California commodifies women and babies for gay men

[collateral]

(100) Telling it Like it is Without the Gaslighting (substack.com)

Lots of laughing emojis about serious, ethical, non-laughing matters.

Seems a bit ruffled. Defensive.

I didn’t interpret your answer as supporting surrogacy, I was complimenting you on sticking to the facts regarding the rights of the surrogate mother.

Yay, another personal attack. That’s all you have left I suppose, call me angry . Nothing new, I get that a lot being a Black woman.

That's good.
It's interesting to look at who these powerful groups are pushing this trade in babies areand how well integrated they are into the power bases in different countries. It's only now after a grass roots campaign (mainly from women) that some countries are starting to hold people engaged to account. I have read that the UK's investigation into this was stacked with very self interested men seeking to remove so many safeguards for women and babies.

The argument about surrogates not being paid here is a lie. I know people who have used surrogates and paid them £20-30k expenses. Eager to know what expenses someone incurs of this nature for a baby they aren't going to keep? Especially when it's a woman who doesn't actually even work so won't be missing any time off etc. Don't tell me money isn't a factor because it is. It's just another myth peddled to make it seem like the UK is superior.

I notice you are using the brown hand ‘thumbs down’ emoji.

Is this some not-so-subtle tactic to say that pointing out that the trade in human beings is slavery is… what? Racist?

This isn’t the buying of human beings

Are we persisting with this new definition of “buying” now?🤨

If one party procures something from another party in exchange for money - that item has been bought. It’s not complicated.

Look it up. The law is very strict on the expenses. No one is making money in the U.K. being a surrogate mother.

I don’t know what sex, colour, or whatever you are, and you don’t know that about me. People make false claims too, so even what people claim to be true about themselves on anonymous forums can’t be trusted.

So I will let this comment wash by.

And no money is just as problematic as money. What if it’s “just expenses” but the mother suffers a life changing complication? Who covers that cost? Who helps her out?

There is no way any arrangement can work, unless you just accept bad stuff might happen and don’t care about the consequences.

There is no exchange of money for the baby. The exchange of money is for ancillary costs. Similar to organ donation.

wash by = snarky comment implying I’m lying.

Ciao. Too bad you couldn’t persuade me of your position.

And if those “ancillary costs” aren’t paid for? What happens? Money is essential to the transaction. Not remotely the same as organ donation.

Nothing implied. You could be telling the truth, you could be lying. I have no way to verify it. Don’t be offended that I don’t take your word for it. It’s in the nature of anonymity. And I wouldn’t want you to dox yourself to prove anything either.

Therefore, these appeals about who you are/claim to be, will wash over people.

THANK YOU @InterestingUsernameTBC for putting this so eloquently. The babies wellbeing seems to be nowhere here 😕

@L3ThirtySeven they are making money believe me. I know someone who has paid for a UK surrogate twice. He's told me the ins and outs of what they pay and a "nudge nudge wink wink" "we're only allowed to pay for X but we also pay XYZ on the side." This person is also quite influential within the surrogacy world which would lead me to think it's common practice.

It’s a shame you didn’t attempt to convince anyone of your position. I don’t really know what positive of surrogacy you are arguing for. Instead your argument seems to ignore the moral complications that arise, outright lie about and ignore the uncomfortable truths (the selling of babies) and derail with claims of ad hominem attacks which I can’t see are happening.

I would instead be really interested to see you argue the pros of surrogacy to show, on balance, that they outweigh the cons and how you’d mitigate some of the worst, potential damage or dilemmas because you must believe that they exist to hold your position.

Of course people bend the rules, because surrogacy is a situation where no rules can be put in place. It just doesn’t work, especially if its advocates won’t acknowledge reality.

I’m going to go and get myself a new car for free today. I’ll just pay the manufacturer the costs of the materials and for the hours it took to build it. If they don’t make a profit on it, it’s a free car!

We don't have other laws which are required to contort themselves in this way to avoid all exploitation and complications.

We have a law against sex with children. We don't say 'oh but if sex with children is illegal here people will travel abroad to do it'. Which they do. We have a law to protect children in this country.

We don't say 'oh if we make this drug illegal it will lead to a black market and complications there' either. We do what we think is best overall for our country. No law is perfect or immune to 'complications'.

It's disingenous to apply rules to surrogacy which don't apply to other laws. But I'm sure it's one of the rules of misogyny because this always happens with anything affecting women's or children's rights.

With surrogacy I actually think it would be quite easy - ban surrogacy in the UK (protecting uk women and children) and also make it a criminal act with strict penalties to bring children born of surrogacy into the uk. Border control is already quite alert to trafficking and I know those who've been questioned when bringing their own children who don't have the same surname into the UK. It's not rocket science.

I suspect one consequence of this would be more UK adoptions and fostering which can only be a good thing for the many children in care without a loving home.

No-one has a right to a child. The child's rights should come first, and they do in those countries which have already banned surrogacy.

Science has no ethical framework inherent in it, so you are basically saying any ethical arguments are not admissible, being "religion."

Well said, and actually there are many countries that have laws punishing men who go overseas to seek children to abuse.

Ban surrogacy in the UK.

“They‘ll just go overseas!”

Ban travel to procure a child born via surrogacy.

It’s not difficult.

https://twitter.com/colwight/status/1670356195037822981?t=XdpelvY1v8mux2_vF4_-_A&s=19

thepinknews.com
Gay couple who wanted a son sue IVF clinic after daughter born
A gay couple are suing a California fertility clinic after they requested a male embryo but ended up having a baby girl.

Says it all. Funny how they know it's a girl though.

Faith doesn’t have to be a religion. Faith includes any moral or ethics framework that is non-scientific.

What a gem of unwarranted condescension that is! What a way to tell the world that you know absolutely nothing about religion, ethics, philosophy, science, history or logic.

And that's another minus in this whole system which you seem to think is a plus. The IVF clinic gets paid. The drug companies producing the artificial hormone stimulants get paid. The private hospital the baby is born in gets paid. The solicitors who write up the contracts get paid. Who's the only one who doesn't get paid? If you think surrogacy is a good thing, how come the woman growing the baby in her body in this great non exploitative system is the only one not paid?