Baby Farms

jameorahiely

I was reading an article about the couple from Kerry about their journey through surrogacy.

Baby farms, as they are known as in India facilitates at lot of surrogacies. Women live in dormatory rooms for the duration of the pregnancy. With the money they're paid, the often use it to build a house. Often, they must move away from their hometown due to harassment from their neighbours.

This process raises many ethical concerns.


Should we have a cut off age for commissioning parents? Is it right a ninety year old to produce children in this manner?


Is farming women morally right? (I'd be particularly interested in vegetarians views on this)

Should we introduce baby farms here? (If we have no issue with putting Indian/Czech etc wen in this sititation, we'd have no problem with farms here)

diomed

no, no, no, no.

osarusan

jameorahiely wrote: »

Is farming women morally right? (I'd be particularly interested in vegetarians views on this)

:pac:

stimpson

jameorahiely wrote: »

Is farming women morally right? (I'd be particularly interested in vegetarians views on this)

I think dairy farming is fine as long as I can help with the milking.

Seth Brundle

jameorahiely wrote: »

Is it right a ninety year old to produce children in this manner?

A ninety year old having babies?

Ah, A Market for Babies...a rather famous and thought provoking essay in its day...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/825475?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

wakka12

jameorahiely wrote: »

I was reading an article about the couple from Kerry about their journey through surrogacy.

Baby farms, as they are known as in India facilitates at lot of surrogacies. Women live in dormatory rooms for the duration of the pregnancy. With the money they're paid, the often use it to build a house. Often, they must move away from their hometown due to harassment from their neighbours.

This process raises many ethical concerns.


Should we have a cut off age for commissioning parents? Is it right a ninety year old to produce children in this manner?


Is farming women morally right? (I'd be particularly interested in vegetarians views on this)

Should we introduce baby farms here? (If we have no issue with putting Indian/Czech etc wen in this sititation, we'd have no problem with farms here)

Why is that relevant? Those women gave consent to be 'farmed' for their babies, animals did not. Also the animals are being killed, the women arent.

technics_1210

this would suit my wife perfectly,

we want a baby but we have no free time,

as long as all parties to the contract

then i say yes,

jameorahiely

wakka12 wrote: »

Why is that relevant? Those women gave consent to be 'farmed' for their babies, animals did not. Also the animals are being killed, the women arent.

Would you like to see Baby farms set up here in Ireland, or is it only for poor women in other countries? Would you bring your kids for a visit in a Sunday afternoon for a gander?

Why stop at babies, would you like to see the market expanded to include toddlers?

Would you agree with kidney farms aswell? Consent given and no killing?



There is a more sinister side to this aswell. Interpol investigated a man who had 19 children ordered. The were wondering what he was going to do with them, traffic them or exploit them. Should we have a limit on the number of children allowed to be reared by people?

soups05

who gets to be the stud in this farm?

RobbingBandit

Thought this was a recruitment drive for super virile men needed to make the armies of tomorrow, aka project baby farm, can I get this post redacted as I've probably said too much already.

Dr Crayfish

Why are so many couples desperate to adopt? I can never really understand this. Are some women just empty voids with no purpose in life if they can't conceive? Are people looking for baby band aids for their dull and miserable marriages? Suck it up and get on with your life, the world is overpopulated anyway, the more sterile people the better!

whoopsadoodles

Damn vegetarians. Always eatin the babies.

whoopsadoodles

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Why are so many couples desperate to adopt? I can never really understand this. Are some women just empty voids with no purpose in life if they can't conceive? Are people looking for baby band aids for their dull and miserable marriages? Suck it up and get on with your life, the world is overpopulated anyway, the more sterile people the better!

Jesus. Christ.

wakka12

jameorahiely wrote: »

Would you like to see Baby farms set up here in Ireland, or is it only for poor women in other countries? Would you bring your kids for a visit in a Sunday afternoon for a gander?

Why stop at babies, would you like to see the market expanded to include toddlers?

Would you agree with kidney farms aswell? Consent given and no killing?



There is a more sinister side to this aswell. Interpol investigated a man who had 19 children ordered. The were wondering what he was going to do with them, traffic them or exploit them. Should we have a limit on the number of children allowed to be reared by people?

If somebody wanted to set it up, and there were Irish women interested in partaking then Id have no problem.
Yes, if somebody wants to give away their kidney then I also have no problem with that. Its not a smart thing to do and I think it should be very difficult for them to find a doctor to perform such an unethical surgery on them, though.

And Id put more emphasis on strict laws surrounding the adoptions, making sure the are going to safe homes, rather than simply capping a number of children allowed on it.

osarusan

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

Jesus. Christ.

shaping up to be the worst thread ever.

jameorahiely

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Why are so many couples desperate to adopt? I can never really understand this. Are some women just empty voids with no purpose in life if they can't conceive? Are people looking for baby band aids for their dull and miserable marriages? Suck it up and get on with your life, the world is overpopulated anyway, the more sterile people the better!

Harsh.

The government could give sterile people a few grand/year for a holiday (once they don't go buying babies with it, maybe give in in vouchers)

Pawwed Rig

If you believe women have agency to make their own decisions then I can't see how you can object to them using their bodies for whatever they want.

jameorahiely

wakka12 wrote: »

If somebody wanted to set it up, and there were Irish women interested in partaking then Id have no problem.
Yes, if somebody wants to give away their kidney then I also have no problem with that. Its not a smart thing to do and I think it should be very difficult for them to find a doctor to perform such an unethical surgery on them, though.

And Id put more emphasis on strict laws surrounding the adoptions, making sure the are going to safe homes, rather than simply capping a number of children allowed on it.

It's not adoption though. In the Ukraine, the surrogate has no rights over the child and from the moment of conception, the comissioning parents are the legal patemts. Technically, they own the woman for the duration of the pregancy.

jameorahiely

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If you believe women have agency to make their own decisions then I can't see how you can object to them using their bodies for whatever they want.

So you'd have no issue with a man going in and ordering 10 kids?

RobbingBandit wrote: »

10 kids think of the childrens allowance, would I have to feed the kids or could I just return them for new ones every few months.

Cumsooner laws would apply I'd imagine

Refund
Replace
Repair


But seriously, what would happen to children who were injured during birth/ not fully developed or in some way did not measure up to the comissioning patents expectations?

If the comissioning parents changed their mind half way through, would the child kust be aborted?

Dr Crayfish

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

Jesus. Christ.

He was immaculately conceived, doesn't belong in this thread

munster87

wakka12 wrote: »

Why is that relevant? Those women gave consent to be 'farmed' for their babies, animals did not. Also the animals are being killed, the women arent.

Babies are the only meat vegetarians can eat, I heard.

gctest50

jameorahiely wrote: »

..........Should we introduce baby farms here? ...........

The church here had them decades ago

jameorahiely wrote: »

.......................But seriously, what would happen to children who were injured during birth/ not fully developed or in some way did not measure up to the comissioning patents expectations?

the nuns used to dump those ones in the septic tank

ceadaoin.

jameorahiely wrote: »

But seriously, what would happen to children who were injured during birth/ not fully developed or in some way did not measure up to the comissioning patents expectations?

If the comissioning parents changed their mind half way through, would the child kust be aborted?

Pretty sure there's already been a case where the child was born with Down's syndrome and the would be parents wouldn't take the child, leaving them to be raised by the surrogate

Edit here is a link to story. The parents sound like scumbags tbh

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/baby-gammy-australian-father-who-abandoned-down-syndrome-surrogate-child-now-tries-to-access-funds-10261916.html%3Famp?client=safari

RobertKK

For some, surrogacy is the only option.

One would hope the surrogate mothers are treated properly.

infogiver

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Why are so many couples desperate to adopt? I can never really understand this. Are some women just empty voids with no purpose in life if they can't conceive? Are people looking for baby band aids for their dull and miserable marriages? Suck it up and get on with your life, the world is overpopulated anyway, the more sterile people the better!

Well here's sincerely hoping that the urge to procreate never ever comes on you. Your not fit to parent right now and possibly never will be. Children deserve better then the likes of you.
Take your own ideology and have yourself sterilised ASAP.

ohnonotgmail

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If you believe women have agency to make their own decisions then I can't see how you can object to them using their bodies for whatever they want.

The key word in that sentence is the if.

jameorahiely

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Pretty sure there's already been a case where the child was born with Down's syndrome and the would be parents wouldn't take the child, leaving them to be raised by the surrogate

Edit here is a link to story. The parents sound like scumbags tbh

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/baby-gammy-australian-father-who-abandoned-down-syndrome-surrogate-child-now-tries-to-access-funds-10261916.html%3Famp?client=safari

That's a very disturbing story. Surrogacy is banned in most of Europe. I don't know why we'd entertain it. Cases like this would only become more prevalent.

jameorahiely

jameorahiely wrote: »

Would you like to see Baby farms set up here in Ireland, or is it only for poor women in other countries? Would you bring your kids for a visit in a Sunday afternoon for a gander?

Why stop at babies, would you like to see the market expanded to include toddlers?

Would you agree with kidney farms aswell? Consent given and no killing?

There is a more sinister side to this aswell. Interpol investigated a man who had 19 children ordered. The were wondering what he was going to do with them, traffic them or exploit them. Should we have a limit on the number of children allowed to be reared by people?

On the other hand, if it was all legalised and above board...is there anything more fantastic than the idea that couples who desperately want to have a child but are unlucky get to have what they dream of, and presumably give a child a chance at life if they are rich enough to afford surrogacy, and someone who is willing to give up their body for the best part of a year is richly rewarded? My only issue with it, once it was all legal, is that it would be denied to those who can't afford it.

jameorahiely

Deleted User wrote: »

On the other hand, if it was all legalised and above board...is there anything more fantastic than the idea that couples who desperately want to have a child but are unlucky get to have what they dream of, and presumably give a child a chance at life if they are rich enough to afford surrogacy, and someone who is willing to give up their body for the best part of a year is richly rewarded? My only issue with it, once it was all legal, is that it would be denied to those who can't afford it.

The price of it would increase dramatically. What Irish woman would do it for 8,000 payment? You'd get more than that on the dole.

jameorahiely

wakka12 wrote: »

If somebody wanted to set it up, and there were Irish women interested in partaking then Id have no problem.
Yes, if somebody wants to give away their kidney then I also have no problem with that. Its not a smart thing to do and I think it should be very difficult for them to find a doctor to perform such an unethical surgery on them, though.

And Id put more emphasis on strict laws surrounding the adoptions, making sure the are going to safe homes, rather than simply capping a number of children allowed on it.

Why is removing a kidney with consent unethical?

gctest50

jameorahiely wrote: »

That's a very disturbing story. Surrogacy is banned in most of Europe. I don't know why we'd entertain it. Cases like this would only become more prevalent.

For sure - there is a more disturbing side to it

If the doctor implants multiple fertilised eggs the surrogate would ( more than likely ) be contractually required to do "selectively reduction"
- same in the case of an anomaly

Maybe the reason she refused was she saw Gammy as her golden ticket to make money

jameorahiely

jameorahiely wrote: »

The price of it would increase dramatically. What Irish woman would do it for 8,000 payment? You'd get more than that on the dole.

Was more thinking of parents in the Western world, and mothers from developing countries.

andekwarhola

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Why are so many couples desperate to adopt? I can never really understand this. Are some women just empty voids with no purpose in life if they can't conceive? Are people looking for baby band aids for their dull and miserable marriages? Suck it up and get on with your life, the world is overpopulated anyway, the more sterile people the better!

Spreading the compassion. Good man yourself.

ceadaoin.

gctest50 wrote: »

For sure - there is a more disturbing side to it

If the doctor implants multiple fertilised eggs the surrogate would ( more than likely ) be contractually required to do "selectively reduction"
- same in the case of an anomaly

Maybe the reason she refused was she saw Gammy as her golden ticket to make money

It says in the article that apparently it wasn't detected until too far along in the pregnancy, otherwise the parents would have insisted on an abortion

gctest50

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It says in the article that apparently it wasn't detected until too far along in the pregnancy, otherwise the parents would have insisted on an abortion

You couldn't believe their radio :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/husband-in-thai-surrogacy-row-served-jail-time-for-indecently-dealing-with-a-child-9648200.html

She alleged that the couple sent a message via her doctors asking her to abort Gammy after he was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome. Ms Pattaramon, a food vendor who says the Australian couple agreed to pay her £5,550 to deliver their baby, claimed she refused an abortion because it contravened her beliefs.

jameorahiely

gctest50 wrote: »

You couldn't believe their radio :

The judge was not convinced they asked for an abortion

"I am not persuaded that the Farnells ever asked for Mrs Chanbua to have an abortion...nevertheless, Mrs Chanbua gained the impression that the Farnells only wanted the 'healthy' baby," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/14/baby-gammy-was-not-abandoned-in-thailand-court-rules/

gctest50

Do you think it's better way to "get an upgrade" than claiming HAP and getting a e20,000 car ?









nice floor tiles :

jameorahiely

gctest50 wrote: »

Do you think it's better way to "get an upgrade" than claiming HAP and getting a e20,000 car ?







nice floor tiles :
]

: :pac:

Are the floor tiles thrown in to the package?

gctest50

jameorahiely wrote: »

The judge was not convinced they asked for an abortion ...............

It's a complete mess, Jimmy Saville there wouldn't be the most reliable :

David Farnell, 56, a convicted child sex offender and the biological father of the boy, Gammy, told Channel Nine he and his wife Wendy had "wanted to bring him with us".


"We never said you (Pattaramon) can have this baby, no matter what," said an emotional David Farnell.

The couple claimed Pattaramon wanted to keep the girl and said they left Thailand without Gammy because "we were getting scared that we would lose her too and we had to try and get her out"


http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/australian-couple-thai-baby-scandal-want-boy-back

jameorahiely

gctest50 wrote: »

It's a complete mess, Jimmy Saville there wouldn't be the most reliable :

Yes it's a total mess. If the surrogate mother didn't keep Gammy, I wonder what would happen to the child


The it's shocking the Australian Court let the sex offender keep the child. But expect more weirdo's on tour to get babies if we legalise it here.

Johnboner

Breeding is always good, more population means better economy. I fully support breeding camps.

mosi

Deleted User wrote: »

On the other hand, if it was all legalised and above board...is there anything more fantastic than the idea that couples who desperately want to have a child but are unlucky get to have what they dream of, and presumably give a child a chance at life if they are rich enough to afford surrogacy, and someone who is willing to give up their body for the best part of a year is richly rewarded? My only issue with it, once it was all legal, is that it would be denied to those who can't afford it.

If they want to give a child a chance at life, they would be better off adopting a child instead of creating a new one.

Pawwed Rig

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

He was immaculately conceived, doesn't belong in this thread

That was Mary. It always amazes me that people raised as catholics don't know this.

mosi

mosi wrote: »

If they want to give a child a chance at life, they would be better off adopting a child instead of creating a new one.

But some couples don't want to adopt. Some want the genetic link. And adoptions can be fraught with difficulty and there can be significant psychological issues as the child wrestles with the feeling of rejection by his or her natural parents, identity issues etc.

neonsofa

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That was Mary. It always amazes me that people raised as catholics don't know this.

Many people raised as catholics had no interest in the religion that was selected for them. It doesn't surprise me at all.

Pawwed Rig

neonsofa wrote: »

Many people raised as catholics had no interest in the religion that was selected for them. It doesn't surprise me at all.

Regardless of interest after 13 years of classes you would think something would stick.

Dr Crayfish

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That was Mary. It always amazes me that people raised as catholics don't know this.

I wasn't raised as Catholic and this has confused me now

Widdershins

jameorahiely wrote: »

Would you like to see Baby farms set up here in Ireland, or is it only for poor women in other countries? Would you bring your kids for a visit in a Sunday afternoon for a gander?

Why stop at babies, would you like to see the market expanded to include toddlers?

Would you agree with kidney farms aswell? Consent given and no killing?



There is a more sinister side to this aswell. Interpol investigated a man who had 19 children ordered. The were wondering what he was going to do with them, traffic them or exploit them. Should we have a limit on the number of children allowed to be reared by people?

A man had 19 children ''ordered''. That does sound sinister.

What kind of screening is in place for prospective parents of the children of surrogates?

neonsofa

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Regardless of interest after 13 years of classes you would think something would stick.

Perhaps plenty stuck, just not the immaculate conception. Also, i know we didnt learn about mary, it was all about jesus so we never actually learned about the immaculate conception, im sure there are plenty more like myself. I hated Irish, can barely speak a word of it now despite doing it every day. It's really not something people need to know.

ohnonotgmail

neonsofa wrote: »

Perhaps plenty stuck, just not the immaculate conception. Also, i know we didnt learn about mary, it was all about jesus so we never actually learned about the immaculate conception, im sure there are plenty more like myself. I hated Irish, can barely speak a word of it now despite doing it every day. It's really not something people need to know.

you did RE in school and they never mentioned the immaculate conception? I find that very hard to believe given that is an important tenet in catholic teaching.