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

[madwarper]

I assume it'd be easier for the mother to bond with the child if the mother carried it herself.
So, as long as there were no health concerns, I'd say it'd be preferential not to use a surrogate.

However, if they can afford it, why not? As long as I'm not paying for it, then it doesn't concern me.
They'll just have to be prepared if the surrogate mother decides to try to keep the child.

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

I think adoption is the better option then surrogacy in most cases. But ultimately it's every person's own decision to make.

 

[Aramis Night]

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.

As someone who feels the same way about these issues as Retrograde does, and has also had plenty of flak thrown my way for similar statements, I can't blame Retrograde for his presentation at all. It has been shown over and over again that if you put yourself out here on this forum as having what is considered a controversial opinion, then all kinds of terrible assumptions are immediately assumed of you. Most of the denizens of this forum tend to be young and rather PC minded.

Sadly it seems that whenever these kinds of discussions have an actual back and forth, rather than just a feel good echo chamber vibe, people focus on characterizing the dissenters rather than making an actual attempt to understand the perspective. People on this forum are just very quick to label people dismissively because they cant stand having the sacred cow of the moment objectively analyzed.

I also think the answer to the poll should be no. I am also very concerned by the number of people we have as well as the lack of resources to support them into the future at out current rate of reproduction. I don't hate kids. The contrary in fact. It isn't enough for me to just have kids exist. I want to have them live lives not spent scraping and scrounging for a meal, or a home. The number of lives is secondary to the quality of those lives. Until we can adequately provide for those already here, we should perhaps slow down how many more we bring into this world. Otherwise its just a "misery loves company" situation and that is just selfish.

 

[Apostheum]

I voted no for a number of reasons.

Rationally, I don't really have any objections, two consenting parties. they pay out of their own pockets, but...

I just think it's selfish. It's like; They want a child, but with none of the work that comes with it. And they're willing to pay for it. It's like paying your way to a child.

As previous posters said. What happens if the child has a mental defect or is born with some hideous malformity as a result of the surrogate's body? Does the mother still have to pay the surrogate? She didn't get what she wanted, and it's a direct result of the surrogate having complications that were related to her body. Does SHE have to compensate the mother?

It's a child conceived from money, it's a product. It's a commodity. Human life must never be compared to commodity. In fact, money should NEVER be involved in the conception of a human life. I feel that the whole thing is morally disgusting. The further we go down this road, the closer we get to selective eugenics and vat-grown babies.

 

[TelHybrid]

I say yes as long as they fund the medical stuff and find their own surrogate.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Sure they should. As someone with an intense, lifelong phobia of pregnancy but who doesn't want children, I can see how this could benefit others.

 

[SmokingBomber465]

Its all about genetics--I don't want my kid to have weak genes.

Bring on the Axlotl Tanks!

 

[DugMachine]

I don't see a problem. If both parties are willing and the money is fair why not? If I was a woman I know I definitely wouldn't want to experience pregnancy, it seems highly painful.

That said, I'd rather adopt that go through a surrogate but that's just me.

 

[Charli]

...I suppose yes it should... It's the couples business. Perhaps the 'fertile' female in question is older or has health risks at bearing another child? Really it's none of your business.

Perhaps infertile couples should take priority on a 'list' but ... no they shouldn't be barred from it entirely. That's ludicrous.


I mean I'm considered 'fertile'. I could produced a child. HOWEVER, pregnancy is very risky for me. Very risky, to the point where I've sworn off it entirely. (call me selfish but I don't feel like dying to bring a child I can't really support into this world)

 

[rvbnut]

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?

Let's get this straight. In no way did I say that being a natural mother is a being a better mother.

It's a choice that shouldn't be there for healthy couples. The fear of a discomfort is not reasonable grounds for surrogacy. What do they expect raising the child to be? A fucking party? If the woman miscarries then that is another story, but a healthy woman who hasn't even attempted (or has successfully given birth already) shouldn't have this option. Adoption is a perfectly suitable compromise.

"Why is it my business?" I see this a lot on forums. A weak argument made by people who can't get over one simple fact: I have an opinion and I wish to express it.

 

[ShiningAmber]

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?

Let's get this straight. In no way did I say that being a natural mother is a being a better mother.

It's a choice that shouldn't be there for healthy couples. The fear of a discomfort is not reasonable grounds for surrogacy. What do they expect raising the child to be? A fucking party? If the woman miscarries then that is another story, but a healthy woman who hasn't even attempted (or has successfully given birth already) shouldn't have this option. Adoption is a perfectly suitable compromise.

"Why is it my business?" I see this a lot on forums. A weak argument made by people who can't get over one simple fact: I have an opinion and I wish to express it.

My argument isn't weak because it's my opinion. Two can play that card.

The fear of discomfort is reasonable grounds for surrogacy. Have you ever been pregnant? You think all women are made the same? News flash, we aren't. Every woman is different and I don't ever think the amount of stress and pain that goes with pregnancy, labor, child birth and lactating is the same as raising a child. I won't EVER believe a woman has to earn her rights by giving birth in order to opt for a surrogate later. That's just idiotic and unfair.

Now, for your adoption statement.

First you said this. I took out your statement about people thinking like I and others do deserving a kick in the ass. Mainly because it was rude and uncalled for.

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.

How can those two statements even work together? That argument isn't even logical or consistent. You said it yourself. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she forfeits the right to be a mother to a child until the time such that she decides to want to be pregnant.

But, before that you say she can just adopt. But, according to you, she forfeits the right to be a mother to a child, because she hasn't been pregnant or given birth yet. So, by that logic, a woman who hasn't even given birth (yet, if she chooses to) can't adopt, because according to you she forfeited her right to be a mother by not getting pregnant and giving birth herself in the first place.

So, if your one of those people who argue we should adopt before we surrogate because there are already so many children in the world, your wonderful plan would force women to first then birth a child themselves, so they now have the right to be mothers, then they can adopt or surrogate, because they've earned the right.

That does not make a whole lot of sense, sir.

 

[The_Echo]

Yes, of course.

There are plenty of people who might find the experience of pregnancy a nuisance (or have circumstances which might make it very impractical) not to mention biological reasons. Just because you're fertile doesn't mean you're necessarily fit to be pregnant/give birth.

 

[RicoADF]

Recently my mum found and article about a Bollywood Actor (ShahRukh Khan if anyone is interested) having a child with surrogacy, but my mum got annoyed that his wife was fertile and had two children before via natural means and she used surrogacy to have the child.

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

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. As long as the child is healthy and the parents of the child love the child, and are good parents.

I'll never understand what its like to have a child grow inside my body, but if an adoptive/gay parent can have a deep emotional connection with the child, then I think the process of giving birth to the child isn't all that important for the connection.

There are plenty of medical reasons surrogacy might be chosen, so just because their fertile and straight doesn't mean natural is the best or safest method. Also it's their lives, what right do others have to get involved in other peoples business.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

Recently my mum found and article about a Bollywood Actor (ShahRukh Khan if anyone is interested) having a child with surrogacy, but my mum got annoyed that his wife was fertile and had two children before via natural means and she used surrogacy to have the child.

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

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. As long as the child is healthy and the parents of the child love the child, and are good parents.

I'll never understand what its like to have a child grow inside my body, but if an adoptive/gay parent can have a deep emotional connection with the child, then I think the process of giving birth to the child isn't all that important for the connection.

According to Sleekit, the chick's old. She's in menopausal age, so if she is fertile still (which she most likely isn't because most women past 40 simply aren't) she's in a highly dangerous territory. 42 is not a healthy age to be having children at. There is the possibility for many complications to happen past the age of 35 when you're having a baby. Chromosomal problems increase exponentially with each passing year, so that means things like Down Syndrome. If you get pregnant at age 25, your risk of having a baby with Down syndrome, for example, is about 1 in 1,250, according to the National Institutes of Health. At age 40, the risk is 1 in 100.

Not to mention just straight up complications with the pregnancy such as preeclampsia and the more likely you are to have a prematurely born baby or just plain stillborn.

So tell your mom that Mrs. Kahn is making the absolutely BEST choice for her baby. At 42 years of age, she should NOT be having children - if she even can.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Recently my mum found and article about a Bollywood Actor (ShahRukh Khan if anyone is interested) having a child with surrogacy, but my mum got annoyed that his wife was fertile and had two children before via natural means and she used surrogacy to have the child.
Anyway this got me thinking should surrogacy be an option for a fertile straight couple?

YES!

Oh gods, yes. If I had known how awful pregnancy and giving birth were, I might have tried to find a discount surrogate.

Your mom is just pissed because she didn't think of it first.

 

[RoBi3.0]

Did the article specifically say the woman was furtile? Just because someone has had a baby or two does not mean they still can. Secondary infertility is a problem for some people. My wife was a gestational surrogate for a couple who had 2 children then found they could not have the 3rd child that they really really wanted.


OT: I think people can do what they want, especially when it does not hurt anyone, and people need to stop getting upset when others do not fit in their preconceived box of how the world should be.

 

[Lieju]

And I've got kids here being facetious, knee-jerking, being passive-aggressive being smartasses and acting like they have any clue what they're talking about, and factor in that this is the internet and what you lot think of me here is ultimately, completely beneath me, and should be beneath all of you too.

In person you'd find me a completely different man, but this isn't in person, and you're right, I wasn't feeling my most loquacious self and truthfully, these boards are FULL of teens and youngins talking shit and most of it I don't really have any quarrel with. Some of it I do, and being patient bears no fruit because honestly none of you here will give a toss a week from now, but I'll still be here, being a mean old bastard, and doing something to help the people you all care about so much, and sometimes I speak bluntly when challenged by kids. That I would do in life.

But don't think I'm bearing a grudge over here. Takes more energy to hold back than it does to just type and I'm not here to make buds with the words on my screen.

To be honest, I assumed you were a teenager yourself, which is why I didn't take you seriously.
Your post kinda sounded a lot of the kind of 'humanity sucks!' kind of a deal teenagers go through.

Maybe I was wrong, maybe you are an adult, but I can only judge you by the words you write, and since you made it clear in the very first reply to me you weren't interested in discussion, I didn't bother either.

I am and this is the one good point you've made. Why is it that when we're talking about me you read the whole text and when talking about the subject you omit some words and outright replace others.

Because you aren't interested in a discussion about the subject. Act like you respect others and maybe you will be treated similarly in return. Act like a teenager and you'll get the same response.

For the record, I never tried to insult you, for whatever that's worth. So if I came across mean, sorry.

 

[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.

To be honest with you, a little while after that post for some reason how I ended it struck me as an odd way to close, I felt like I had to put something... I wasn't inclined to edit and now I've been rightly called on it so I'll just leave it. Not that big of a deal anyway.

Look at all this from my perspective. Unlike 99% of all people I actually do care about future generations because any hope our species does have in the very near future is obviously going to come from them. But I'm not a scientist or a leader or a philosopher, but it's the only thing that really matters so I do what I can.

And I've got kids here being facetious, knee-jerking, being passive-aggressive being smartasses and acting like they have any clue what they're talking about, and factor in that this is the internet and what you lot think of me here is ultimately, completely beneath me, and should be beneath all of you too.

In person you'd find me a completely different man, but this isn't in person, and you're right, I wasn't feeling my most loquacious self and truthfully, these boards are FULL of teens and youngins talking shit and most of it I don't really have any quarrel with. Some of it I do, and being patient bears no fruit because honestly none of you here will give a toss a week from now, but I'll still be here, being a mean old bastard, and doing something to help the people you all care about so much, and sometimes I speak bluntly when challenged by kids. That I would do in life.

But don't think I'm bearing a grudge over here. Takes more energy to hold back than it does to just type and I'm not here to make buds with the words on my screen.

I never hold grudges over things like this, if you had some appalling view on things that would be different, but being so passionate about something you forget yourself is something even the best of us do, so I find it hard to hold people to it since that would be awfully hypocritical. Likewise a conflicting idea isn't something I get rattled over, since the best way for us to grow mentally is to test our convictions against others.

I have a major issue with how "discussions" are treated on this site, but there is little to be done about it. You have scholars grinding against laymen or simple ignorants and that is not constructive to a debate.

And I totally understand that last line. Sometimes the urge to butt heads is stronger then my natural tendency to avoid confrontation.

The difficulty with forums, though, is you don't really know who you are talking to. Just like I totally misread you and you partially misread me, it's dangerous to make assumptions since it can infer meaning that isn't there and lead to misunderstandings. While a sizeable population on this site are kids, quite a few are not... there are parents and professionals on here too. It's very easy to fall into condescension if you start to view everyone as a "kid". Maturity is not something properly translated via text.

Not to say there aren't shitty kids stirring things up in these kind of topics, but be scrupulous when making judgements based on that. That "kid" could have a partner and kids and a doctorate in social psychology. That person would be far more offended by someone treating them like a kid, then a kid who has never been treated like an adult.

Anyway, I'm pulling myself out of this discussion for the sake of my sanity. I'm weary of all the "controversies" that keep cropping up here.

It's nice to make amends on things after putting the wrong foot forward.