the net?) who when push comes to shove will chose the man they love over the potential for babies.

Of course I won't. It's lesbianism for me, baby!

Practical, really, I won't have to choose between babies and a relationship since men and women apparently are so different in their approaches to mating it seems it's a wonder any heterosexual relationships work.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I don't see why it's any more wrong than non-fertile/straight couples using it, but like a few other people I'm not keen on people going out of their way to bring more kids into the world and think people should adopt if they can even if they're straight and fertile.

I know a couple of people scoffed at Retrograde's doom and gloom but it's absolutely (and frighteningly) true - the world's population has TRIPLED within the last 70 years, it's insane. That's over four billion people more on the planet today than there was when some of your grandparents were born - http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

We're not going to be able sustain ourselves and it's scary.

Here's an extra link for luck. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12338901

To be honest, I don't have an issue with Retrogrades stance, in fact I agree to an extent with some of what he said. It's his presentation I have problems with. I'm pretty sure that is what is colouring the feedback so negatively.

Now, here is my opinion on the matter. The issue of overpopulation is not evenly distributed. There are a few notable countries that are exceptional contributors to global population growth.

Scarcity, when it comes to food at least, will hit these countries HARD. But it won't affect America or Europe, unless they go above and beyond their current humanitarian efforts and I highly doubt that will happen. You see, food is distributed extremely unevenly across the world. America is the worlds (or was, I think its a european country now) fattest nation... that is not a product of impending scarcity.

The global impact will be things like environmental damage (carbon emissions, industry waste, inefficient or non existent recycling schemes etc.) and natural resource consumption (rare minerals, fossil fuels and natural gas).

Carbon emissions is a global problem that is not being treated seriously by far too many countries. This is not to blame on population, but lack of education. Industrial waste is a corporate issue and needs to be monitored and addressed by governing powers. Again, not something to blame population on. Recycling has a significant presence in education but infrastructure needs to be put in place to deal with it too... again, bot the fault of population.

As for Natural resource consumption. Given the unfathomable amount of fuel wasted over the last decade alone in war efforts, population is small fry compared to that wanton waste of resources. We're talking about multi-ton war machines guzzling fuel like it's milk at a chilli fair.

Sustenance is truly not an issue. It's misappropriate funding thats the problem. Trillions of dollars are put into Weapons and War, while clean energy and alternative energy get 10's of billions. Do you see the discrepancy in that and how they conflict? That's a significant difference in spending. While that's still a significant budget to work with, it's clear the priorities lie elsewhere.

My final point is basically to stop blaming the average joe and their family for global shortages. While they aren't helping I have very little reason to believe they are the cause.

If you are worried about your car not having fuel, look to the giant aircraft carriers and it's payload of fully fuelled fighters for where it has all gone, not Mr. and Mrs. Joesoap who wanted a child from natural birth.

If you are worried about your fridge being short on food... then I think you are hilariously misinformed. Unless you are in the poorest rural areas of china or India or Mexico, or the poorest areas of Africa, YOU won't ever see an empty fridge as long as you can afford to fill one up. Food is unevenly distributed in favour of the wealthy countries.

This doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Just think about who or what is truly to blame for it.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I don't know why they would, but if there really was a problem, like downs-syndrome having a high-chance of occuring, or said couple suffering the tragedy of a very specific terminal disease matches their genetics, then why not? I mean, it's probably pointless otherwise, but if said person really wanted to do it then they should.

But I think it's a vain and idiotic choice. While I have no other problems with the choice, there are far more children who need to be adopted, and there are other, either non-fertile or homosexual couples who would like surrogate. It's selfish, but people can do it if they want. They'll just have to live with the consequenses.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Believe it or not...

Six years long-term-basically-wife, educated professional in London, charity sector. Biggest parenting charity in the UK as a matter of fact. So I've spoken to more couples and dealt with more pregnant women and seen more babies than anyone on this forum, guaranteed.

I have a lot of time for kids, that's why I work to support parents. It's uncontrolled breeding I can't stand, because I've been working to help people with the fallout of their piss poor decision making since before you wore a school tie, and it is always, ALWAYS, the children that suffer more than anyone, and I hate that so much I decided to spend my life doing something about it.

You're the one that asked.

Great, at least we can see why you are so passionate about it now and I can respect that greatly. You didn't need to end it with "you're the one that asked" though. I'm well aware of that. Can we stop with this? Can we just talk about it without having a fit?

As I said in the above comment, I can agree with a lot of what you have to say, I just really dislike your approach to the discussion.

And I apologise now for the "apathy" remark. I clearly misinterpreted the source of your passion.

Honestly, you somehow managed to make a very noble endeavour appear totally belligerent and unnecessarily contentious. I'm going to assume your having an off day or that your heated from something else happening here or elsewhere.

Remember, this is a gaming forum... such frustration and anger really won't accomplish anything of significance other then aggravating yourself and anyone who bites the wrong end of the stick.

That's all I've got, I apologies for taking the wrong angle on this. I honestly think wires were crossed and we were too busy trying to one up to notice.