The first step towards an international instrument to abolish surrogacy.

Next a baby supermarket!
Babies can be bought for many reasons some innocent others evil but all selfish.

There are some surrogate children that oppose the practice. I’m against it as there are many children waiting to be adopted but the rules for surrogacy are less tight than for adoption.

Agree with this.

I’d say no. The definition of infertility is the “inability to achieve a successful pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular, unprotected sexual intercourse.”.

In the case of Kim K and Louise Thompson they are able to do this. They have opted not to, because they have been warned of the risks of doing so.

It should be legally in line with live organ donation - as you are essentially using someone else's body to improve your own life. All the arguments against selling organs can be applied to surrogacy. We can't buy kidneys as it is viewed as exploitation of poorer people and commodification of the human body, but people can give a kidney to a family member or relative they love. The reason it is treated differently is because society doesn't care so much if a law is only to protect women's bodies.

It's just a different type of infertility isn't it?

Louise and Kim can have children. They have opted not to, because of the significant health risks they face. I think that is different to genuine infertility where a family helps.

Familial surrogacy is likely because their fam member can't have a baby , which is the same reason why the 2 people you mentioned used one.

Why comment if you can’t have a reasoned debate?

I think there are differences - familial surrogacy, for one, and others where women who are comfortable financially do it because they do love being pregnant, but don’t want more children themselves. You do then have cases like Louise Thompson or Kim K, who use surrogates because their own body can’t handle a pregnancy, which is wrong.

You’re sure someone will correct you because you do see what’s wrong with it. So why post?

I think there needs to be a distinction though. What about cases where family members carry babies for other family members? There is no financial benefit

It might be mutually agreeable to the adults but what about the wellbeing of the baby who is conceived in the knowledge he or she will be immediately removed from their mother with all the well evidenced trauma that brings? We don’t take puppies away from their mums at birth, why humans?

I'm on the fence with non exploitative surrogacy but people will say pre natal bonding means the baby is harmed by severing that attachment at birth

If someone is paid to have a baby for someone who can't, and it its mutually agreeable why should this practice be banned. I dont agree with 3rd world women being exploited of course not. But if its all legally set out. The child grows up knowing I don't see the issue. Im sure someone will be along to enlighten me very soon 🙂