Thursday February 16, 2012

Order by Time Order by Popularity

20 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    chibaman

    I'm willing to help out.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    There are biological circumstances that make it necessary for couples wanting families. I see nothing ethically wrong with it.

  • 0

    TPOJ

    Why would anyone protest? o_0

    Yeah, there can be complications. There can be complications from buying a sandwich at a convenience store.

  • 0

    cleo

    When the world's orphanages are all empty, the global population is falling and there is a shortage of babies needing love and care, then I will understand the need for surrogate births.

  • 0

    badge123

    JT needs to ask better questions, like "Whats your stance on surrogate births and immigration status of the child". If I recall there was a case last year or something on that matter?

  • 0

    serindipity

    The biggest problem I know of with surrogacy is, quite often the surrogate mothers do not want to give up the child. It would be a very difficult thing to do for some people. Adoption is a completely different argument.

  • 0

    buttamimi

    I do believe that in India it is becoming a thriving business, along with organ donating. So, I guess it's a good thing. It gives people job opportunities and satisfies an essential customer demand.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    I'm 100% for adoption, but I also understand that it's foolish to question the powerful drive to have your own genetic offspring. Having one's "own" children, even if via surrogacy, isn't something to laugh off as frivolous or selfish.

  • 0

    Azrael

    I fully agree with Mrs. Cleo on this subject, and also with Notginger.

  • 0

    IchyaParadise

    My god I am agreeing with serindipity...it is very true that the surrogate mother has trouble giving up the child. They can also get a different version of post partum blues. Adoption is a totally different subject. Having someone bring life into this world for you is a very difficult process. All the paper work, support, time and effort to get this done is very taxing on both the parents and the surrogate mother. It may be selfish to want one's own offspring, but to call it ego-centric? I am pretty sure you are not even aware of the difficulties of natural child birth and then assissted. Before passing judgement of otheres, consider what hardships they have gone through before they moved onto this next step.

  • 0

    Philosophy187

    TPOJ,

    Wow that was very commonly real - thanks. I myself being of the male persuasion would not want my girlfriend to ruin her water tight integrity to have a child unless she realizes the concrete sacrifice it involves. I see women all the time wondering why did he do it- they realllly don't get it. I approve of a surrogate mother because I am selfish.

  • 0

    CMEANDU26

    It's not selfish. It is a choice that a person has. Just like abortion. You can't tell someone they have to have the child it is their choice. If you force people to have to adopt then people will probably chose to not adopt and just not worry about kids. Isn't the goal to increase the population? Wouldn't it be better if people had a choice on what type of kid they are going to raise?

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    I'm sorry. I'm just not ready to lump the instinctual drive to procreate into the "selfish" basket.

    If one were to be literal about it being the ultimate expression of "self," then yes, passing one's DNA along via a process dictated, indeed mandated, by evolution would fit the bill.

    But "selfish," as in "a person who choses to find some way to pass on their genetic self is a hearless bastard for not pushing aside aside instinct in favor of adopting children from orphanages?" I don't think so.

    I'm one of 9 adopted children. My mother couldn't have children due to an illness in her early twenties. Had she and my adoptive father lived in a time where the medical means for having a child through surrogacy existed, I certainly wouldn't hold it against them for doing so, even if it may have resulted in me not being adopted by them. To see the fruits of a genetic union with someone you love may be an expression of self, but it's not a malicious abandonment of children waiting for adoption. It's instict and as natural an urge to the human condition as the drive to eat and sleep.

    To suggest, demand even, that people who chose surrogacy give up an inalienable right to genetically linked offspring, via whatever method, a right that couples not experiencing conception issues take wholly for granted, is shockingly unfair. I'm actually rather suprised that, in this day and age, anyone would suggest, of all the possible reasons not to support surrogacy, that unclaimed children in orphanages would garner such a round of applause.

    To suggest that the full orphanages of the world, the rising population, and the sad reality of an disturbing number of unloved children in the world is something parents looking to surrogacy are responsible for is also patently unfair. The logical progression stands to reason that if one is going to level that gun at surrogacy-seeking parents, then parents who chose to have children the "traditional" way are also selfish bastards.

    Do you fit the category of selfish bastard for not chosing to adopt rather than having your daughter, Mrs. Cleo? Anyone else here feel like a bout of self-loathing for having children naturally? Because that's essentially the same yardstick by which you should be measured if the "overflowing orphanages" argument is to be applauded and accepted.

  • 0

    cleo

    LFRAgain -

    Sorry, but I think you've taken a rather tiny molehill and turned it into a very craggy and unscalable mountain.

    Nowhere did I say that people who choose surrogacy as a way of building a family are selfish, malicious or heartless bastards responsible for overflowing orphanages, or that natural parents need to be self-loathing. Having produced two kids the traditional way, I am fully aware of the pride, joy and happiness to be gained from bouncing a bit of your own DNA on your knee, and I feel sad for the people who cannot hope to do that. But if I hadn't been able to have my own, and I still wanted children, I would have considered adoption, not a made-to-order baby.

    For social resources in the form of welfare services, medical services, legal services and whatnot to be tied up in the cause of giving barren couples a blood-related child when there are already children in need of a home is, I think, a distortion of priorities. There is no "inalienable right to genetically linked offspring, via whatever method". Where biology is concerned, there are no inalienable rights, only hopes and fears and doing the best you can. If I get ill, then I expect society to play some small part in helping me to get better (yes, I'm a socialist); but I certainly do not have an 'inalienable right' not to develop cancer, or to be six inches taller than I'm biologically programmed to be, however much I might like that. No one has an 'inalienable right' to have children.

    As an aside, this bothers me a bit - via whatever method. You don't really mean that, do you?

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    Cleo,

    Just to be clear, 1) A large percentage of my post is addressed to the posters who jumped aboard your original statement and took in directions I found troubling. That you got caught up in my ire was unintentional. 2) I don’t even remotely believe you or anyone who would have children naturally are selfish bastards for doing so. I’m just making an outrageous point regarding the fallacy in your logic regarding surrogacy and the opinions from other posters that it provoked.

    But if I hadn't been able to have my own, and I still wanted children, I would have considered adoption, not a made-to-order baby.

    That's you, Cleo. Not everyone. While I admire your nobility, unless you've been faced with infertility yourself, I don't think you can actually presume to know how parents who are faced with it would, could, or should feel.

    Also, I believe this particular craggy mountain started with, “When the world's orphanages are all empty, the global population is falling and there is a shortage of babies needing love and care, then I will understand the need for surrogate births.”

    Correct me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to be saying that people seeking surrogacy don’t need to because they have an alternative source of children in orphanages or, presumably, among babies in need of love (not quite sure how a surrogacy couple is going to address that particular problem by eschewing to have children), or quite possibly, avoiding having children altogether because the global population that isn’t falling. Would that be a fair assessment?

    If so, then I’m saying that it’s blatantly unfair to not hold people having children via “traditional” means to the same criteria, i.e., “When the world's orphanages are all empty, the global population is falling and there is a shortage of babies needing love and care, then I will understand the need for people to have children.”

    It seems only reasonable that parents like yourself should be held to the exact same logic for choosing to have children naturally to the detriment of children in orphanages.

    Subsequently applying the same logic to parents like you that procreate(d) “normally,” they would just be “wasting time and effort” (clearly not the case for parents with a new child from a successful surrogacy – Just ask them if it was a waste of time when they’re hold that child in their arms) or acting “selfishly,” if posters agreeing with your original statement are to be believed.

    In other words, anyone and everyone who seeks to have children that express the parents’ genetic traits is somehow doing something wrong in not choosing instead to empty the world’s orphanages, direct their energies to unloved babies, or better yet, avoid having kids at all. In other words all parents who have or want to have genetically linked offspring are impossible to understand.

    And I’m saying that’s not only unrealistic, but unfair.

    To be clear, I believe people have an inalienable right to try to procreate. Just as people have an inalienable right to try to stay healthy, i.e., having access to preventative healthcare. Just as people have an inalienable right to assistance in the unfortunate event they do fall ill (I'm quite the socialist myself).

    But not having a right to procreate? There is no more fundamental expression of our existence than the biological imperative to propagate the species. Having been given the biological tools to do just that, if a person has the means and opportunity to do so, then I see no reason to question their priorities, should they choose surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, or traditional methods.

    Also, when I say, "by whatever means," I’m referring to the methods mentioned in the scope of this particular debate, namely "traditional" childbirth, and surrogacy. I'm not talking about anything else. I’m not certain what nightmare scenarios you envisioned, but if you’d like to mention them, I’m willing to listen.

    To address your concern about unloved and uncared-for babies, I make the same argument that I would for those who choose to adopt: If would-be parents are willing to go through the time, trouble, and expense of surrogacy, then odds are fairly high that the child they ultimately have will be loved and taken care of, more so, in some cases, than the children of couples whose foray into the world of parenting began with, “Oops.”

    Just to clear something up for myself, what exactly is it you think surrogacy is comprised of, when you say “made-to-order baby?” A pen and a checklist with a Method-of-Payment box at the bottom of the form? Most couples who choose the long, complicated path of surrogacy do so when all other methods have been exhausted. It sounds like you're suggesting that the average couple wanting a child via surrogacy after years of failing at other methods is somehow being frivolous, or that they will receive a child with hand-picked traits, a la the SF film “Gattica.” Again, what is it about surrogacy that makes you think it so, I don't know, frivolous?

  • 0

    Philosophy187

    LFRagain,

    Wow your reply looks like a college excerpt - if you are that serious you should not be here you should go out and do something about it - or calm down - after al this is PUBLIC DOMAIN.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    Ahh, but you read it. I could ask for nothing less.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    Or would "more" be more apt?

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in Have Your Say

View all

View all