Wanting to have kids

frostyjacks

wakka12 wrote: »

So don't think of them as incubators. They're not inanimate objects, they are helping a couple who can't conceive. Its a beautiful thing and shouldn't make you uncomfortable.

If surrogate mothers were doing it for purely altruistic reasons, it could be argued to be a beautiful thing. But they're doing it for profit. There's something grubby about the buying and selling of babies; it's perfectly reasonable to feel uncomfortable about it.

mattP

frostyjacks wrote:

If surrogate mothers were doing it for purely altruistic reasons, it could be argued to be a beautiful thing. But they're doing it for profit.

Thats a pretty rash generalisation to make, dont you think?

wakka12

frostyjacks wrote: »

If surrogate mothers were doing it for purely altruistic reasons, it could be argued to be a beautiful thing. But they're doing it for profit. There's something grubby about the buying and selling of babies; it's perfectly reasonable to feel uncomfortable about it.

Slight generalisation no? I only know of one surrogate mother personally and she conceived for her best friend and her husband who were unable to have a child of their own.

frostyjacks

wakka12 wrote: »

Slight generalisation no? I only know of one surrogate mother personally and she conceived for her best friend and her husband who were unable to have a child of their own.

I think you were generalising when you said surrogacy was a beautiful thing. It's big business, which reduces women to baby-making factories. Exploits women in the third world as well.

Annasopra

If you want a debate on the morality of surrogacy try the humanities forum

Hexen

frostyjacks wrote: »

If surrogate mothers were doing it for purely altruistic reasons, it could be argued to be a beautiful thing. But they're doing it for profit. There's something grubby about the buying and selling of babies; it's perfectly reasonable to feel uncomfortable about it.

Surrogacy laws differ by country. In Ireland there's no legal framework, if one comes in it is likely to make commercial surrogacy illegal. In many countries it is illegal whether commercial or altruistic (France, Italy). Other countries allow surrogacy only if it is non-commerical (Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK - expenses are covered in the UK). Some countries allow both altruistic and non-commercial surrogacy (India, Georgia).

It is a big business in India but I guess that is not relevant to this thread as under legislation passed there in 2013 it is illegal to act as a surrogate for same-sex couples (or unmarried, or single people).

martinjudge73

frostyjacks wrote: »

If surrogate mothers were doing it for purely altruistic reasons, it could be argued to be a beautiful thing. But they're doing it for profit. There's something grubby about the buying and selling of babies; it's perfectly reasonable to feel uncomfortable about it.

Yes.. that was the point I was making because I was digitally killed. Who could imagine gay people are so unfriendly to other LGBT people.

Annasopra

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If you want a debate on the morality of surrogacy try the humanities forum

Further debates on surrogacy will be deleted.

OldNotWIse

martinjudge73 wrote: »

I don't think ANYONE should buy a child. Unless its someone who carries the baby for free using the genetic material of the Father and Mother who will raise the child. (like a women carrying a child for her sister)

Children are not commodities.. and Gay couples trying to fill a void create other issues for the Child who was designed not to have father or mother.

Gay couples adopting did not deny the child anything, they are just being open to helping when nobody else wants to.

Children placed for adoption are some kind of charity cause now? They're more likely to be from a woman who is incredibly selfless and has made an impossible, difficult decision to give up a baby that she has carried for nine months for reasons only she has the right to base her decision on, and a couple who clearly desperately want a child and have gone through the nightmare of the screening and processing of prospective parents.


I don't see any "charity" in that, nor do I fully understand you reasoning behind why, if you think having gay parents is so bad, that it's acceptable for a child who has been placed for adoption to be given to them? Are they lesser beings? I don't agree with you that a child needs a parent of both sex, but why does your argument not extend to children placed for adoption? Are they on the scrap heap? Give them to the gays because nobody wanted them?

OldNotWIse

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Yes.. that was the point I was making because I was digitally killed. Who could imagine gay people are so unfriendly to other LGBT people.

How dare gay people not be one big happy, rainbow coloured family....