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

[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.

 

[Lieju]

Look at the divorce stats. They don't. Huzzah!

Well, like half of them do.

Also, assuming you actually are a lesbian and aren't just being cute, can I just say how brilliant it is that a woman who has no sexual attraction or intent to build life with men still wants babies, and that same person is trying to tell me that a womans drive for said babies isn't the thing that wins out when there is a clash between babies and love with a man, and I'm just sort of full of shit. That men aren't given a choice between 'build your life around the children she wants to have and like it' or 'live a bachelor and die alone'.

Why are you assuming I want to have children?

Also, it's you who are claiming men don't want children and are pressured into it. That happens, sure, but it happens the other way too. I never said a lot of women don't want kids, but I'm not buying all men (or most men) don't, or that women don't care for their children.

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.

Think about it. Maybe you're seeing the worst parts all the time, and that colours your experience? If you in fact are telling the truth.

Also, I have tp point out that ranting like this:

Men get absolutely no biological feedback from having babies. A man might want to build a family, follow in his fathers footsteps, build his own legacy, but the blind creation of spawn without any ability to feed or protect it, yeah, that's female, and I'm not talking about you here since you aren't the indian mother of 14, of which 5 die but that's alright there's more where that came from and you've still got 9 to work and make sure you don't die too fast once old age hits.

on the Internet might not make the best point.

Also I must say that if you're indeed working with people like that (and not making up stuff) I'm a bit worried how those attitudes affect your work.

 

[ShiningAmber]

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.

Why does the woman have to be pregnant and give birth to be an official mother to you? Is that some badge we women have to earn? What about men? I don't see them being pregnant and giving birth, but they get the automatic father award.

Why don't you let women make their own choices? Is it so shocking that maybe a woman can't handle being pregnant? Is it so shocking that a heterosexual woman may miscarry and desire a surrogate who consents to do the pregnancy and birth? Why is it any of your business what people choose to do?

How does being the one who gives birth make you a better mother? My boyfriend grew up a step mother. His step mother hasn't ever had children. Does that make her a bad mother to you? She was his mother since he was a child. She took care of him and loved him. But, she didn't get her pregnancy and birthing badge, she's not a real mother.

Even if the woman can handle pregnancy and birth, it's her choice, NOT YOURS. If she can pay the surrogate, who the hell cares? Why is it even your business?

 

[Agayek]

It definitely shouldn't be paid for by the public dollar, but there's nothing inherently wrong with surrogacy for straight, fertile couples. My only concern is that the birthing mother would need to know ahead of time exactly what she's getting into and be ready and willing to surrender the child and cut all ties with them. There's definite emotional issues involved with that part, and if the woman regrets it afterwards, things can get really, really ugly.

If everyone involved can get around that though, I think it'd be fine.

 

[gazumped]

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.

Well, not my fridge, but that's why if you're serious about adopting for good then you take the kids out of the poorest countries! Easier to bring them to the less populated, better fed areas than to send the food over to them for the rest of their lives.

But yeah, I certainly wouldn't say your average Joe is the cause and I'm certainly not going to judge anyone for having babies just like I don't judge people for not donating to charity or drinking Coca Cola (the latter two would make me a massive hypocrite anyway), it's just that there are choices that might better benefit people. But then, isn't there always?

 

[Shock and Awe]

As long as they are paying for it and not their insurance or the government.

 

[Lieju]

Well, not my fridge, but that's why if you're serious about adopting for good then you take the kids out of the poorest countries! Easier to bring them to the less populated, better fed areas than to send the food over to them for the rest of their lives.

It strikes me as a better alternative to help ensure there are less kids born in situations where they'll starve.

Also the whole 'adopting from developing countries' sounds like a good idea, but there are risks involved. If it's not regulated and monitored, there's a risk it will lead to children being sold and even kidnapped or given birth to just to sell to adoption. And if it's well-regulated, it will make it more expensive.

Of course, if you're talking about immigration of not just the kids but also their families, that's different.