To not understand the issue with surrogacy?

[Blackbird1234]

I've seen a few posts on some threads in this topic, from people condemning surrogacy. I don't understand why it is seen as bad, if all parties consent. Can anyone explain, please?

Joke all you want @Helleofabore but that name has been banned and whilst someone has resurrected it, I wouldn’t keep jumping in the playground circle with it, because they are obviously perceived to have extreme views ( and were banned) carry on though hen…..

Yes. Lang Cleg was banned and the board was poorer for the banning. Lang Cleg was a safeguarding expert.

I would like to know what extreme views you are attributing to her? Be very specific please.

You might realise that there are a number of posters who reference Lang Cleg in their name. It is not against any MN posting guidelines to do so.

So, please do be specific- what did Lang Cleg post that was extreme. Her posts are still active on many many threads so you can easily research them.

Is ‘hen’ meant to be another insult? Are you calling me ‘chicken’? I don’t think I have showed a fear of posting at all.

@Helleofabore

So what do you suggest??

Children’s homes? No adoptions at all…..?

Are you confusing me with someone else?

Or just determined that I am in the wrong with everything I post?

Nobody has said adoption should not happen. Starcup is continuing with her pretence (?) that she doesn't understand the difference between surrogacy and adoption.

KimikosNightmare

I does seem like we circled around again…

Thanks for clarifying. I didn’t recall anyone saying adoptions should be banned, or anything like that about adoption, but I have not read every single thread.

@zweisamkeit

I just wanted to ask people to read this:

www.fertilityiq.com/topics/cost/how-i-saved-usd50-000-on-surrogacy

An article about "saving money" when using a surrogate, as if she's going through the process of buying a car or other such commodity. Now, while I recognise this may be an extreme example, how can anyone defend a process that can cause such a detached and transactional way to speak about another woman and another life?

Jesus fucking wept.

Open to negotiations
First timer
Open to negotiations
Older and overlooked
Open to negotiations
Ball park figure, agency will sort it
Open to negotiations

My favourite, pick a surrogate that doesn't have a job and make surrogacy her "job".

Not only you can avoid pesky costs like lost wages, but she'll probably be desperate enough if she's jobless. More open to negotiations too.

Every single post on the thread.

Apologies.

[quote Bunnyfuller]@Starcup

Are you saying I am mistaken in how I feel? As in I am suffering, I just don’t know it?!

I’m aware lots of people think the process of removing a baby from the birth mum is damaging. If you look into early history this was often the case and babies were raised by the tribe generally, often not even breast fed by their bio mum. I think sometimes we look for issues as a rule rather than the exception.

There are a million reasons a child may not be raised by bio parents, and it isn’t a negative thing by default. The one thing that actually pisses me off about being adopted, is those outside it assuming it is somehow ‘less’.[/quote]
Bunny, I agree with you.

Please take the time to read the last few pages of the thread and know I completely agree with you.

My disgruntlement is with those that think smackheads, :abusive/shit parents (or those than can’t put their kids first) should get to keep them because they’re biologically related…..

I know it’s a minefield of those that think they know best

@zweisamkeit

I just wanted to ask people to read this:

www.fertilityiq.com/topics/cost/how-i-saved-usd50-000-on-surrogacy

An article about "saving money" when using a surrogate, as if she's going through the process of buying a car or other such commodity. Now, while I recognise this may be an extreme example, how can anyone defend a process that can cause such a detached and transactional way to speak about another woman and another life?

Thank you for posting .

The dehumanisation is very clear isn’t it? third-party reproduction
FFS.

My disgruntlement is with those that think smackheads, :abusive/shit parents (or those than can’t put their kids first) should get to keep them because they’re biologically related…..

Not one single person has said that on this thread. From what I've seen on other threads I doubt it happened anywhere else either.

You completely made that up.

For future reference, Questioning something (or the effects of it) , doesn't mean you want banned or that you agree with/support any and all worse alternative scenarios.

My disgruntlement is with those that think smackheads, :abusive/shit parents (or those than can’t put their kids first) should get to keep them because they’re biologically related…..

Actually, I don’t believe anyone has stayed this. I think you will find that every time you raised it, the focus was attempted to be brought back to surrogacy.

I, along with many others on the thread I am sure, would expect that professionals with excellent safeguarding experience would use the existing laws to make decisions about each and every case of abusive family situations. And would also look at the best resources to support the child and the family.

But I don’t believe that your comparison is relevant to surrogacy, and I was not alone in pointing that out.

As we kept pointing out the major differences between adoption and surrogacy. Although there may be intersecting issues, they are two different things.

I am happy to repeat the difference, yet again.

So let me ask you all this -

you have a scenario whereby the biological parents won’t/can’t comply with SS and the interests of the child. (Drug adddicts, alcoholics, situations of abuse…)

They are removed…..

They are place within a family that van provide for them physically and emotionally.,physical ok that they have their own room etc…. Emotionally in that they don’t misuse substances etc…..

Now, unless the parents can become ‘clean’ would you honestly argued that they should be kept with their birth parents every time…

If so, I’m soo pleased that it’s not your choice

This thread is about surrogacy.

Your constant attempts to derail it probably is a very good indication that you need to start your own thread about these issues.

@Helleofabore

Isn’t it weird? Lang Cleg was a safeguarding expert. Extreme views?

So safeguarding falls under extreme views. That seems about right. You have continued to call the posters keen on discussing safeguarding measures ‘extremist’.

It keeps showing itself up on various subjects doesn't it?

Safeguarding = extremism.

For what purpose would you make that link? Who benefits? And who does not?

It sums up everything and the motives of those who do it perfectly.

No need to say more on the subject on this thread to those doing it.

What? In safeguarding women and children?

Why are you not interested in establishing the best safeguarding guidelines and processes for women and children?

Don’t be shy amongst friends…. Tell us how you disagree with IVF……

You really cannot post without insulting people who disagree with you it seems.

While telling us all to be respectful (oh… that’s right, I don’t deserve respect).

Why not take the time to read Lang Cleg’s posts and let us know what was so extremist about them?

@Helleofabore

Every single post on the thread.

Apologies.

Don’t apologise, we all like like knobs sometimes…..

You’re welcome 😇

I will leave to look up Lang’s posts. Everyone else has gone to bed.

I think we get the message.

Starcup doesn't believe in safeguarding women and kids.

Safeguarding is extremism.

Women advocating safeguarding are extremists.

Queer theory and neoliberalism can get to fuck.

Lets talk about reproductive prostitution, human trafficking, commodification of babies, coercive control, exploitation of the poor and foreign, buying babies, the dumping of imperfect 'goods' etc etc

Cos starcup gets offended by the mere suggestion of these things.

Its almost as if, if you don't talk about them or acknowledge them they can't exist abd then surrogacy is a perfect happy ever after.

Remind me again why safeguarding is bad? Is it because it reminds the over privileged of the dark side in life and the things that their uber privilege is built upon.

We are busy tearing down statues but hell go for your fucking life about safeguarding. There really are times i dont think we have moved on from the Victorian era and learnt the lesson of genocide. At all.

@Starcup

So let me ask you all this -

you have a scenario whereby the biological parents won’t/can’t comply with SS and the interests of the child. (Drug adddicts, alcoholics, situations of abuse…)

They are removed…..

They are place within a family that van provide for them physically and emotionally.,physical ok that they have their own room etc…. Emotionally in that they don’t misuse substances etc…..

Now, unless the parents can become ‘clean’ would you honestly argued that they should be kept with their birth parents every time…

If so, I’m soo pleased that it’s not your choice

Once again no one on this thread has stated or even suggested this. Adoption has only been mentioned tangentially and wasn't really debated in favour or against.

However, going by your latest post I guess you switched tactics to " post a lot of nonsense to get to 1k and get the thread shut."

All this is is people who don't understand or give a fuck about human rights who instead dress up misfortune as a violation of their rights so they can justify shitting all over someone else.

Trojan horses.

@ldontWanna

My disgruntlement is with those that think smackheads, :abusive/shit parents (or those than can’t put their kids first) should get to keep them because they’re biologically related…..

Not one single person has said that on this thread. From what I've seen on other threads I doubt it happened anywhere else either.

You completely made that up.

For future reference, Questioning something (or the effects of it) , doesn't mean you want banned or that you agree with/support any and all worse alternative scenarios.

So you tell tell me chick, do SS remove children from parents who are ‘accountants’ and have degrees with no substance misuse, no abusive ex’s they keep going back to and the simply remove children ‘because they can’

Ffs don’t tell me you are agree with the last effing sentence….

Going to bed and leaving flappy head to prove my point.